Replies to post #100860 on BioAmber Inc fka BIOAQ

[Longstrongsilver]

Great questions! Another is who is/was BioAmber SAS?

[Brucebannerr]

The better question would be who is writing the check. As the debt ridden shell has no bank account or anyone that could even sign a check . Much like the land registry the owner of record name will change when the new owners decide to do it. Until then there is nothing stopping them from keeping them up to date . They have a vesting order saying they own them . They are under no obligation to change the name . And it is a fact nobody at the now empty shell will be complaining about a patent infringement.

[Lucky77Dice]

To answer your question (s)...
1) Bio Amber clearly owns it.
2) Last payment received was March 10 th 2020...
Anything beyond this is eye closed Unicorn dream...LMAO !
Eagle swoops in and clarifies naysayer distortion as usual..
CAWWWW !!! CAWWWW !!!
$BIOAQ$

[trader59]

And that patent was also sold, it is on page 79 of the 6th monitor’s report. LCYB owns it, they can use it, and will do the paperwork to put their name on it when they want to.

What is the angle here? Is the notion that they didn’t really sell the plant and all those patents in the APA and secretly BioAmber is still in business somehow even though every court document contradicts that thinking with clear documentation????

SMH

[Gold prospector]

Those documents all state Bioamber Inc is the owner.

[Real McCoy]

Hello good sir.

LSS doesn't know why you would post this and thought I should ask you.

The waning argument for share safety after the devastation of the Monitor's reports has been that the court approved the asset sale with knowledge of an additional share purchase or swap deal that was happening more or less concurrently, or at least in concert with (so as to be negotiated and transacted by the same Monitor as there are no board or employees remaining) the asset sale. Posting items purported to refute the asset sale and point to the continued business operations of the company completely eliminates the possibility that such a share purchase happened with the assistance of the courts and Monitor, and since they are now gone, prove that such a sale can never happen.

So what's the point of perpetrating the notion that sold patents stlll reside with the company?