Replies to post #105307 on BioAmber Inc fka BIOAQ

[toncatmad]

Yes but if you actually read the entire comment the judge states

“At this time it APPEARS that the Vinmar contracts are of great financial value to CERTAIN stakeholders or shareholders of Bioamber Inc.” She is pointing out that it is of value to certain people. Namely the attorneys clients. She isn’t sayin she feels they are valuable. It states in that same doc that the court is not rendering any opinion as to the value of the contracts. Plus if you keep reading that document you will see that
“70 With all due respect, the court fails to see the merit of this argument to justify the maintaining of the CCAA proceedings and granting a further extension of Stay Period ordered in the initial order IF IN CRANES OPINION the Vinmar contracts are fully enforceable despite the present insolvency proceedings”
Clearly stating that it is in Cranes Opinion.
The court didn’t give an option on the value of the contracts and the court as well as the creditors and the monitor felt that it wasn’t worth pursuing so apparently the contracts were not worth anything to them.

If they actually did have contracts valued in the hundreds of millions there is no way in hell any court would allow them to file bankruptcy and the creditors sure as hell would not have settled for what they got. The creditors objected to going after the contracts. They would have wanted paid in full from the proceeds of those hundreds of millions. The theory that they were worth that much and going to be part of some huge windfall for shareholders is simply not true and it’s easy to see if you read the entire document and not try and make it out like the judge felt they were worth anything at all.

[Lucky77Dice]

Thanks for the DD and the reminder...No one can discredit what judge Pinsenault stated...I am one of those shareholders Luckily...Now back to the jet ski...Wheee !

[Real McCoy]

This is pure hogwash.

The judge quotes "of great or substantial value" because the judge was stating the words of the plaintiff. In the same document, the judge lays out the rational for not directly opining on this assertion (no jurisdiction), and also that it is irrelevant because of the many factors that necessarily render the contracts useless.

That is here:



And therefor, the judge rules against the relief sought by the plaintiff. Note- if the judge agreed, it would have been lawful to grant the relief sought, making the assertion that the judge agreed with the plaintiff all the more ludicrous.



Posting (72) out of context and using it as evidence that the court sided with the assertion WHILE REJECTING the relief sought in the case the assertion were true is on par with a gentleman receiving a vm from a woman like this: "Please stop calling me. You're repulsive. I would consider dating you only if you were the last man on earth", and editing it to play "I would consider dating you" and sending that to his friends as evidence she was interested.