Replies to post #107077 on BioAmber Inc fka BIOAQ

[youngster-moon]

And before anyone jumps to conclusions because they didn’t want the contracts in the Visolis transaction, what about the “agreements, licenses, patents, and other rights of the company listed in Schedule “B””

[Brucebannerr]

Lol the proplem is they did not assume the contracts that were not in good standing . As plainly spelled out in court documents more then once . Dont need schedule B to see them .

15. As described in the Ninth Report, the Company also retained some of its contractual rights following
the Visolis Transaction, as the purchaser did not force the assignment of contracts of the Company as
part of that transaction. Notably, this includes the Company’s rights under certain development and
licensing agreements with Cargill Incorporated (“Cargill”), as well as non-assertion agreements with
Reverdia V.O.F. (“Reverdia”) and Mitsubishi Chemical Corporation (“MCC”) that permit the use of
certain intellectual property by BioAmber Inc. The Monitor is exploring options to realize value from
these rights of BioAmber Inc., but cautions that the ability to do so is subject to reaching agreement
with Cargill, Reverdia and MCC on an acceptable acquirer, and on the satisfaction of material cure
costs connected with those agreements.

[Real McCoy]

This isn’t a deal. It’s a bid. The deal is the APA, publicly unredacted on the PWC website.

Again I ask on the snippet hunting- what’s the use?

[trader59]

Like it or not, that section isn’t in the APA, aka - the executed and closed purchase agreement for the assets.

And... like it or not, LCYB is fully capable of either developing their own “yeasts” or in making a separate agreement with anybody that has any tech at all they wish to use. They have no need whatsoever for any agreement that BioAmber might have negotiated and chose not to pay the $400+K it would have taken to have that Reverdia agreement assigned by the judge.