Replies to post #147693 on BioAmber Inc (fka BIOAQ)

[Real McCoy]

The difference is whatever you put in the actual deal. As you know 10% was put down as a deposit, then at the time of closing the remaining portion of the agreed upfront aggregate purchase price of 4.34M was paid out.

It is utterly moronic to suggest someone has been “hiding” the remainder for over 6 years.

[dalesio_98]

The former board members had the authority to dispense with shares, they jumped ship leaving the court appointed PwC Monitor with no authority to do so. Hence, Monitor contacted FINRA which they could do.

Shares are cancelled by PwC when they have the authority to do so earlier in the process, not at the liquidation stage.

Shareholders receive(d) zero (0) as creditors have not been made whole.

Unfortunately, school of hard knocks, with some or most still in disbelief. Live and learn.

Shareholders should have made an offer for their company, could of been master of the BioAmber domain, had they followed my suggestion. You all banded together to seemingly fight, but not to purchase under SISP. Don't dare say shareholders are one. Water under the bridge some 6 years later.

The result would be the same had BioAmber been declared bankrupt, assets wouldn't make creditors whole.

Good luck to All!

What's the difference between upfront purchase price, and aggregate purchase price. The reason I ask is Pwc uses aggregate in the CCAA's where shares are cancelled? Upfront will definitely be a hard lesson for some!!! Annddd the Nnneeewwww.....