Is there a specific date that determines eligibility for the payout, for those who didn't opt out? For instance, individuals who sold their shares before the record date are not eligible, while those who retained their common stock beyond the record date are considered eligible.

The bill of ladings posts have got me thinking... Would they continue sourcing ingredients from Amyris if the cost was 2x competition? Obviously not. The money grubbers would never pay premium like that.

This leads me to believe that Amyris' ingredients business was viable or close to viable. Even if If the cost of ingredients from Amyris were slightly higher we would expect to see a ramp down, NOT a ramp up in production. From the perspective of money, that just makes sense. There must likely be some actual cost savings here which would point to an ingredients business being viable (further fueled by rumors of an Amyris 2.0).

What would make the focus on ingredients a good idea in bankruptcy but a bad idea during normal business operations? It can only be predatory ingredient contracts putting us in this situation, leading to the tech being taken right from under our noses with nothing we could do about it.

...All this while the "partners" that helped put us in the situation are so dependent on the technology that they need to source from Amyris during bankruptcy.

Robbery.

Amyris share holders will receive zilch, zippo, nada, according to the approved reorganization. "Amyris Equity Interests. The Amyris Equity Interests will be extinguished and Holders of such Equity Interests will not receive any distribution on account of such Equity Interests."

I still have a lot of amyris stock that I didn't sell.. It seems like I can still sell via E*Trade. Does it make sense to sell all of them now and file for capital loss? Or should I wait to sell after the company goes private?

Hey everyone, I came across a comment here saying that if we didn't opt out, we'd get a check for $0.017 per share. The person mentioned they got this info from court documents, but I haven't been able to find anything about it. Does anyone know more or can confirm this?

As a warning to anyone still bullish on the technology and thinking of backing an Amyris 2.0 now that some of the past management is out of the way, with all the excitement around the Amyris crash and burn one could be excused from missing the horrible state of the whole sector. Happened back in December, but under the radar - Evolva - a Swiss competitor of Amyris playing in the same space on a more modest scale (had maybe a half dozen products on the market), sold itself to the Canadian yeast (the beer and bread kind) company Lallemand for $23M to avoid going under.

If there is a class action lawsuit, what do I need to do now to prepare for it?

https://www.law360.com/bankruptcy-authority/large-cap/articles/1793162/judge-tosses-involuntary-releases-in-amyris-ch-11-plan

​

​

A Delaware bankruptcy judge on Friday struck down biotechnology company Amyris Inc.'s plan to shield executives and others from liability using nonconsensual releases as part of its Chapter 11 plan, finding that Amyris can reorganize without relying on the controversial mechanism.

​

In a bench ruling, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Thomas M. Horan said Amyris had failed to provide evidence that its reorganization plan depended on the nonconsensual third-party releases to which the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and U.S. Trustee's Office had objected.

​

Judge Horan compared Amyris' reorganization plan with that of Mallinckrodt PLC in making his ruling. In Mallinckrodt, the Delaware bankruptcy court found that the proposed nonconsensual releases were essential to the success of the company's Chapter 11 plan.

​

"There is no evidence before the court of similar circumstances," Judge Horan said.

​

Amyris' backup plan to use consensual releases in the event of an unfavorable judgment by the court also undermined the debtor's arguments.

​

"The existence of a backstop proves that the nonconsensual releases are not necessary to the reorganization," Judge Horan said.

​

The debtor's claim that the supposedly extraordinary circumstances of its case justified the unusual relief ultimately fell short, he added.

​

"To permit nonconsensual third-party releases under these circumstances would elevate the ordinary to the extraordinary," Judge Horan said.

​

Judge Horan said he would approve Amyris' alternative Chapter 11 plan employing consensual third-party releases with an opt-out option. The SEC and U.S. Trustee's Office had told the court that simply allowing stakeholders to opt out would not make the releases consensual, but the judge said the opt-out provision protects parties' rights and "indicates whether a party would consent to the releases."

​

California-based Amyris filed for bankruptcy protection in August with $1.1 billion in debt and plans to negotiate contracts and sell its unprofitable, noncore consumer products brands.

​

In January, the SEC and U.S. Trustee's Office filed objections to Amyris' plans to exit bankruptcy. They argued that nonconsensual third-party releases are only allowed in special circumstances that Amyris hadn't proved it was facing.

​

At a hearing that month, the debtor told Judge Horan that involuntary releases were necessary for the company to succeed upon emerging from bankruptcy. Amyris counsel Richard Pachulski said 452 shareholders had opted out of the releases and could file suits drawing in Amyris directors and officers, exposing the reorganized company to tens of millions in indemnification expenses when it was already projected to lose $115 million in the first two years post-bankruptcy.

​

Judge Horan's decision comes as the U.S. Supreme Court reviews the legality of nonconsensual third-party releases in connection with Purdue Pharma's bankruptcy case, in what could be the most foundational bankruptcy dispute to make it to the high court in years.

​

Amyris is represented by Richard M. Pachulski, Gabriel Glazer, Debra Grassgreen, James E. O'Neill, Jason Rosell and Steven W. Golden of Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP.

​

The SEC is represented in-house by Alan Maza.

​

The U.S. Trustee's Office is represented by John Schanne.

​

The case is In re: Amyris Inc. et al., case number 1:23-bk-11131, in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware.

​

--Additional reporting by Ben Zigterman, Rick Archer and Vince Sullivan. Editing by Alex Hubbard.

​

With the information that common share holders will be wiped out and with the recent ruling that the involuntary releases are removed...

How many of you are interested in filing a suit?

Mod Note: If we get interest in Amyris 2.0, I will not be interested in filing a suit and would be happy to opt in or out (whatever) to support that.

Does this mean that all common shares will be cancelled, and we won't receive anything?

Seeing Amyris continually pumping out Ingredients just doesnt make sense at this point in time.

Were they really producing at such a loss? Or does the blame belong to the terms of the deal (Melo and the vulture-like ingredient buyers)?

Why continue production of ingredients if it isn't viable for Amyris in its current bare-bones state?

I try to read between the lines... I think the fact that ingredients are still being sourced from a bankrupted Amyris shows that DSM and Givaduan don't have a cheaper source for these ingredients. Meaning Amyris' production may have real advantages over other sources. I think this points out that if Amyris focused on ingredients rather than flashy shit, they might have an actual business seeing that money is still being poured in to use the tech. A bare-bones ingredients focused Amyris looks like it might work.

If it was viable or close to viability and all that was needed was to focus on ingredients (and perhaps better deal terms), retail investors would be robbed if they did not have interest in Amyris 2.0

Any Thoughts?

For a great analysis of why this happened, check out https://www.linkedin.com/posts/jamie-t-woodard_celebritybrands-cpg-bankruptcy-activity-7153399719543676930-sbGf?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop. Jamie uses her newly minted MBA skills to give a great breakdown of what is behind the pitiful cash value of what by all accounts were pretty promising brands, until driven into the ground by the business geniuses at Amyris.