RE: National postExcerpts from the referenced article whose views concur that it is not good for commons:
However, some industry observers expressed concern that the new proposal diminishes the value of the common shares, while giving Teachers and its buyout partners a "stranglehold" position on the Montreal-based company.
"It doesn't look like the type of deal that Bell would try to accept because its very, very dilutive," said Ron Mayers, vice-chairman of Desjardins Securities.
A securities lawyer who asked not to be named said BCE would be "giving control of the company with no takeover premium" with the 20% stake because Teachers already owns 6% of BCE.
"This really sounds like a disguised way to effectively buy control of the company without paying a premium," said the lawyer. "The TSX should require a shareholder vote and Teachers shares should be excluded from any such vote."
Others wondered why BCE would clutter up its balance sheet with financing when it could easily obtain the financing for a special dividend on its own.
"If BCE wants to pay the special dividend to its shareholders, it can raise the money on its own without putting its common shareholders at a disadvantage," said an analyst.