RE:RE:RE:As to spread between A's and B'sMaybe a hostile takeover is brewing and/or dissention among family members who are selling their shares among one another or to outsiders. As pizzed as the long B shareholders are I can't imagine that Pierre Beaudoin gets the red royal carpet treatment within the family itself. For sure, their is much anger with how badly this has been managed.
clubhouse19 wrote: Well someone is paying and offering a huge premium to buy into A shares.
Does anyone really know how many shares the family owns or they may want to solidify their control by paying such a premium.
In the end,,,the only difference in the two categories is the voting rights...so why pay so much more for those rights ??
flamingogold wrote: In theory this sounds logical. But, even with the 10-1 voting power of the A's, as long as the family holds their core +50% position, whoever is buying will still not have any voting influence in the end. At least that's my understanding.
clubhouse19 wrote: Just my 2 cents
There is no difference other than the 10-1 voting rights that the A's have over the B's..
So in my view, on a pro rata basis, there is much more demand for the a's than the B's and since the only difference is the voting rights there must be some contentious voting to be taken some time in the future to have people pay such a premium for something that in all essence is worth the same.
After the conclusion of that vote, either the A's go back to near the B's or the B's climb up to where the A's will be.
People have historically only paid a tiny percentage more for the A's than the B's so why people would want to hold onto the A's when they could buy near twice the b's just tells me that those voting rights do mean something big at this point.
IMO not much more complicated than that other than what that vote will be about ?