Enbridge Income Fund Holdings Inc. EBGUF

RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Growth without dropdowns?

[TickerTwit]

The 'special voting share' seems to be something else: (1) the right to attend any shareholder meeting, and (2) the right to elect a single director. If ENB exercises (2), they lose a specific voting right (can't vote their shares on any other directors, I think), but the paragraph is so convoluted that I'm still not clear on all the implications. But I think that's the main thrust of it.

 

This is in the ENF AIF, p.11.

.

autofocus111 wrote: ENB has the 'special voting share' in ENF too that I would assume gives them effective majority voting control over ENF.

 

[autofocus111]

Yeah I seem to recall reading that once upon a time, and iell if that's what it is that's just fine. In any case, back to my question... say ENF was to propose buying a $1B stake in the now Canada-owned TransMountain Pipeline  project, and issues shares and maybe debt to raise the neccesary funds. I don't see why ENB would object to that. My point here being that there should

[marketsense]

I like where this is going.  It's like a child who wants to grow up but the parent won't let them because they like keeping him as a child.  Corporately speaking,  it would require a new BOD representing all of the shareholders,  not just ENB.  The dynamics would have to change but at the end of the day,  what's good for ENF would also be good for ENB

[TickerTwit]

What I've often seen in mining companies with a few institutions dominating the common shares is that (on entry) they establish a right to buy enough of each share offering that their % of voting control isn't diluted. I don't see why ENB and ENF couldn't work something out if ENF votes to become a standalone. I suppose it comes down to ENB's assessment of how efficient the

[Sadie222]

I would question their ability to offer any security for debt, since it would also affect ENB assets.