Dissenting opinion -- Ignoring SEC 5.9, Banks question that Bell Canada can borrow

Did the Supreme Court of Canada interpret sec5.9 limiting Bell Canada debt?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Supreme Court of Canada decision to grant the buyer's subject -- adding debt to Bell Canada's balance sheet -- had to give an interpretation, defining section 5.9 rights on limiting Bell Canada debt.[Economics of law approach, a sale is complex and involves guaranting buyer subjects. BCE buyout arrangement, required granting a buyer's subject to add debt to Bell Canada.]

It is a joke that the process to grant the right to add debt to Bell Canada, would have as a finding of fact that the BCE Debenture loan agreement clause, specifically limiting debt, was not to be considered; as it was entered on the record (without directly asking the Trustee), that the Trustee did "not" specifically, formally invoke section 5.9. Debenture holders did claim sec5.9though.

Without a written decision by the Supreme Court of Canada, defining the BCE Debenture loan agreement right to limit debt of Bell Canada -- the banks dismiss, BCE buyout buyers claim, to be able to add debt to Bell Canada.

[Buying an asset, by borrowing against that asset, harder when that asset is already indebted and has an agreement not to increase debt. Odd then, that the arrangement order to allow debt to be added, then did not consider or interpret agreement -- sec 5.9, limiting debt -- as Trustee did not claim section 5.9 right of limiting Bell Canada debt.]