What is the discrimination issue in relation to the even balance principle?

I turn now to the discrimination issue. I referred a moment ago to the even balance principle referred to in Boe v. Alexander. The Applicants take the position that the rights plans would operate such as to violate this principle by treating beneficiaries differently. Specifically, it is argued that Article 12 of the plans, the so called "poison pill", has this effect since in the circumstances of a takeover bid, a unit holder who becomes an Acquiring Person as defined in the plans faces substantial dilution and may even see his rights become void, while other unitholders retain their rights to acquire further units at the exercise price.