<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Business judgment rule does not trump unanimous shareholders’ agreement</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/index.php/2010/01/14/business-judgment-rule-does-not-trump-unanimous-shareholders%e2%80%99-agreement/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/index.php/2010/01/14/business-judgment-rule-does-not-trump-unanimous-shareholders%e2%80%99-agreement/</link>
	<description>Competition Law and Commercial Litigation Updates</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 28 Apr 2010 06:17:05 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: The Litigator &#8211; Affleck Greene McMurtry, LLP &#187; Blog Archive &#187; January 2010 Commercial Litigation Update</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/index.php/2010/01/14/business-judgment-rule-does-not-trump-unanimous-shareholders%e2%80%99-agreement/comment-page-1/#comment-11</link>
		<dc:creator>The Litigator &#8211; Affleck Greene McMurtry, LLP &#187; Blog Archive &#187; January 2010 Commercial Litigation Update</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 17 Jan 2010 15:47:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=548#comment-11</guid>
		<description>[...] upon the benefit enjoyed by Herwynen Sawmill as a result of the respondents&#8217; breaches.&#160;Additional analysis. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] upon the benefit enjoyed by Herwynen Sawmill as a result of the respondents&rsquo; breaches.&nbsp;Additional analysis. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
