<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	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/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>The Litigator - Affleck Greene McMurtry, LLP &#187; business judgment rule</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/index.php/tag/business-judgment-rule/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca</link>
	<description>Competition Law and Commercial Litigation Updates</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Sep 2010 19:15:40 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Business judgment rule does not trump unanimous shareholders’ agreement</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/index.php/2010/01/14/business-judgment-rule-does-not-trump-unanimous-shareholders%e2%80%99-agreement/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/index.php/2010/01/14/business-judgment-rule-does-not-trump-unanimous-shareholders%e2%80%99-agreement/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Jan 2010 15:05:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Disputes within Companies and Partnerships]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employment Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wrongful Dismissal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[business judgment rule]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[minority shareholder]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[oppression]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[oppression remedy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[oppressive conduct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[shareholders' agreement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wrongful dismissal]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=548</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Directors of a corporation cannot invoke the business judgment rule to justify decisions that violate a unanimous shareholders’ agreement, the Ontario Divisional Court held recently.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/index.php/2010/01/14/business-judgment-rule-does-not-trump-unanimous-shareholders%e2%80%99-agreement/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Canada’s top court dismisses shareholder class action against Danier Leather but rejects Business Judgment Rule as a defence in securities cases</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/index.php/2007/10/17/canada%e2%80%99s-top-court-dismisses-shareholder-class-action-against-danier-leather-but-rejects-business-judgment-rule-as-a-defence-in-securities-cases/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/index.php/2007/10/17/canada%e2%80%99s-top-court-dismisses-shareholder-class-action-against-danier-leather-but-rejects-business-judgment-rule-as-a-defence-in-securities-cases/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:09:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kenneth Dekker</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Binnie]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[broker]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[business judgment rule]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[class action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[corporation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[costs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[deference]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[disclosure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[economic performance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[equities]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[forecasts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[initial public offering]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[investment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[laskin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lederman]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legislation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[management decisions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[material changes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[material facts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[misrepresentation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prospectus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reasonableness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[s.130]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[securities]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[securities act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[shareholders]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[shares]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[statutory interpretation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supreme court of canada]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=209</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Canada’s Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of Canada’s first-ever securities class action judgment in favour of investors relating to alleged misrepresentations on an initial public offering.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/index.php/2007/10/17/canada%e2%80%99s-top-court-dismisses-shareholder-class-action-against-danier-leather-but-rejects-business-judgment-rule-as-a-defence-in-securities-cases/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Intercorporate transactions may be oppressive</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/index.php/2006/06/13/intercorporate-transactions-may-be-oppressive/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/index.php/2006/06/13/intercorporate-transactions-may-be-oppressive/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Jun 2006 01:39:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Disputes within Companies and Partnerships]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Business Corporations Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[business judgment rule]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fidiciary duties]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[minority shareholders]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[oppression remedy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[shareholders reasonable expectations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[subsidiary companies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[transfer pricing]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=247</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[An unfair intercorporate transfer price system in place between Ford Motor Company of Canada and its US parent, Ford Motor Company, oppressed Ford Canada's minority shareholders, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled in early 2006. However, because there was no evidence as to when these shareholders owned their shares, they were each entitled to only one day's damages.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/index.php/2006/06/13/intercorporate-transactions-may-be-oppressive/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
