<?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; class action</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/tag/class-action/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca</link>
	<description>Competition Law and Commercial Litigation Updates</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 15:37:15 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>The IMAX Case: Superior Court certifies first-ever Ontario shareholder class action for misrepresentations on the secondary market</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2010/02/the-imax-case-superior-court-certifies-first-ever-ontario-shareholder-class-action-for-misrepresentations-on-the-secondary-market/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2010/02/the-imax-case-superior-court-certifies-first-ever-ontario-shareholder-class-action-for-misrepresentations-on-the-secondary-market/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Feb 2010 16:29:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>David N. Vaillancourt</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Actions and Other Private Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[139.3]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[accountants]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[accounting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[audit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[auditors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[class action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[directors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[disclosure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[films]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[financial statements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[GAAP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IMAX]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[misrepresentation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[movies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[officers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[public]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reliance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[revenue]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[secondary market]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[securities]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[securities act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[shareholders]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[shares]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Silver]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[stocks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[theatres]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[van Rensburg]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=580</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In a pair of decisions released the same day, Justice Katherine van Rensburg of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice became the first judge to consider the statutory remedy created under section 138.3 of the Ontario Securities Act (the “Act”) for shareholders of public companies who suffer damages from public company misrepresentations on the secondary securities market in documents such as annual financial statements and other public documents.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2010/02/the-imax-case-superior-court-certifies-first-ever-ontario-shareholder-class-action-for-misrepresentations-on-the-secondary-market/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Complex Distribution Chain Kills DRAM Class Action – Pro-Sys Consultants Ltd. v. Infineon Technologies AG</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2009/04/complex-distribution-chain-kills-dram-class-action-%e2%80%93-pro-sys-consultants-ltd-v-infineon-technologies-ag/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2009/04/complex-distribution-chain-kills-dram-class-action-%e2%80%93-pro-sys-consultants-ltd-v-infineon-technologies-ag/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Apr 2009 23:32:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Actions and Other Private Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[BC Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[class action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[class action legislation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cy-pres]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DRAM memory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[infineon technologies ag]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[price fixing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[United States]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Waiver of Tort]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=436</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A proposed class action by purchasers of electronic goods containing DRAM memory chips would degenerate into a series of individual trials, the British Columbia Supreme Court has held in Pro-Sys Consultants Ltd. v. Infineon Technologies AG.2 Key issues, including whether the plaintiffs paid more because of price-fixing by manufacturers of the chips, could not be determined on a class-wide basis. The court thus refused to certify the action as a class proceeding.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2009/04/complex-distribution-chain-kills-dram-class-action-%e2%80%93-pro-sys-consultants-ltd-v-infineon-technologies-ag/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</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/2007/10/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/2007/10/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/2007/10/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>“But for” is not enough</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/07/%e2%80%9cbut-for%e2%80%9d-is-not-enough/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/07/%e2%80%9cbut-for%e2%80%9d-is-not-enough/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Jul 2005 01:17:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[canadian competition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[class action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[class action lawyers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[court of appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[damages]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[district of columbia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[price fixing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[us supreme court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[worldwide conspiracy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=233</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has rejected the latest attempt by foreign plaintiffs to sue in the US for injury caused outside of the US by an alleged worldwide conspiracy to fix the price for certain vitamins.[1] The Empagran case is already familiar to Canadian competition and class action lawyers. [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/07/%e2%80%9cbut-for%e2%80%9d-is-not-enough/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Getting Interest Rates Right</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2004/05/getting-interest-rates-right/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2004/05/getting-interest-rates-right/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 May 2004 16:10:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Debtor-Creditor and Banking Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cash advances]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[class action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[class proceeding]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[credit cards]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[interest rates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mbna canada bank]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[service charges]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=269</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In April 2004, the Supreme Court ordered Enbridge Gas Distribution to pay back late payment penalties charged to gas customers that exceeded the limit on interest rates in the Criminal Code. This decision provides a reminder that companies that are not careful in setting interest rates can get into trouble.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2004/05/getting-interest-rates-right/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

