<?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; Disputes within Companies and Partnerships</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/topics/commercial-litigation/disputes-companies/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca</link>
	<description>Competition Law,  Commercial Litigation and Arbitration Updates</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 May 2013 01:52:29 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Table Manners &#8211; Recipes for Negotiators</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/04/table-manners-recipes-for-negotiators/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=table-manners-recipes-for-negotiators</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/04/table-manners-recipes-for-negotiators/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Apr 2013 11:58:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>The Hon. David C. Dingwall, P.C., Q.C.</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Advice and Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Arbitration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Disputes over Contracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Disputes within Companies and Partnerships]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mediation and other Alternative Dispute Resolution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dispute Resolution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Negotiation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=2372</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The legendary basketball coach, John Wooden, once said:  “A failure to prepare is preparing to fail.”  The same can be said of the negotiator.  Preparation is another crucial determinant of the negotiating process.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/04/table-manners-recipes-for-negotiators/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Mandatory Retirement for Law Firm Partners Upheld</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/07/mandatory-retirement-for-law-firm-partners-upheld/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=mandatory-retirement-for-law-firm-partners-upheld</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/07/mandatory-retirement-for-law-firm-partners-upheld/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 22 Jul 2012 15:20:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Disputes within Companies and Partnerships]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[discrimination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[human rights]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1528</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Partners of limited liability partnerships are partners, not employees of the firm, the BC Court of Appeal ruled on July 19. Provisions in human rights legislation prohibiting discrimination in relation to employment because of age (and presumably other grounds) do not apply to partners and partnerships. Thus the BC Human Rights Tribunal did not have&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/07/mandatory-retirement-for-law-firm-partners-upheld/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/07/mandatory-retirement-for-law-firm-partners-upheld/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Court pierces corporate veil on alter ego theory of liability</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/05/court-pierces-corporate-veil-on-alter-ego-theory-of-liability/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=court-pierces-corporate-veil-on-alter-ego-theory-of-liability</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/05/court-pierces-corporate-veil-on-alter-ego-theory-of-liability/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 May 2012 15:33:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Binetti</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Corporate Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Debtor-Creditor and Banking Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Disputes over Contracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Disputes within Companies and Partnerships]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1382</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In Chan v. City Commercial Realty Group Ltd., the court &#8220;pierced the corporate veil&#8221; to hold the principals of a real estate brokerage personally liable for the debts of their corporation. The corporate defendant, City Commercial Realty Services (Canada) Ltd. (&#8220;City 1&#8221;), had initially sued the plaintiffs in respect of a real estate transaction, which&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/05/court-pierces-corporate-veil-on-alter-ego-theory-of-liability/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/05/court-pierces-corporate-veil-on-alter-ego-theory-of-liability/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Wayward Fiduciary entitled to receive bonus from former Employer, says Court of Appeal</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/02/wayward-fiduciary-entitled-to-receive-bonus-from-former-employer-says-court-of-appeal/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=wayward-fiduciary-entitled-to-receive-bonus-from-former-employer-says-court-of-appeal</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/02/wayward-fiduciary-entitled-to-receive-bonus-from-former-employer-says-court-of-appeal/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Feb 2012 03:59:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>David N. Vaillancourt</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Appeals and Judicial Review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Disputes within Companies and Partnerships]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employment Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Frauds, Misrepresentation, Deceit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mediation and other Alternative Dispute Resolution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fiduciary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[International and Domestic Arbitration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mary development corp]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rosette]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1137</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mady Development Corp. v. Rossetto, 2012 ONCA 31, reaffirmed the principle that equitable relief is always discretionary and fact specific.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/02/wayward-fiduciary-entitled-to-receive-bonus-from-former-employer-says-court-of-appeal/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Magna Plan of Arrangement approved by Ontario Courts</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2010/10/magna-plan-of-arrangement-approved-by-ontario-courts/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=magna-plan-of-arrangement-approved-by-ontario-courts</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2010/10/magna-plan-of-arrangement-approved-by-ontario-courts/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Oct 2010 18:51:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>David N. Vaillancourt</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Disputes within Companies and Partnerships]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[disputes among shareholders]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Magna]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Magna International Inc.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[multiple voting shares]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ontario Superior Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[plan of arrangement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[share structure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stronach]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=826</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A judge of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice&#8217;s Commercial List recently approved a plan of arrangement that eliminated the dual class share structure at Magna International Inc. (&#8220;Magna&#8221;) and in the process provided a large payout to its former controlling shareholder. Magna is in the business of developing and manufacturing automotive systems, components, and&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2010/10/magna-plan-of-arrangement-approved-by-ontario-courts/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2010/10/magna-plan-of-arrangement-approved-by-ontario-courts/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Business judgment rule does not trump unanimous shareholders’ agreement</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2010/01/business-judgment-rule-does-not-trump-unanimous-shareholders%e2%80%99-agreement/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=business-judgment-rule-does-not-trump-unanimous-shareholders%25e2%2580%2599-agreement</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2010/01/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>W. Michael G. 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/2010/01/business-judgment-rule-does-not-trump-unanimous-shareholders%e2%80%99-agreement/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Oppression does not guarantee relief</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2009/11/oppression-does-not-guarantee-relief/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=oppression-does-not-guarantee-relief</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2009/11/oppression-does-not-guarantee-relief/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Nov 2009 16:41:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Sonny Ingram</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Disputes within Companies and Partnerships]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[1976]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[248]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[BCE]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Brown]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[business corporations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[debentureholders]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hu]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[management]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[oppression]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[remedy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[shareholder]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sung]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Superior Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=509</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In Hu v. Sung,  Superior Court Justice David Brown confronted the question of what to do when a shareholder in a private corporation has wrongfully excluded another from the affairs of the company, but by the time of trial the company has ceased operations, has not turned a profit and there is no evidence the offending shareholder personally benefited from the oppression.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2009/11/oppression-does-not-guarantee-relief/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Regulation of businesses in Canada through private litigation</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/09/regulation-of-businesses-in-canada-through-private-litigation/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=regulation-of-businesses-in-canada-through-private-litigation</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/09/regulation-of-businesses-in-canada-through-private-litigation/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Sep 2006 20:45:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Disputes within Companies and Partnerships]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[businesses in canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[canadian economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[class action legislation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[corporate structures]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ford motor company of canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[liability provisions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ontario court of appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[regulation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=196</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Regulation - Court decisions arising from private litigation under the common law (in Quebec, the Civil Code), and statutory remedies that supplement the common law, are an essential and often overlooked component of the regulation of businesses in Canada.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/09/regulation-of-businesses-in-canada-through-private-litigation/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The cross-border woes of Conrad Black – the dilemma of differing approaches to self-incrimination in Canada and the US.</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/06/he-cross-border-woes-of-conrad-black-%e2%80%93-the-dilemma-of-differing-approaches-to-self-incrimination-in-canada-and-the-us/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=he-cross-border-woes-of-conrad-black-%25e2%2580%2593-the-dilemma-of-differing-approaches-to-self-incrimination-in-canada-and-the-us</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/06/he-cross-border-woes-of-conrad-black-%e2%80%93-the-dilemma-of-differing-approaches-to-self-incrimination-in-canada-and-the-us/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Jun 2006 02:40:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jennifer Cantwell</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Arbitration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Disputes within Companies and Partnerships]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Business Corporations Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[privilege against self-incrimination; international law; admissibility of evidence; cross-border legal issues]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=163</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Conrad Black and other officers and directors of Ravelston must attend to be examined under oath, even though there is a risk that their evidence could be used against them in criminal proceedings in the US , the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled in November 2005.[1] This case highlights a serious conflict between the Canadian&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/06/he-cross-border-woes-of-conrad-black-%e2%80%93-the-dilemma-of-differing-approaches-to-self-incrimination-in-canada-and-the-us/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/06/he-cross-border-woes-of-conrad-black-%e2%80%93-the-dilemma-of-differing-approaches-to-self-incrimination-in-canada-and-the-us/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Intercorporate transactions may be oppressive</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/06/intercorporate-transactions-may-be-oppressive/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=intercorporate-transactions-may-be-oppressive</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/06/intercorporate-transactions-may-be-oppressive/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Jun 2006 01:39:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. 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/2006/06/intercorporate-transactions-may-be-oppressive/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Shareholder/director not liable for “presumptive benefit” or “duty to explain”</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/10/shareholderdirector-not-liable-for-%e2%80%9cpresumptive-benefit%e2%80%9d-or-%e2%80%9cduty-to-explain%e2%80%9d/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=shareholderdirector-not-liable-for-%25e2%2580%259cpresumptive-benefit%25e2%2580%259d-or-%25e2%2580%259cduty-to-explain%25e2%2580%259d</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/10/shareholderdirector-not-liable-for-%e2%80%9cpresumptive-benefit%e2%80%9d-or-%e2%80%9cduty-to-explain%e2%80%9d/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Oct 2005 03:50:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Disputes within Companies and Partnerships]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Frauds, Misrepresentation, Deceit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[court of appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Endorsements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law suits]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Royal Bank]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[royal bank of canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[summary judgment]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=110</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Major shareholders and directors of corporation are not liable for torts of the corporation because they &#8220;presumptively benefit&#8221; from those torts, or because of a duty to be aware of, explain, and correct, the tortious behaviour, the Court of Appeal recently held in A-C-H International v. Royal Bank of Canada.[1] The court also re-affirmed the&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/10/shareholderdirector-not-liable-for-%e2%80%9cpresumptive-benefit%e2%80%9d-or-%e2%80%9cduty-to-explain%e2%80%9d/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/10/shareholderdirector-not-liable-for-%e2%80%9cpresumptive-benefit%e2%80%9d-or-%e2%80%9cduty-to-explain%e2%80%9d/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
