<?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; Shareholder Litigation</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/topics/commercial-litigation/shareholder-litigation/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>Timminco tossed by Supreme Court of Canada</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/08/timminco-tossed-by-supreme-court-of-canada/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=timminco-tossed-by-supreme-court-of-canada</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/08/timminco-tossed-by-supreme-court-of-canada/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Aug 2012 16:44:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kenneth A. Dekker</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Shareholder Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[class action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[securities]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sharma]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Timminco]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1596</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Supreme Court of Canada typically agrees to hear only about 10 &#8211; 15% of the cases that seek its attention. Not only does a proposed appellant need to explain why the court(s) below got it wrong, but an appellant also has to explain how and why a particular case raises matters of such importance&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/08/timminco-tossed-by-supreme-court-of-canada/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/08/timminco-tossed-by-supreme-court-of-canada/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Shot Gun Control: Parties must comply strictly with terms of shot gun clauses, says Ontario’s highest court</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/02/shot-gun-control/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=shot-gun-control</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/02/shot-gun-control/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Feb 2011 16:06:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jennifer Dyck</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Shareholder Litigation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=895</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In the recent decision of Zeubear Investments Ltd.&#160;v.&#160;Magi Seal Corporation[1], the Court of Appeal for Ontario had the opportunity to consider the proper interpretation of a shot gun (buy-sell) provision in a shareholders agreement. Ultimately, the court concluded that, in order to obtain the benefit of such a clause, a shareholder must strictly comply with&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/02/shot-gun-control/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/02/shot-gun-control/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Oppression class actions now recognized in both British Columbia and Ontario</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/01/oppression-class-actions-now-recognized-in-both-british-columbia-and-ontario/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=oppression-class-actions-now-recognized-in-both-british-columbia-and-ontario</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/01/oppression-class-actions-now-recognized-in-both-british-columbia-and-ontario/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Jan 2011 15:40:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kenneth A. Dekker</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Actions and Other Private Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Corporate Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Shareholder Litigation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=888</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In recent years, much attention has been paid to amendments to provincial Securities Acts across Canada that make it easier for shareholders to sue for misrepresentations by public companies in financial statements and other public documents... <br /><br />During this period significantly less attention has been paid to whether shareholder class actions might be brought under another and potentially much broader statutory remedy: the oppression remedy under one of the provincial or federal business corporations statutes. However, this may be changing.  <br /><br />Originally published in The Lawyers Weekly.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/01/oppression-class-actions-now-recognized-in-both-british-columbia-and-ontario/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
