<?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 Actions and Other Private Actions</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/topics/competition-law/class-private-actions/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>Competition Law Review</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/03/competition-law-review-2013/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=competition-law-review-2013</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/03/competition-law-review-2013/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Mar 2013 13:00:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Civil Anti-Competitive Conduct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Class Actions and Other Private Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Bureau Investigations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Tribunal Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conspiracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal Matters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marketing Practices and Telemarketing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mergers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Year in Review / The Litigator (Print Edition)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[abuse of dominance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Administrative monetary penalties]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[affleck greene mcmurtry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[marketing practices]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[misleading advertising]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ontario securities commission]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[open market economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[price maintenance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[private applications]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[refusal to deal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulated conduct defence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[settlement agreement]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=2172</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Review of major Canadian Competition Law developments over the past year, including: Top Stories, Criminal, Class Actions &#038; Private Actions, Mergers, Reviewable Matters, Marketing Practices, Related Developments, The Long Arm of US Antitrust, Across the Pond]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/03/competition-law-review-2013/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Tim Hortons Franchisees Must Be Content With Profits from Coffee, Not Food</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/01/tim-hortons-franchisees-must-be-content-with-profits-from-coffee-not-food/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=tim-hortons-franchisees-must-be-content-with-profits-from-coffee-not-food</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/01/tim-hortons-franchisees-must-be-content-with-profits-from-coffee-not-food/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Jan 2013 17:15:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Binetti</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Class Actions and Other Private Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conspiracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Corporate Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Disputes over Contracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Franchises]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=2014</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Tim Hortons franchisees have lost their challenge to Tim Hortons&#8217; &#8220;Always Fresh&#8221; model that allegedly reduced the profitability of donuts, TimBits, and other food items. In Fairview Donut Inc. v. The TDL Group Corp., the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld a lengthy lower court decision that on the one hand certified a class action against&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/01/tim-hortons-franchisees-must-be-content-with-profits-from-coffee-not-food/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/01/tim-hortons-franchisees-must-be-content-with-profits-from-coffee-not-food/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Thanks for the memory: DRAM defendants to pay $29m</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/01/thanks-for-the-memory-dram-defendants-to-pay-29m/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=thanks-for-the-memory-dram-defendants-to-pay-29m</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/01/thanks-for-the-memory-dram-defendants-to-pay-29m/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Jan 2013 20:17:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Actions and Other Private Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conspiracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DRAM]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1974</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Five groups of defendants in the DRAM class action have agreed to pay over $29 million to settle allegations that they fixed prices for DRAM memory chips. DRAM, which stands for dynamic random access memory, is a type of memory chip used in computers and other electronics. The plaintiffs claim that certain manufacturers and distributors&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/01/thanks-for-the-memory-dram-defendants-to-pay-29m/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/01/thanks-for-the-memory-dram-defendants-to-pay-29m/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Consumers’ power to be tested as Supreme Court set to hear appeals on price fixing</title>
		<link>http://business.financialpost.com/2012/10/16/consumers-power-to-be-tested-as-supreme-court-set-to-hear-appeals-on-price-fixing/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=consumers-power-to-be-tested-as-supreme-court-set-to-hear-appeals-on-price-fixing</link>
		<comments>http://business.financialpost.com/2012/10/16/consumers-power-to-be-tested-as-supreme-court-set-to-hear-appeals-on-price-fixing/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Oct 2012 15:05:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Actions and Other Private Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1782</guid>
		<description><![CDATA["The cases are important because they will determine whether or not consumers can recover for losses caused by price-fixing several levels ahead of them in the distribution chain," said Michael Osborne, a Toronto-based litigator at Affleck Greene McMurtry LLP.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://business.financialpost.com/2012/10/16/consumers-power-to-be-tested-as-supreme-court-set-to-hear-appeals-on-price-fixing/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Micron settles SRAM price-fixing allegations</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/10/micron-settles-sram-price-fixing-allegations/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=micron-settles-sram-price-fixing-allegations</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/10/micron-settles-sram-price-fixing-allegations/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Oct 2012 20:30:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Masiel A. Matus</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Actions and Other Private Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conspiracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IBM]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Samsung]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sony]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SRAM]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1741</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Micron has agreed to pay $300,000 to settle a class proceeding alleging that it participated in a conspiracy to fix prices for Static Random Access Memory (SRAM). SRAM is a type of memory used in computers, cellular phones, and game consoles. Micron also agreed to cooperate with the plaintiffs in the ongoing proceedings in British&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/10/micron-settles-sram-price-fixing-allegations/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/10/micron-settles-sram-price-fixing-allegations/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Loss Stops Here</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/07/the-loss-stops-here/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-loss-stops-here</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/07/the-loss-stops-here/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Jul 2012 15:53:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Actions and Other Private Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Indirect purchasers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Private Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Canfor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chadha]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Kingstreet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Microsoft]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[passing-on]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sun-Rype]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1561</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Indirect purchasers of a product that was the subject of a price fixing conspiracy cannot sue to recover losses passed on to them by direct purchasers, the British Columbia Court of Appeal ruled in two landmark decisions issued recently. These decisions are now being appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. The US Supreme Court&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/07/the-loss-stops-here/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/07/the-loss-stops-here/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>BC Court Slams Door on Waiver of Tort for Breach of Statute</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/07/bc-court-slams-door-on-waiver-of-tort-for-breach-of-statute/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=bc-court-slams-door-on-waiver-of-tort-for-breach-of-statute</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/07/bc-court-slams-door-on-waiver-of-tort-for-breach-of-statute/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 22 Jul 2012 03:34:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Class Actions and Other Private Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Waiver of Tort]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1507</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Waiver of tort is not available as a tool to force disgorgement of profits in cases under British Columbia&#8217;s consumer protection legislation, the BC Court of Appeal held last week in Koubi v. Mazda Canada. The court declined, however, to rule on the issue of whether waiver of tort is a stand-alone cause of action&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/07/bc-court-slams-door-on-waiver-of-tort-for-breach-of-statute/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/07/bc-court-slams-door-on-waiver-of-tort-for-breach-of-statute/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Discoverability, continuing effects, and Competition Act limitation periods</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/02/discoverability-continuing-effects-and-competition-act-limitation-periods/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=discoverability-continuing-effects-and-competition-act-limitation-periods</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/02/discoverability-continuing-effects-and-competition-act-limitation-periods/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Feb 2012 01:55:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Actions and Other Private Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Bureau Investigations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conspiracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal Matters]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1150</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In a recent decision, the Federal Court of Appeal left open the possibility that the discoverability principle may apply to the two-year limitation period established for private actions under section 36 of the Competition Act, but confirmed that the effects of a conspiracy are not a part of the offence and thus do not extend&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/02/discoverability-continuing-effects-and-competition-act-limitation-periods/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/02/discoverability-continuing-effects-and-competition-act-limitation-periods/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Quebec court raps plaintiffs’ knuckles</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/12/quebec-court-raps-plaintiffs-knuckles/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=quebec-court-raps-plaintiffs-knuckles</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/12/quebec-court-raps-plaintiffs-knuckles/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Dec 2011 15:08:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Actions and Other Private Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal Matters]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1106</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Quebec Superior Court recently granted an unusually strict protective order to defendants in a class action to prevent evidence from the class action finding its way into parallel criminal proceedings against them. The defendants are a group of gas station owners (both corporations and individuals) who have been charged with conspiring to fix retail&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/12/quebec-court-raps-plaintiffs-knuckles/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/12/quebec-court-raps-plaintiffs-knuckles/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Class action waiver upheld in competition case</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/12/class-action-waiver-upheld-in-competition-case/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=class-action-waiver-upheld-in-competition-case</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/12/class-action-waiver-upheld-in-competition-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Dec 2011 05:48:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Arbitration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Class Actions and Other Private Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Private Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Amway]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[class action waiver]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1043</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In a recent decision, the Federal Court of Canada enforced a class action waiver and an arbitration clause in a private action under section 36 of the Competition Act.[1] The decision is significant because it clearly states two important principles: Class action waivers will be enforced unless they are contrary to statute Claims alleging breaches&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/12/class-action-waiver-upheld-in-competition-case/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/12/class-action-waiver-upheld-in-competition-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Indirect Purchaser Cases to be Heard by Supreme Court</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/12/indirect-purchaser-cases-to-be-heard-by-supreme-court/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=indirect-purchaser-cases-to-be-heard-by-supreme-court</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/12/indirect-purchaser-cases-to-be-heard-by-supreme-court/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Dec 2011 16:37:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Actions and Other Private Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conspiracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Indirect purchasers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Private Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Archer Daniels Midland Company]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Microsoft Corporation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pro-Sys Consultants Ltd.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sun-Rype Products Ltd.]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1030</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On December 1, 2011, the Supreme Court of Canada agreed to hear appeals in two cases that raise the issue: can indirect purchasers sue to recover losses arising from a price fixing conspiracy?[i] This issue has bedevilled Canadian courts for years. Direct purchasers are purchasers who buy directly from the participants in a price fixing&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/12/indirect-purchaser-cases-to-be-heard-by-supreme-court/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/12/indirect-purchaser-cases-to-be-heard-by-supreme-court/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>
		<item>
		<title>Canadian Plaintiffs Acheive a Breakthrough in Certifying Price Fixing Class Actions</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2010/08/canadian-plaintiffs-acheive-a-breakthrough-in-certifying-price-fixing-class-actions/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=canadian-plaintiffs-acheive-a-breakthrough-in-certifying-price-fixing-class-actions</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2010/08/canadian-plaintiffs-acheive-a-breakthrough-in-certifying-price-fixing-class-actions/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Aug 2010 20:21:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Actions and Other Private Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Indirect purchasers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[11(d)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Canadian class action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chadha]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Class Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Irving Paper]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Kingstreet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[plaintiffs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[price fixing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[proving damages]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Waiver of Tort]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=731</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Courts in two Canadian cases have recently made it easier to certify direct and indirect-purchaser class actions seeking damages for alleged price fixing. Formerly, the difficulty of proving damages suffered by indirect purchasers on a class-wide basis was a major impediment to certifying such actions. The two decisions, DRAM (Pro-Sys Consultants Ltd. v. Infineon Technologies&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2010/08/canadian-plaintiffs-acheive-a-breakthrough-in-certifying-price-fixing-class-actions/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2010/08/canadian-plaintiffs-acheive-a-breakthrough-in-certifying-price-fixing-class-actions/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<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/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=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/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=complex-distribution-chain-kills-dram-class-action-%25e2%2580%2593-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>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Actions and Other Private Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Indirect purchasers]]></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]]></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>Class action attacks “economic effect” of DuPont’s prices</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2008/02/class-action-attacks-%e2%80%9ceconomic-effect%e2%80%9d-of-dupont%e2%80%99s-prices/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=class-action-attacks-%25e2%2580%259ceconomic-effect%25e2%2580%259d-of-dupont%25e2%2580%2599s-prices</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2008/02/class-action-attacks-%e2%80%9ceconomic-effect%e2%80%9d-of-dupont%e2%80%99s-prices/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Feb 2008 01:11:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Actions and Other Private Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[antitrust]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[competition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[distribution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dupont]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ontario Superior Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[resale price maintenance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[RPM]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=231</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Canada’s first class action alleging vertical price maintenance may have far reaching consequences for Canadian manufacturers and distributors.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2008/02/class-action-attacks-%e2%80%9ceconomic-effect%e2%80%9d-of-dupont%e2%80%99s-prices/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>AGO contributes to ABA handbook</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2007/05/ago-contributes-to-aba-handbook/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=ago-contributes-to-aba-handbook</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2007/05/ago-contributes-to-aba-handbook/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 May 2007 02:11:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Actions and Other Private Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[american bar association]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[American Bar Association Handbook]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[antitrust law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[canadian lawyers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Class Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[litigation handbook]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[price fixing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Indirect Purchaser Litigation Handbook]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[us supreme court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=135</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Many Canadian class actions alleging price fixing conspiracies are run parallel to similar US class actions. As a result, this handbook will be useful to Canadian lawyers seeking to understand how the US class action system deals with issues surrounding indirect purchasers.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2007/05/ago-contributes-to-aba-handbook/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Passing-on no defence; unlawfully collected taxes must be refunded, Supreme Court rules</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2007/01/passing-on-no-defence-unlawfully-collected-taxes-must-be-refunded-supreme-court-rules/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=passing-on-no-defence-unlawfully-collected-taxes-must-be-refunded-supreme-court-rules</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2007/01/passing-on-no-defence-unlawfully-collected-taxes-must-be-refunded-supreme-court-rules/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Jan 2007 23:31:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Class Actions and Other Private Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Indirect purchasers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[1867; restitution; Competition law; passing-on defence; indirect purchasers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Constitutional law; provincial powers; indirect taxes; Constitution Act; Chadha; Kingstreet; Canfor]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=316</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Governments must refund money they collect through unconstitutional taxes, and cannot rely on the so-called ""passing-on"" defence to avoid repayment, the Supreme Court ruled in January 2007.The court's rejection of the passing-on defence may have major implications in private litigation, particularly competition (antitrust) cases.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2007/01/passing-on-no-defence-unlawfully-collected-taxes-must-be-refunded-supreme-court-rules/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Restitution or windfall?</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/11/restitution-or-windfall/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=restitution-or-windfall</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/11/restitution-or-windfall/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 11 Nov 2006 01:15:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Class Actions and Other Private Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal Matters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Frauds, Misrepresentation, Deceit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[class proceedings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Constructive trust]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Equitable remedies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Restitution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Waiver of Tort]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=348</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Can consumers who obtain a defective product for free recover profits earned by the manufacturer, even though those consumers suffer no damages whatsoever? Most non-lawyers would likely say:  no. However, the Ontario Divisional Court recently affirmed a decision certifying a class action against Johnson &#038; Johnson that raises this question.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/11/restitution-or-windfall/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Synthetic rubber and polyester staple class actions settle</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/11/synthetic-rubber-and-polyester-staple-class-actions-settle/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=synthetic-rubber-and-polyester-staple-class-actions-settle</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/11/synthetic-rubber-and-polyester-staple-class-actions-settle/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Nov 2005 20:41:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Actions and Other Private Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Class Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dupont dow elastomers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ethylene propylene diene monomer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[indictments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[synthetic rubbers]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=194</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Settlements have been reached in two class actions alleging price fixing in the market for two kinds of synthetic rubber as well as polyester staple.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/11/synthetic-rubber-and-polyester-staple-class-actions-settle/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
