<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	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:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Supreme Court of Canada Conflict of Laws Trilogy: Part II</title>
	<atom:link href="http://thetrialwarrior.com/2012/04/23/the-supreme-court-of-canada-conflict-of-laws-trilogy-part-ii/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://thetrialwarrior.com/2012/04/23/the-supreme-court-of-canada-conflict-of-laws-trilogy-part-ii/</link>
	<description>Strategic blawging about law and justice</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 19 May 2013 19:49:49 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Supreme Court of Canada: internet defamation, choice of law and libel tourism – Antonin I Pribetic « Inforrm's Blog</title>
		<link>http://thetrialwarrior.com/2012/04/23/the-supreme-court-of-canada-conflict-of-laws-trilogy-part-ii/#comment-10040</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[The Supreme Court of Canada: internet defamation, choice of law and libel tourism – Antonin I Pribetic « Inforrm's Blog]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 28 Apr 2012 00:22:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thetrialwarrior.com/?p=3645#comment-10040</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] post originally appeared on the Trial Warrior Blog and is reproduced with permission and thanks Share this:PrintEmailTwitterFacebookLike this:LikeBe [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] post originally appeared on the Trial Warrior Blog and is reproduced with permission and thanks Share this:PrintEmailTwitterFacebookLike this:LikeBe [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Antonin I. Pribetic</title>
		<link>http://thetrialwarrior.com/2012/04/23/the-supreme-court-of-canada-conflict-of-laws-trilogy-part-ii/#comment-9991</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Antonin I. Pribetic]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Apr 2012 19:41:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thetrialwarrior.com/?p=3645#comment-9991</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Thanks Ted. Black&#039;s counsel sent a letter to the Supreme Court of Canada, but the settlements in the US and Canadian actions both require court approval. The Globe &amp; Mail &lt;a href=&quot;http://m.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/the-law-page/deal-would-see-conrad-black-get-share-of-12-million/article2408217/?service=mobile&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;reports&lt;/a&gt; that the global settlement in the related Hollinger dispute does not include payment of damages under the Black defamation claim.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks Ted. Black&#8217;s counsel sent a letter to the Supreme Court of Canada, but the settlements in the US and Canadian actions both require court approval. The Globe &amp; Mail <a href="http://m.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/the-law-page/deal-would-see-conrad-black-get-share-of-12-million/article2408217/?service=mobile" rel="nofollow">reports</a> that the global settlement in the related Hollinger dispute does not include payment of damages under the Black defamation claim.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ted Folkman</title>
		<link>http://thetrialwarrior.com/2012/04/23/the-supreme-court-of-canada-conflict-of-laws-trilogy-part-ii/#comment-9990</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ted Folkman]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Apr 2012 19:30:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thetrialwarrior.com/?p=3645#comment-9990</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Nino, thanks for the additional detail on the Black decision. I&#039;m a little puzzled: if the Black libel case was settled prior to the Supreme Court&#039;s decision (your post reporting the settlement is dated 2011), why did the decision issue?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nino, thanks for the additional detail on the Black decision. I&#8217;m a little puzzled: if the Black libel case was settled prior to the Supreme Court&#8217;s decision (your post reporting the settlement is dated 2011), why did the decision issue?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
