|
James C. ToryPartner
Torys LLP Toronto-Dominion Centre, 79 Wellington Street West, Suite 3000, P.O. Box 270 Toronto, Ontario
M5K 1N2 (City of Toronto)
Telephone: 416-865-0040 Fax: 416-865-7380 http://www.torys.com
|
Profile Visibility  | | #1,586 in weekly profile views out of 10,799 lawyers in Toronto, Ontario | | #190,627 in weekly profile views out of 968,464 total lawyers Overall |
|
|
| |
| Practice Areas | Litigation - Corporate; Commercial | | | Education | University of Toronto, LL.B., 1981; Oxford University, England, B.A., in Law, 1979, University of Toronto, B.A., 1977 | | | Admitted | 1983, Ontario | |
| ISLN | 903102856 | |
Documents by this lawyer on Martindale.com
OSC Signals Change of Approach to Poison PillsJames C. Tory, Andrew Gray, September 23, 2009 In its recent decision in Neo Material Technologies Inc., the Ontario Securities Commission has signalled that it may be changing its approach to poison pills and takeover bids. The result of the Neo decision is that the board of a target company may now be able to "just say no" to a...
M&A: Torys' Top 10 Trends for 2009Joris M. Hogan, James D. Scarlett, David A. Chaikof, James C. Tory, Aaron S. Emes, Sharon C. Geraghty, Krista F. Hill, Philip D.A. Symmonds, Philip J. Brown, Karrin A. Powys-Lybbe, Andrew J. Beck, Patricia A. Koval, Michael F.E. Akkawi, Stephen J. Donovan, Scott A. Bomhof, William F. Gray, Philip Mohtadi, Omar K. Wakil, February 3, 2009 The year 2008 brought a global credit crisis that adversely affected financial institutions and their clients, and thrust a new world on the business community and its advisers. In many cases, those financial institutions were driven into the hands of suitors, often government-backed, with...
Directors' Duties After BCE: Supreme Court of Canada DecidesJames C. Tory, R. John Cameron, December 1, 2009 The Supreme Court of Canada released its reasons for decision in the BCE case in December 2008. The reasons have been awaited by Canadian M&A practitioners with a mix of eagerness and anxiety. Eagerness, because the case offered a perfect vehicle for the Court to provide much-needed guidance on the... |
|
|