<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.3.3" -->
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Is Clear Channel a guinea pig?</title>
	<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/reuters-dealzone/2008/03/28/is-clear-channel-a-guinea-pig/</link>
	<description>Behind the deals and deal-makers</description>
	<pubDate>Sat, 17 May 2008 06:08:20 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: peter turner</title>
		<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/reuters-dealzone/2008/03/28/is-clear-channel-a-guinea-pig/#comment-333679</link>
		<dc:creator>peter turner</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 31 Mar 2008 08:25:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blogs.reuters.com/reuters-dealzone/2008/03/28/is-clear-channel-a-guinea-pig/#comment-333679</guid>
		<description>Your theory is a little far-fetched. The legal verbiage in the BCE deal is much stronger than in the Clear Channel one. Having no knowledge of US law, I cannot comment on Clear Channel but banks trying this in Canada would get slaughtered in the courts. Worse still, they would never again get to do deals north of the border.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Your theory is a little far-fetched. The legal verbiage in the BCE deal is much stronger than in the Clear Channel one. Having no knowledge of US law, I cannot comment on Clear Channel but banks trying this in Canada would get slaughtered in the courts. Worse still, they would never again get to do deals north of the border.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
