Whether Joe Natale is a good Rogers Communications CEO and whether it’s a good idea for Edward Rogers to purge the company board with a written resolution is irrelevant to whether Ed’s move to take back control of the family company is legal, his lawyer told a judge as the corporate/family feud reached a courtroom in Vancouver. (The Logic)

Talking point: The other Rogerses and independent board members are trying to “invoke rights that neither exist, nor that [they would] be entitled to assert,” Ed Rogers’ lawyer Ken McEwan asserted. The company’s articles of incorporation and B.C. law allow Ed Rogers, head of the family’s “control trust” that commands 97.5 per cent of the company’s voting shares, to use a written order to ditch directors and replace them with nominees of his own, McEwan argued. If so, company lawyer Stephen Schachter countered, why do the corporate articles talk about replacing ousted directors at a shareholders’ meeting? The power struggle has led some to call on the CRTC to delay a hearing on Rogers’ $26-billion acquisition of Shaw Communications, since it’s not clear who speaks for the company.