0
With regard to the balance of convenience, the respondents argued that if their request for temporary relief had not been granted, they would have refrained from convening the meeting in a manner that would have violated their cogent right; Or, alternatively, they would exercise their right and as a result their holdings would have been diluted. According to them, either way, this is irreparable damage that is not merely financial damage, but rather an infringement of a basic corporate right. On the other hand, it was argued that the damage that may be caused to the company as a result of receiving the temporary relief was not proven; that it is not the result of the convening of the meeting, but rather of decisions that may be made at the meeting in accordance with the voting rights of the shareholders; and that it is not possible to recognize the damage that is the result of compliance with the provisions of the law or the realization of the rights of the shareholders. The respondents further add that the granting of the interim relief will not open the door to hostile takeover – since the very convening of the meeting is not sufficient for this purpose; and the company is not prevented from operating the protection program to the extent that there are additional agreements that it may believe QEndangering her. In this context, the respondents clarified that they do not intend to take over the company, and that the company did not present any evidentiary basis for such a threat on their part.
Discussion and Decision
- After reviewing the application for leave to appeal and in response to it, I have reached the conclusion that it should be rejected.
- Before examining the considerations involved in granting the interim relief, two preliminary issues regarding the nature of the relief should be removed from the chapter: whether the temporary relief is identical to the main relief; and whether it is an injunction or an injunction. These questions will have an impact on the criteria and considerations in deciding whether to grant the requested relief.
- Regulation 94 of the Civil Procedure Regulations, 5779-2018 (hereinafter: the Regulations), states that the purpose of temporary remedies in a proceeding is "to ensure a prima facie right during the legal proceeding and the proper and efficient conduct of the proceeding or the proper execution of the judgment." In general, this goal is achieved by preserving the status quo at the time the lawsuit is filed, in order to prevent any of the parties from abusing the period until the judgment is rendered to harm this goal (see and compare: Civil Appeals Authority 41374-12-25 Epstein v. Mazal Tov Brand Marketing 2020 Ltd., para. 18[Nevo] (March 9, 2026); Civil Appeal Authority 42409-11-25 The Technion - Israel Institute of Technology v. Rabia [Nevo] (November 18, 2025); Civil Appeal Authority 2071/21 Courtyards of the Aleph House of King David Ltd. v. Azorim Building (1965) Ltd., para. 16 [Nevo] (July 13, 2021)).
Over the years, it has been determined that extreme caution must be exercised when granting temporary relief that changes the existing situation – such as a temporary injunction. This is due to the potential harm involved in providing the relief. Therefore, it was determined that such relief would be granted only in particularly exceptional cases – in which it has been proven that failure to provide temporary relief will cause severe damage that is not compensable (see: Civil Appeal Authority 1052/24 Mizrahi Tefahot Bank Ltd. v. ZAKA - Locating Rescue and Rescue, paragraph 13[Nevo] (April 2, 2024) (hereinafter: The Mizrahi-Tefahot Bank case); Civil Appeal Authority 4091/22 Aphrodite Import and Export Ltd. v. Bank Hapoalim Ltd., paragraph 10 [Nevo](18.7.2022)).