In this context, I will add that I cannot accept the position of the appellants that since the consideration in each of the agreements is the result of negotiations, there is no room to reflect on the manner in which it is split. I will clarify. The situation we are dealing with is a transaction involving three parties - The acquiring company, Eisenberg & Kahane - Sheva Kahane and the Eisenberg Company "Satisfy" together the requested contractual consideration (including effective non-competition on their part), which is a contractual consideration that cannot be separated into parts. In this situation, from the point of view of the acquiring company, negotiations are being conducted on the total amount that it is willing to pay, to Eisenberg and Kahane together, for the counter-consideration requested by it, which they can only provide to it together. Taking into account that we are not dealing with a modular transaction, which can be divided into parts, from the perspective of the acquiring company, there is no separate negotiation on the consideration to Eisenberg for the purchase of the activity and its undertaking not to compete with it, and separate negotiations with Kahane for his undertaking not to compete with it, but rather negotiations are being conducted on the total amount, the manner of which is divided between Kahane and Eisenberg will not usually be of interest to the acquiring company (but only in the context of tax savings). In this situation, in contrast to a modular transaction that can be separated into parts, there is no reason to accept the argument that since the split consideration is the result of negotiations between the parties, the authenticity of the manner of the split should not be considered: The Overall Value is indeed the result of negotiations between the parties, who are, in this regard, conflicting interests. On the other hand, Fragmentation of this consideration is not necessarily the result of negotiations between parties with conflicting interests.
Related articles
Red Carpet or Honey Trap? Historic Benefit for Immigrants vs. the Fine Print
Aliyah and Integration in Israel
“Soft landing” services in Israel
Immigration Law
An article regarding the 2026 Aliyah Encouragement Law, which grants new immigrants and returning residents an unprecedented tax exemption on earned income generated within Israel. The article warns that without prior legal and financial preparation, failure to meet the conditions (such as leaving the country earlier than expected) could lead to the retroactive cancellation of the exemption and heavy debts to the Tax Authority. The article was written by Adv. David Melamed and Mr. Aiderson Gonzalez of the Afik & Co. law firm.
Business, Corporate and Joint Ventures
Commercial, Banking and Financial
Here is the translation of the provided legal text into English, Spanish, French, and Portuguese (Brazil). The text has been formatted to highlight key legal principles and make it highly readable. English Liability of Office Holders for the Tort of Causing a Breach of Company Contract When a company is a party to a contract […]
Did You Sign? Did You Understand? On the Duty of Disclosure in Loans and Mortgages
Real estate in Israel and around the world
Commercial, Banking and Financial
Imagine the following situation: your spouse’s business needs a financial boost, and they ask you to join as a borrower or guarantor for a non-bank loan. While they promise that everything is under control – leading you to arrive at a lawyer’s office, sign a stack of documents within minutes, and go on your way […]
The Thirty Years’ Contract War – The End?
Commercial, Banking and Financial
An article discussing the long-standing battle over contract interpretation in Israel, ranging from the 'Apropos' ruling to the Second Amendment to the Contracts Law of early 2026 - a move described as little more than populism. The article was written by Adv. Doron Afik and Adv. Gilad Bar-Ami of Afik & Co.