Published in Afik News 071 16.03.2011
Related articles
A shareholder who is not personally a party to an arbitration agreement will not be added to the arbitration proceeding to which the company is a party
Business, Corporate and Joint Ventures
Dispute Resolution
A controlling shareholder in a company was added as a party to an arbitration proceeding, even though he is not personally a party to the arbitration agreement, but rather the company. The Supreme Court held that there was no reason to add the controlling shareholder to the arbitration proceeding by virtue of piercing the corporate […]
As of the date of receipt of an order to stay proceedings in a company employees are deemed terminated and rehired by a new employer
Labor Law and Immigration
Business, Corporate and Joint Ventures
Dispute Resolution
An employee who worked for a company that underwent economic rehabilitation pursuant to an issuance of a stay of proceedings order, was terminated several years later and demanded severance pay for the entire duration of his employment with the company, including before the company’s economic rehabilitation. The Supreme Court held that the employee is not […]
Reverse piercing of the corporate veil is not limited to a closed list of grounds and may be activated where it is right to do so
Business, Corporate and Joint Ventures
Dispute Resolution
The Center for the Collection of Fines learnt that a criminal, from whom attempts to collect compensation for the victims and the State failed, is the sole shareholder and director of a company in which favor compensation was awarded by the State. The Court decided to perform a reverse piercing of the corporate veil and […]
One who purchases services in the name of a company knowing that the company cannot pay for such may be held personally liable for its debt
Business, Corporate and Joint Ventures
Dispute Resolution
The sole shareholder and director of a company ordered flight tickets in the name of the company despite knowing that the company was in financial distress and would be unable to pay its debts. The Court held that the shareholder was liable for the company debt. Generally, a company is a separate legal entity from […]