Published in Afik News 071 16.03.2011
Related articles
A company’s monetary debt does not, in itself, justify piercing the corporate veil or attributing the company’s debt to the shareholder personally
Business, Corporate and Joint Ventures
Dispute Resolution
A radio station operator demanded that a shareholder of an advertising company personally bear the debt accumulated by the company for advertising services provided to it. The Court rejected the claim against the shareholder and held that the extreme conditions justifying the piercing of the corporate veil were not proven. Piercing the corporate veil is […]
An obligation incurred by a partner through his co-partner within the scope of the partnership remains binding upon him even when acting outside the partnership
Business, Corporate and Joint Ventures
Dispute Resolution
One of two partners seeking to acquire a property executed a brokerage agreement solely in his own name. Subsequently, the second partner purchased the property independently, without the other’s knowledge. Upon becoming aware of the transaction, the realtor demanded that the purchaser pay the applicable brokerage fees under the agreement, notwithstanding the fact that the […]
To the extent that the parties’ intent is explicitly stated by the language of the contract, the contract shall be interpreted according to its terms
Business, Corporate and Joint Ventures
Dispute Resolution
Commercial, Banking and Financial
Companies entered into a share purchase agreement regarding the shares of “Diners.” The contract stipulated that the sellers would be entitled to contingent consideration, provided that no stay of proceedings order is issued against “Mega” which is not vacated within 60 days. Following the issuance of such an order against Mega, and despite the Mega’s […]
When ESOP are subject to terms to be agreed one cannot invalidate an employment agreement because of disappointment of the offered option terms
Business, Corporate and Joint Ventures
High-Tech and Technology
Labor Law
A startup company employed a scientist. The employment agreement stipulated that intellectual property belonged to the company and that the issue of employee stock options would be settled later. After 8 months, a dispute arose regarding the option terms (the company’s requirement for a vesting period and actual work), the scientist decided to go on […]