An amendment to the Israeli Income Tax Ordinance (Amendment No. 216) was published January 5, 2016, under which the corporate tax rate under the Israeli Tax Ordinance from 26.5% to 25%. This amendment is effective January 1, 2016.
Related articles
It is forbidden to use a company name which may mislead the public that it is another company
Business, Corporate and Joint Ventures
Dispute Resolution
A man founded a company with a name that includes his full name. Thereafter, members of his family founded a company with a name that also includes the shared surname and deals in the same areas of activity. However, after decades of activity and an agreement between the parties that the first company would be […]
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 […]
In oppression of a shareholder resulting in the purchase of shareholder’s shares by the other the price will be determined as at the date of the deprivation
Business, Corporate and Joint Ventures
Dispute Resolution
A minority shareholder of a company in the hotel industry demanded that the control holder purchase his shares due to his oppression in 2017 and that the purchase will be at a higher value prior to the Covid-19 epidemic that erupted in 2020 and affected the hotel industry. The Court held that for the purchase […]
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 […]