Published in Afik News 079 06.07.2011
Related articles
Approval of CEO compensation via over-ruling requires addressing shareholders’ opposition
Capital Markets and Stock Exchange Regulations
Dispute Resolution
Business, Corporate and Joint Ventures
After the general assembly of shareholders in a public company rejected the decision of the compensation committee and the board of directors of the company to grant the CEO a special bonus that deviates from the company’s compensation policy, the bonus was approved via an “overruling” decision. The Court dismissed the company’s motion for summary […]
Unilateral withdrawal of corporate funds by the controlling shareholder may be deemed minority oppression
Business, Corporate and Joint Ventures
Labor Law
A minority shareholder contended that the controlling shareholder excluded her from the company’s operations, created fictitious debts toward her and treated her in a manner amounting to shareholder oppression. The controlling shareholder contended that it acted lawfully within its authority as the sole director and that the minority shareholder knew in advance that she would […]
When a Court has jurisdiction the burden of proving the existence of a proper forum outside of Israel falls on the defendant
International Transactions and Disputes and Israeli “Soft Landing”
Dispute Resolution
An Israeli lawyer, sued by an Israeli investor who had entered into a real estate investment agreement abroad through the lawyer via a foreign partnership, requested to dismiss the investor’s claim in limine, arguing that Israel is not the proper forum to hear the dispute. The Supreme and District Courts dismissed the motion due to […]
A Company is not obligated by a shareholders agreement unless it adopted it into its articles of association
Business, Corporate and Joint Ventures
Dispute Resolution
Minority shareholders in a company sought to halt the implementation of a board of directors’ resolution to establish a data center requiring a major investment by the company, as they contended that the decision breaches the shareholders agreement, constitutes a deviation from the company’s fields of activity and amounts to minority oppression. The Court held […]