An escrow agent submitted a motion to the Court to approve the liquidator's wage at a rate higher than that set forth in the regulations, retroactive, after doing their work. The Court held that although the good and complex work, the rule is that the wage of office holders will be terminated in accordance with the regulations. Furthermore, wage regulations should not be bypassed by other mechanisms, and this is even where the position holder has invested a significant effort in managing the process. A higher fee than prescribed in the regulations is for cases in which the position holder conducted a complex procedure of legal action from beginning till end, and the wage mechanism was determined in advance and not retroactively. Therefore, and since the request for high fees came retroactively, and since this proceeding ended in compromise at its beginning, the Court rejected the request.
Published in Afik News 246 20.12.2017
Related articles
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 […]
Breach of duty of disclosure by a general partner in a limited partnership and taking excess funds justifies the partnership’s dissolution
Business, Corporate and Joint Ventures
Dispute Resolution
A general partner took from the partnership “success fees” that were hidden from the limited partners. The limited partners sought to dissolve the partnership on the grounds that although the partnership agreement stipulated that the partner would be entitled to success fees, the partner determined their own rate and hid it from the limited partners. […]
A company claimant will usually be required to deposit a guarantee for the defendant’s expenses
Business, Corporate and Joint Ventures
Dispute Resolution
A company without assets claimed without any basis that panels had been stolen from it. The Court held that the company must deposit a guarantee in the amount of ILS 30,000 to secure the expenses of the defendant. The default when a company file a claim is to order it to deposit a guarantee to […]
A company claimant will usually be required to deposit a guarantee for the defendant’s expenses
Business, Corporate and Joint Ventures
Dispute Resolution
A company without assets claimed without any basis that panels had been stolen from it. The Court held that the company must deposit a guarantee in the amount of ILS 30,000 to secure the expenses of the defendant. The default when a company file a claim is to order it to deposit a guarantee to […]