Following a dispute between shareholders the minority shareholder filed a claim in which he requested a remedy of forced purchase of his shares by the control holder. The Court held that that the valuation of the shares will be carried out by an objective appraiser appointed by the Court and that the fact that the minority shareholder presented an agreement for the purchase of his shares does not change the objective value of the shares, under which they will be bought. An exception to this may be if the minority shareholder can show that the majority prevented such agreement
Related articles
A car import license may be denied renewal also based only on industry-wide competition considerations, and not due to any act or omission by the importer
Competition
International Transactions and Disputes and Israeli “Soft Landing”
Dispute Resolution
The Ministry of Transport refused to renew the direct import licenses of a motorcycle importer for both Yamaha and Kawasaki brands, ruling that the license could only be renewed for one of them. The Supreme Court dismissed the importer’s appeal on competition grounds. The Israeli Law for the Licensing of Services and Professions in the […]
Pulling corporations with external shareholders into family legal proceedings necessitates caution to prevent business harm to third parties
Business, Corporate and Joint Ventures
Criminal Law
Domestic Relations
A divorce dispute led to a motion to include real estate corporations managed by the husband as direct parties to the proceedings, within the framework of the joint property, with the intent of preventing the dissipation of assets. The Court partially granted the motion for the joinder of the corporations. The Israeli Family Court Law […]
In the absence of a written document in a real estate transaction, the official recording prevails over oral agreements
Real estate in Israel and around the world
Dispute Resolution
Following a family dispute, a father moved to evict his son from a residential apartment in his ownership after the son and his family resided in the property for years without payment of consideration and without a written agreement. The Court granted the eviction claim. A commitment to grant a gift in real estate is […]
Penalizing customers for reducing their purchase volume constitutes a prohibited harm to competition when applied by a monopoly
Competition
Dispute Resolution
The Central Company for Beverage Distribution Ltd., which is a monopoly in its field, included in its agreements with its customers an option to cancel the agreement in the event of a reduction in the customer’s purchases and the Director General of the Competition Authority imposed a fine thereupon. The Supreme Court held that the […]