As part of a dispute between shareholders of a private company it was argued that a shareholder who holds half the shares of the company is excluded from the decision making process and is oppressed by taking unreasonable expenses for office holders of the Company at the expense of distribution company’s profits and by harming the legitimate expectations of a shareholder to enjoy the company's profits. The Court held that in a closely held private company there is a legitimate expectations of shareholder to be involved in the management of the Company and there is no impediment to file discrimination claims by a shareholder who holds a 50% stake in the company, as long as the remaining shares are held by a single shareholder who also holds 50% of the Company. The profits of a private company does not lead to an increase in share value and thus avoiding distribution of dividend excludes the shareholder's ability to benefit from them. However, in the absence of a specific stipulation in the articles of the company which requires the distribution of dividends, there is no oppression if the salaries of office holders of the Company do not exceed the market norm and no actions are aimed at distribution of profits in an unequal manner. For this reasoning the claim was dismissed.
Related articles
Board of Directors’ resolutions adopted in the absence of a quorum, which did not receive ex post facto support from the quorum, are void ab initio
Business, Corporate and Joint Ventures
Dispute Resolution
A company filed a lawsuit by virtue of a resolution adopted at a board meeting held in the absence of a legal quorum, and without obtaining the consent of the absent director to said resolution. The Court summarily dismissed the claim due to the board resolution’s nullity. In contrast to resolutions adopted at board meetings […]
The termination of a contract due to the failure of a condition precedent does not extinguish all of its obligations
Commercial, Banking and Financial
Business, Corporate and Joint Ventures
Dispute Resolution
Following entry of a company into insolvency proceedings, a transaction counterparty announced the termination of the agreement due to the non-fulfillment of a condition precedent and began dealing directly with a foreign manufacturer despite contract terms stipulating non-compete. The Court held that the contract expired but the non-compete provision is valid. A condition precedent is […]
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 […]
Concealing pregnancy during a hearing and revealing it only subsequently negates compensation for dismissal during pregnancy
Labor Law
Dispute Resolution
An employee demanded compensation from the employer who dismissed her while she was pregnant. The employer dismissed her for professional reasons and economic difficulties during the war period. The employee revealed to the employer that she is pregnant only a day after the hearing and did not present proof thereof. The Labor Court found that […]