The Court was moved to declare a decision of the board of directors of a company as void under the contention that it was made quickly, without thorough and professional background check. The Court rejected the motion and held that it was not proven that the decisions of the board of directors was made with mala fide or in unreasonableness that requires intervention of the Court. The Court will not replace the discretion of the directors, except in cases where it was proven that a decision was taken arbitrarily or with mala fide. In addition, the Court will take into consideration the implications of cancellation of the decision and the interests of the company. In this case, because the anticipated damage if the decision would be canceled was much higher than in case where the decision will be upheld, it was decided not to interfere with the decision.
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 […]