The Firm track record

legal precedents and innovative judgments

18.4.2018

C.L.A [Class Action] 20119-08-11 Sulami-Lavie V. Delek Israel Fuel Corporation Ltd

$13.6 Million Settlement – A judgment of the District Court approving a settlement agreement in the class action filed by our firm against the Delek Company for its “Dalkan” arrangements. the court approved a cash settlement of $13.6 million (include fees and remuneration). In addition, the settlement agreement requires Delek to adopt a new pricing system for its Dalkan customers.

26.12.2017

C.L.A [Class Action] 15731-10-11 Niram Raw Materials and Printing Equipment Ltd. et al vs. Pazomat of Paz Group Ltd. et al

$11.9 Million Settlement – A judgment of the District Court approving a settlement agreement in the class action filed by our firm against the Paz Company for their “pazomat” arrangements. the court approved a cash settlement of $11.9 million (include fees and remuneration). In addition, the settlement agreement requires Paz to adopt a new pricing system for its pazomat customers.

9.8.2016

C.F.H (Civil Further Hearing) 2527/16, 2583/16 Jane Does vs. Adv. Uri Daniel

The President of the Supreme Court  accepted our Firm’s arguments and rejected a petition for further hearing with regard to the judgment of the Supreme Court in C.A. 7426/14, 7474/14, 8119/14 in which compensations were awarded to the Firm’s client under the Defamation Law.

25.5.2016

A.W.L [Appeal pursuant to the Water Law] 59864-09-14 Chelkat Chen Ltd. vs. the Governmental Water and Sewage Authority et al

A judgment of the water affairs court (Haifa district court), accepting an appeal of the firm’s clients with respect of the water authority’s decision to issue an order to correct a distortion according to the water law. The verdict highly criticizes the lack of coordination between the government authorities and the difficulties which they place upon the private real estate entrepreneur.

14.3.2016

C.A [Civil Appeal] 7426/14, 7474/14, 8119/14 Jane Does vs. Adv. Uri Daniel

Judgment of the Supreme Court regarding the affair of the “rape victims plan”, meant to harm a client of the firm who is an attorney – the Supreme Court ruled, inter alia, that the appellants knowingly filed false rape claims against the firm’s client, and ruled, in an unusual and unprecedented manner, that they must pay compensation pursuant to the Defamation Law, due, among others, to the false claims they filed. This verdict is groundbreaking and deals extensively with the legal aspects of false claims, defamation and the scope of protection given by good faith.

28.1.2016

L.O.C [Liquidation of Companies] 2062-05 Ayelet Hashachar Kibbutz – Agricultural Cooperative Association et al vs. A. Pasha Wholesale Fruits and Vegetables Ltd. et al

A District Court ruling on setting higher liquidator’s fees than those set in the regulations – the court accepted our firm’s position according to which there is room to set liquidator’s fees that are higher than those set in the companies regulations, diverging from them when appropriate.

17.11.2015

D.R.C [Derivative Claim] 37473-09-12 CPA Israel Ben Yoram vs. Nochi Dankner et al.

$2.85 Million Settlement – A judgment of the District Court (economic department) validating the settlement agreement in the derivative lawsuit regarding Israir transaction – the Tel-Aviv District Court (economic department) validated the settlement agreement in the derivative lawsuit filed on behalf of the firm’s client against the controlling shareholders and directors of IDB Development Ltd. in respect of an interested party transaction (Israir transaction) which according to the claim was tainted by a conflict of interests both of the controlling shareholders and of company office holders. As part of the settlement agreement that was validated, compensation (including fees and remuneration) was pronounced in the amount of US $2,850,000.

2.8.2015

C.A 6437/13 Erez Cochva Holdings (1999) Ltd. et al vs. Keyvesting Ltd. et al.

Verdict of the Supreme Court regarding a violation of a shareholder’s right of first refusal – The Supreme Court partially accepted the firm’s clients’ appeal and ruled that in respect of the District Court’s rulings, according to which the appellants are entitled to execute their right of first refusal regarding shares and convertible loans, the appellants should therefore be placed in the same position as the shareholder who purchased the shares and rights in the transaction in which that right of first refusal was breached, and there was therefore no place to require the appellants to pay any conversion price in respect of the convertible loans. The Supreme Court had also determined, in an unprecedented manner, the percentage of holdings which the appellants would have in the company in its current status and on a fully diluted basis, in order to prevent future litigation between the parties.

5.4.2015

C.M.A [Civil Motion to Appeal] 157/14, 162/14 and 456/14 Pazomat of Paz Group Ltd. et al vs. Niram Raw Materials and Printing Equipment Ltd. et al

Judgment of the Supreme Court rejecting a motion to appeal a verdict authorizing a class action – it was determined that the court should reject the fuel companies’ motion to appeal the decision to authorize class actions that were filed, among others, by the firm’s clients against Paz and Delek fuel companies.