The Firm track record

legal precedents and innovative judgments

15.3.2015

C.C [Civil Claim] 1083-06 Adv. Tzidkiyahu Hermolin vs. Adv. Biran Shraga et al

The court imposed a monetary charge to the benefit of the firm’s client on account of the dissolution of the law firm S. Biran & Co. – The District Court accepted the request of the firm’s client to receive payments in lieu of the dissolution of the partnership, in the net sum of 2,310,000 NIS and additional monthly payment of $5,000 a month.

This is an unprecedented decision.

24.12.2014

L.D.J [Labor Dispute Under the Authority of a Judge] (Haifa) 50435-10-12 BPATH Ltd. vs. Erez Cochva et al.

The District Labor Court’s decision to dismiss a claim in limine by power of estoppel by record – the Labor Court dismissed in limine a claim filed against a client of the firm, in which it was claimed that he had solicited the rest of the plaintiffs, the company’s employees, to join him and quit the firm while engaging in competing activities using trade secrets, knowledge and technology owned by the company.

19.10.2014

D.R.C 37473-09-12 Ben Yoram vs. Dankner et al.

A decision of the District Court (economic department) determining whether a company shareholder has locus standi in a derivative claim – the court dismissed in limine a motion to file a derivative lawsuit based on the claim that due to the creditor’s arrangement in I.D.B Holdings Ltd, the firm’s client had lost its locus standi in the derivative lawsuit.

2.10.2014

C.M.A 8521/09 and C.A 8522/09 Adv. Shraga Biran et al vs. Adv. Tzidkiyahu Hermolin

Judgment of the Supreme Court regarding the dissolution of the S. Biran & co. partnership – The Supreme Court ruled that the firm’s client was entitled to his share of the partnership by way of “technical dissolution”, that allowed the court to order the parties to put their accounts in order and buy back the leaving partner’s share, without liquidating the partnership’s business. A panel of experts subject to the court’s supervision was also put in place for carrying out the dissolution. This is a significant verdict regarding partnerships.

14.9.2014

C.C 4057-05-10, C.C 10090-10-11, C.C 1077-10-11 Jane Doe et al vs. John Doe

District Court judgment on the “rape victims plan” affair meant to harm the firm’s client – the District Court rejected false tort claims based on accusations of rape against the firm’s client, and accepted the counter claim based on a defamation cause filed by the firm’s client against those involved in filing the false complaints and claims against him.

9.9.2014

C.C 2892-12-09 Shacham Ravitzky et al vs. Daniel et al

A judgment of the Magistrate Court in Tel-Aviv that awarded compensation for damages caused by falsifying evidence against a client of the firm – the court accepted a claim of a client of the firm against a person who posed as a private investigator and “cooked up” tapes in which our firm’s client was supposedly taped, in order to file a fabricated claim against him, file a complaint to the bar association and publish a defamatory newspaper article. The court ruled that making use of the tapes while knowing that they were false constitutes a violation of the privacy protection law and defamation law, and awarded damages to the firm’s client.

8.12.2013

C.L.A [Class Action] 20119-08-11 Sulami Lavie Law Firm et al vs. Delek the Israeli Fuel Company Ltd.

A ruling of the District Court approving a class action against the Delek company for their “dalkan” arrangements – this is a motion which our firm represented, to approve a claim as a class action regarding the pricing system of diesel for Delek’s Dalkan customers. The court approved the motion and approved the claim as a class action on grounds of lack of good faith in upholding a contract and depriving conditions in a standard form contract.

8.12.2013

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

A ruling of the District Court approving a class action against the Paz company for their “pazomat” arrangements – this is a motion which our firm represented, to approve a claim as a class action regarding the pricing system of diesel for Paz’s pazomat customers. The court approved the motion and approved the claim as a class action on grounds of lack of good faith in upholding a contract and depriving conditions in a standard form contract.

25.6.2013

C.C (TA) 44733-09-11 Erez Cochva Holdings (1999) Ltd. et al vs. Keyvesting Ltd. et al.

A District Court judgment regarding a violation of a company shareholder’s right of first refusal in a number of transactions in which shares and other rights to the company were purchased – the court ruled that the firm’s client’s right of first refusal was violated several times with respect of a number of transactions, and ruled that he must be allowed to exercise his right of first refusal regarding all those transactions.