The Firm track record

legal precedents and innovative judgments


B.K.R [Bankruptcy] (TA) 1752/09 Filstel Diamonds Ltd. (in receivership) vs. Diampex nv

A decision dismissing in limine a motion of a receiver to charge a client of the firm with millions of dollars – the District Court dismissed the receiver’s claim against the firm’s client, whereby the bank assigned him the right to claim against the client and that he may settle the claim on behalf of the bank within the framework of a motion for instructions in the receivership case.


S.C.J [Supreme Court of Justice] 2449/11 Amiad (Adi) Niv vs. the National Labor Court in Jerusalem

A Supreme Court judgment regarding the boundaries of the Supreme Court’s intervention in the Labor Court’s verdicts – the Supreme Court accepted the firm’s client’s position, that the Supreme Court should not intervene in the Labor Courts’ rulings, except in cases of substantive legal error where justice requires intervention.


L.A [Labor Appeal] 18913-02-11 JNF vs. Amiad (Adi) Niv

A judgment of the National Labor Court, cancelling an injunction that prevented the dismissal of the chairman of the Research Institute for Land Policy and Land Use at the JNF, considering the coalition agreements and factional agreements which refer to nominations to the institutes of the World Zionist Organization.


C.C (TA) 2131/05 Heli Molavski vs. Israel Discount Bank Ltd.

The District Court instructed Discount Bank to reimburse a sum of 2.7 Million NIS to the firm’s clients – it was held that a person’s guarantee expires upon his death in respect of charges created only after his demise. It was held that a person who had passed away could not be viewed to indefinitely guarantee liabilities created after his demise, and it is not required to give notice of cancellation of guarantee pursuant to section 15 of the law of guarantee by the heirs or the manager of the state.


C.C 1083-06 Adv. Tzidkiyahu Hermolin vs. Adv. Shraga P. Biran

A District Court judgment regarding the regulation of rights to the Shraga Biran & Co. Law Firm partnership – The court accepted the claim of the firm’s client that he was a partner in the S.P Biran & Co. law firm partnership, and held that he should be granted remedies by way of his share of the partnership, according to a panel of experts appointed for this purpose.

The judgment extensively analysed the laws of partnership and the remedies derived from them.


O.M (Center) 7145-09-08 Ami Ohayon vs. Yaacov Barzilay

A District Court judgment regarding the exercise of an option to purchase real estate orally – the court accepted a claim for a declaratory judgment filed on behalf of a client of the firm, according to which an option agreement between the parties to purchase real estate is enforceable, despite the actualization being done orally and in spite of the denial of the exercise by the defendants.


V.C.R (J-M) 3979/08 A. Pasha Wholesale Fruits and Vegetables (1997) Ltd. (in liquidation) vs. Eliyahu Yehoshua

The District Court charged the debts of the company being liquidated to the controlling shareholder – the court accepted the claim filed by our firm to charge the company’s debts to the controlling shareholder pursuant to sections 373 and 374 of the Companies Ordinance, due to his withdrawal of assets from the company being liquidated.


C.M.A 10035/06 David Gaon et al vs. the Official Receiver

Supreme Court’s decision on the dismissal in limine of an appeal due to failure to comply with the dates set out in the regulations – The Supreme Court ruled that there was no room to change the decision of the Supreme Court registrar regarding the dismissal in limine of an appeal due to its late submission, which the appellants claimed was due to them “mistaking the law”, and applied the principles regarding failure to comply with the dates set out in the regulations.


C.M.A 2756/06 Yitzhak Molad vs. Adv. Boaz Barzilay, estate manager

Supreme Court’s judgment regarding no charge of court fees for monetary relief in a claim to resolve rights to a partnership – the court dismissed a motion to appeal a verdict that exempted the firm’s client of court fees for monetary reliefs, in a claim concerning the receipt of 12.5% of the rights to a partnership.