News| Arbitration and Mediation
Gornitzky represents Sahar Holdings in a claim filed against it
Gornitzky represented Sahar Holdings (of the Delek Group) in a procedure to dismiss a claim filed against it by Dizengoff Tel Aviv 176 Ltd., before the Tel Aviv District Court. The plaintiff claimed that Sahar Holdings refrained from acting with "proper diligence" to register its rights to "Beit Sahar", an asset which was sold to Dizengoff in 2010 for over NIS 25 million. Following an arbitration proceeding before Mr. Amos Gabrieli, both sides agreed to the dismissal of the claim, without Sahar Holdings having to pay Dizengoff any fees.
Sahar Holdings was represented by Olry Tenennbaum (Partner) and Alex Feldsher (Associate).
Gornitzky represented Audio Pixels Holdings Ltd. and additional parties involved, in a successful dismissal of a motion to approve a derivative suit against them, in the amount of NIS 500 million
Gornitzky successfully represented Audio Pixels Holdings Ltd. (an Australian public company) as well as its Israeli subsidiary, Audio Pixels, officers of the company and additional parties involved, in the dismissal of a motion to approve a derivative suit against them, in the amount of NIS 500 million.
Lod District Court (the honorable Judge Dr. Borenstein) dismissed the motion to file a derivative suit against Audio Pixels, in the amount of approximately NIS 500 million, in relation to the claim of alleged technology theft, concerning unique developments in the audio field.
The technology to which the motion refers to is in fact a unique technology for the manufacturing of speakers, developed by Audio Pixels, based on micro electromagnetic structures (MEMS) and not on the customary classic speaker components in today's industry, which is expected to provide unprecedented performance in the field of audio. Several months ago, Audio Pixels reported a cooperation agreement for the production of chips together with the Israeli company TowerJazz. Recently, the company also proceeded to report to its investors its progress in the developmental stages, along with the unique cooperation with Bar Ilan University, in a project aimed at assisting the blind in sight analysis via the use of part of the technology it is developing.
At the beginning of 2013, Amir Baron, a software engineer, filed a request for the approval of a derivative suit against Audio Pixels Holdings Limited, its Israeli subsidiary, Audio Pixels, and several other executive officers at Audio Pixels along with other individuals involved.
Within the framework of the motion to approve a derivative suit, filed in the amount of about NIS 500 million, it was claimed that the intellectual property used by Audio Pixels belongs in fact to an Israeli Start-up company called B-4 (no longer active today, in which Baron worked together with the respondents) and that one of the respondents, who left B-4 in 2006, took the technology with him and used it, together with other respondents, in order to establish Audio Pixels, and in practice, the technology used by Audio Pixels today is B-4's intellectual property.
In a lengthy and detailed ruling, the court dismissed the motion to approve a derivative suit .
Furthermore, the court determined that taking into account that B-4 is at the end of the road and that the purpose of the suit is to serve the personal interests of the share -holders, it cannot be determined that the purpose of the suit is indeed in favor of the company. Furthermore, the court ruled that the petitioner's good-faith should be questioned.
Due to these reasons, the court decided to dismiss the motion to file a derivative suit and to impose the expenses on the petitioner.
Gornitzky represents Benefit (a part of the Phoenix group) in a successful dismissal of a labour law class action suit
Gornitzky represented Benefit (a part of the Phoenix group) in a successful dismissal of a labour law class action suit with respect to allegations regarding negligent advice given by Benefit to retired employees of Discount Bank.
The court dismissed the claim against Benefit, giving a summary judgment accepting all of Benefit's claims regarding, inter alia, the lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the prima-facie evidence that there was no negligent advise, as well as the argument that the claim was barred under the statute of limitations.
Gornitzky successfully represented the directors of Zmicha Investment House Ltd. In the dismissal of a motion to approve a derivative suit, targeting the company's unsuccessful investment.
Gornitzky successfully represented the directors of Zmicha Investment House Ltd., a TASE publicly traded company, in a motion to approve a derivative suit against the directors. The motion addressed allegations that the respondents (the directors) had unlawfully approved Zmicha's investment in Shemen Oil and Gas Resources Inc., in which Zmicha's controlling stockholder allegedly had a significant business interest. The motion also contended that the directors breached their duties of care and loyalty by approving this transaction in a negligent manner.
The Economic Department in the Tel-Aviv District Court (Honorable Judge Ruth Ronen), in a profound and well established decision, rejected the motion, ruling that Zmicha's investment in Shemen was neither an interested transaction nor a negligent one. The court ruling presents a comprehensive (and somewhat pioneering) analysis of the fundamental corporate governance issues that arise from the case, after which the motion was dismissed and the directors were awarded with legal fees and expenses.
Gornitzky successfully represented an acquisition group in rejecting a motion to disqualify an arbitrator, in addition to a request for permission to appeal before the Supreme Court
Gornitzky successfully represented an acquisition group in rejecting a motion to disqualify an arbitrator, before the honorable Judge A. Vago at the District Court, in addition to a request for permission to appeal before the Supreme Court, held before the honorable Judge Danziger at the Supreme Court.
Within the framework of the motion to disqualify the arbitrator and the permission to appeal, it was claimed, among others, that the arbitrator should be disqualified based on the fact that the representative of the acquisition group, Adv. Eli Cohen, was appointed as the IBA's deputy Chairman of the litigation committee, one in which the arbitrator resides as Chairman. Furthermore, said arbitrator represents a client in a separate proceeding, in which Mr. Cohen represents the opposing party.
In his court ruling issued in September 2016, the honorable Judge Vago ordered to dismiss the motion, whilst accepting the claim made by the acquisition group, according to which there is lack of real likelihood of bias, on the arbitrator's part, in his decision. Expenses for the procedure were imposed on the petitioner.
The request for permission to appeal filed by the petitioner was also rejected, while the claims made by the acquisition group were accepted and expenses for the procedure were imposed on the petitioner. In his court ruling, the honorable Judge Danziger, determined, among others, that the so-called "connection" between advocate Cohen and the arbitrator, allegedly originates from their professional acquaintance. Furthermore, any claim according to which there is real likelihood of bias, on the arbitrator's part, is far-fetched. It was also determined that the fact that the arbitrator and advocate Cohen represent clients on opposite sides in a separate proceeding, does not necessarily raise concern about a conflict of interest.
Yet another successful year and recognition of our outstanding abilities! This year, as in previous years, the esteemed ranking guide, Coface Bdi, top ranked our firm in 14 Tier 1 categories
Yet another successful year and recognition of our outstanding abilities! This year, as in previous years, the esteemed ranking guide, Coface Bdi, top ranked our firm in 14 Tier 1 categories. The leading rankings include Banking & Finance, Tax, Litigation & Dispute Resolution, Mergers & Acquisitions, Capital Markets & Securities, Infrastructure & Project Finance, Energy & Natural Resources, Corporate, Real Estate & Construction, Real Estate taxation, Class Actions & Derivative Suits, Telecoms & Media, Restructuring & Insolvency, Trusts, Estates & Wealth Management.
Gornitzky represents I.D.B. Development in a petition for dissolution and a motion to appoint a temporary liquidator
Gornitzky represented I.D.B. Development in a petition for dissolution and a motion to appoint a temporary liquidator filed on June 1st, 2016, on its behalf, by the Series 9 bondholders' trustee. Following an urgent court session held on June 7, 2016 before the honorable Judge Brenner, and upon the court's recommendation, the trustee withdrew the motion to appoint a temporary liquidator. The dissolution will be discussed in a court session set foot September 2016.
Gornitzky represents the founders of DuCool Ltd. in a dispute amongst company share-holders against the controlling shareholder in the company
Gornitzky represented the founders of DuCool Ltd. (a company that specializes in the manufacturing of advanced air-conditioning systems, which are exported to international markets including the U.S., China and India), in a dispute amongst company share-holders against the controlling shareholder in the company, the American hedge fund, Matlin Patterson Global Advisors, LLC. its Directors.
Within the framework of these proceedings, two motions were filed by the founders of the company for the approval of two derivative actions at the District Court in Tel Aviv (Financial Department), as well as three actions at the Regional Labor Court.
In March 2016, Haifa District Court acceded the motion to suspend proceedings and appoint a trustee, as requested by the company (ex parte), a motion which was filed, according to the founders, for the purpose of dismissing proceedings which were initiated by the founders, represented by Gornitzky & Co., against the American Fund.
In an expedited process, within a number of days, the office team strived to suspend proceedings. In an unconventional ruling by the Haifa District Court, the court ordered the cancellation of the injunction to suspend proceedings, together with the annulment of a trustee, and respectively the ongoing proceedings conducted by the group of founder were restored.