Discount Bank Ltd. v. Lapiner (2018): The Supreme Court ruled, with respect to individuals and small businesses, that the Banking Law requires a bank to charge commissions according to the bank`s tariff, and that this requirement supersedes any individual agreement. It was further ruled that a bank must present its applicable rates in the bank`s tariff, or in the benefits annex. In addition, the Court ruled that a bank`s use of ambiguous language regarding the applicable rates, will be held against the bank, in interpreting which rates apply.
Sigora Bar-Nir v. Cellcom Israel Ltd. (2017): An extended panel of justices of the Supreme Court upheld an appeal against three mobile carriers, holding that the defenses provided by the Class Action Law to state authorities do not apply to the mobile carriers, although the carriers transferred Value Added Tax they collected to the tax authorities. It was further held that Value Added Tax does not apply to pre purchased communication services rendered abroad.
Hatzlacha v. Cohen (2017): The Supreme Court held that shareholders of a public company, who hold their shares separately, cannot declare that they hold their shares together and sell the controlling shares, but must rather share the sale with the all the shareholders, in a public tender. It was further held that the omission of the Israel Securities Authority from intervening in the matter does not immune the shareholders from liability.
De Lange v. Israel Corporation Ltd. (2017): The District Court certified a derivative action against a company`s management members and controlling shareholders. It was ruled that management members are not allowed to receive payments from the controlling shareholder, in a manner that breaches the company`s compensation policy. Such behavior breaches the management members` duty to act in good faith.
Regev v. Elyakim (2015): The District Court accepted a minority shareholder claim, ruling that the majority shareholder took oppressive actions. The Court ordered the majority shareholder to purchase the minority shares, subtracting the value change that resulted from the oppressive actions.
Moses v. Financitech (2015): The District Court certified a derivative action, creating standards regarding court interference in judgements made by a company`s board of directors.
Stern v. Verifone Holdings, Inc (2015): The Supreme Court dismissed an application certify a class action, establishing rules regarding the preclusive effect of a foreign class action judgement on parallel class proceedings in Israel.
Intercolony Investments Ltd. v. Shkedi (2014): The Supreme Court issued a precedential ruling recognizing multiple derivative actions.
Hatzlacha v. Cohen (2014): The District Court certified a class action, regarding a breach of the duty to make a tender offer upon sale of the controlling shares of a public company.
Aviad v. Menora (2014): The Discrict Court accepted class actions against three insurance companies, ordering the companies to pay their policyholders insurance payments previously deprived.
Hatzlacha v. Cohen (2013): The District Court recognized a public organization`s right to pursue class action proceedings, although additional plaintiffs joined the proceedings.
Karadi v. Zenziper (2013): The Supreme Court imposed liability on a warehouse's owner, due to documents issued from its business, despite the owner's claim of fraudulent activity on behalf of its employee who issues the documents.
IPS v. Kidron (2013): The Magistrate Court rejected a claim to impose personal liability on managers of an insolvent company, recognizing the separate legal entity principle in the context of a group of related companies, holding that awareness of the manager of a hard financial situation does not suffice to impose personal liability.
Shkedi v. Intercolony Investments Ltd (2013): The District Court ordered the disclosure of documents prior to the submission of an application to certify a derivative action, and recognized multiple derivative actions.
Hatzlacha v. Cohen (2013): The District Court rendered a precedential ruling recognizing the standing of public organizations as lead in plaintiffs class actions.
Harel-Pia Mutual Funds Ltd. v. Landmark Group Ltd. (2012): The district Court certified a class action regarding the inclusion of a misleading statement in a prospectus.
The Phoenix Insurance Company Ltd. v. Amossi (2012): The Supreme Court rendered an important precedent regarding the standard of review of class action certification, and interpreted insurance policies according to the policyholders` position.
Fattal v. Cellcom Israel Ltd. (2011): The District Court gave an award ordering Cellcom to return to its clients amounts charged for transcripts detailing their activity, for which service the clients never agreed to pay for.
Ultrashape v. Brot (2010): The District Court stayed the proceedings in a shareholders lawsuit, based on a foreign jurisdiction clauses that appeared in the Articles of Association and Shareholders Agreement.
Apex Underwriting v. Harel-Pia Mutual Funds Ltd. (2010): The District Court allowed financial institutions that have incurred material damages, to act as lead plaintiffs in class actions.
Cellcom Israel Ltd. v. Fattal (2010): The Supreme Court rendered a precedential ruling regarding the conditions for a court of appeal`s intervention in an order certifying a class action.
Silvera v. Bank Leumi Le-Israel Ltd. (2009): The District Court certified a class action relating to the unlawful charges of legal expenses and interest.
Fattal v. Cellcom Israel Ltd. (2009): The District Court certified a class action related to unlawful charges by a cellular carrier.
Aviad v. Menora Insurance Company Ltd. (2009): The District certified class actions against three insurance companies, for unlawfully deducting insurance payments.
Mishkan Haaretz v. Shlomo Nass (2009): The court dealing with a creditors scheme ruled that the insolvent company was not obliged to offer shares it holds in another company, as a result of the insolvency proceedings.