עברית
 


News
June 2013

The firm has provided all legal services in connection with the multimillion dollar project for the installation of a New Jewish Exhibition in Block number A-27 at the State Museum Auschwitz-Birkenau in Oświęcim, Poland.

This project was led by Yad Vashem, on behalf of the State of Israel and involved at the first stage, the renovation and preservation of the Block, followed by the creation of and installation of the New Exhibition. The firm provided legal assistance with respect to the entire process, including all negotiations, tenders, and contractual arrangements between the various local and international parties involved.

The firm considered this project to be national significance and takes pride in its involvement on what was a large scale, significant, unique and historical project. The opening ceremony of the New Exhibition at the Museum took place on Thursday June 13, 2013 in the presence of PM Netanyahu, ministers and other national and international dignitaries.

2013

Latest update on the Heftsiba case:                

Within Adv. Isaac Molho’s position as Special Administrator of the Heftsiba group of companies in insolvency proceedings, a motion was submitted in order to annul a floating charge on all of the assets of Heftsiba Company Residences and Holdings Ltd. (in liquidation) in favor of Electra Company, which insures – per Electra’s claims – a debt of more than NIS 125 million, or at least NIS 30 million of the outstanding debt.   The District Court of Jerusalem (Honorable Judge Y. Zaban) granted the Special Administrator’s motion and ruled to annul the lien in accordance with Section 359 of the Companies Ordinance.              

Additionally, in another matter of Heftsiba’s insolvency proceedings, Adv. Molho, as Special Administrator, submitted claims of Heftsiba Hofim Ltd. (in liquidation) and Heftsiba Jerusalem Gold Ltd. (in liquidation) to the District Court of Jerusalem against various banks, executives, their insurers (liability insurance for executives), and accountants, claiming that their acts and/or omissions caused damages to these companies, having followed Boaz Yona’s instructions – prior to the crisis – to unlawfully withdraw funds from these companies in the amount of tens of millions of Shekels.   These funds had been from securities which had been publicly issued.   Most of these funds were transferred directly or indirectly to various private companies in the Heftsiba group.

2013
In BDI’s latest ranking of Israeli law firms in Israel for 2013 for professional excellence, our firm was ranked Number 1 (an “outstanding, leading firm”) in two areas – Liquidations and Receivership, and Telecommunications.             In addition, our firm was ranked as an “esteemed firm” (Number 3) in five additional areas – Real Estate, Labor Law, Intellectual Property, Mergers and Acquisitions, and Commercial Litigation.
February 2013

On 19th February, 2013, a three-judge panel of the Supreme Court handed down a ruling dealing, inter alia, with the question of equitable relief and the scope of a court’s discretion in this regard. The Court said that a court has a wide discretion in moulding the substance of the relief, which allows it to reach a wide range of decisions in the interests of justice; and amongst these the court may even award “reverse equitable relief”, even though this kind of relief is not strictly compatible with the language of section 132 of the Tenant Protection Law, 1972, the relevant Law in the case.    

The ruling itself rejected an application for permission to appeal against a ruling of the Tel Aviv District Court (also given by a three-judge panel) which ruled that the applicants abandoned their dwelling (a ground for eviction under the Law) yet conditioned their eviction by the respondent – our client, the apartment owner – on her payment of compensation to the applicants, in accordance with the respondent’s alternate plea.            

The Supreme Court rejected the applicants’ claim. Section 132(a) states that: “notwithstanding the presence of a ground for eviction, the court may nevertheless decline to make such ruling [for eviction] if convinced that, in the circumstances of the case, such a ruling would be unjust”. According to the applicants, this gives the court discretion to either (i) decline to entirely issue an eviction order and/or (ii) to decline to issue an eviction order but only on condition that the tenant fulfil a particular condition (e.g. by paying compensation to the owner); but it does not give the court discretion to go the other way, by issuing the eviction order but on condition that the owner fulfill a particular condition (e.g. by paying compensation to the evicted tenant).     

The Supreme Court rather accepted the argument of the respondent, our client, that section 132 gives the court extremely wide discretion to act in the interests of justice in the circumstances of the case, and that therefore the term ‘justice’ cannot and should not be ‘imprisoned’ within an a priori fixed scope. In the choice between justice and certainty justice is preferable.     

The respondent further noted that over the years guidelines had been established addressing at most when equitable relief would ever be awarded, but no hard and fast rules had been set regarding the circumstances in which relief would not be granted, since it is not a standard remedy but an ad hoc one which is based on the circumstances of the case.   

The great importance of this ruling is in its tacit approval of the authority of a court to grant “reverse equitable relief” which, though sometimes given by a lower court, had never previously been addressed on its merits by the Supreme Court. The ruling also has great importance in respect of the question of purposive interpretation. The Supreme Court preferred purposive interpretation over simple verbal interpretation, and further confirmed that the purpose of the law should be determined in the light of the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty, thus giving new and increased weight to the right to property and confirming that this right has constitutional status. Purposive interpretation in this case required reducing the protection that the law ostensibly gives the tenant in order to reduce the damage to the owner’s property right.

February 2013
 In an article published this morning, 02/27/2013, the newspaper "Yediot Ahronot", published ranking of law firms by level of professional quality, ranking conducted by the BDI.

Our firm is rated as a leader in liquidation and we were ranked first in the field of labor law. The complete rankings will be published soon.

2010
The firm was recently selected as a leading firm in the Israeli market by
September 2010
Dr. Michal Shur Ofry was selected by Global Law Experts as the leading IP expert in Israel.
June 2010

Read about the firm's recruitment process in Globes.

May 2009
Adv. Isaac Molho, our Managing Partner, was recently chosen by the Israeli Bar (Tel Aviv District) magazine “Praklitim” as its Lawyer of the Year for 2008.
May 2009
Click here to read a personal interview with Adv. Isaac Molho in the Martindale-Hubbell® directory (in Hebrew).
May 2009
Click here to read a personal interview with Adv. Orrin Persky in the Martindale-Hubbell® directory (in Hebrew).
2009
E.S. Shimron, I. Molho, Persky & Co. was rated once again in the top tier for telecommunications in the International Legal 500 directory. More details can be found here.
2007
"Purchasing Art – Copyrights and Owner’s Duties" – click here to read a lecture delivered by Isaac Molho at a gathering titled: “The Art of collecting Art – Business and Legal Aspects”

Jerusalem Office: 02.6490649 | officejm1@smplaw.co.il    Tel Aviv Office: 03.6853685 | officeta1@smplaw.co.il
© 2017 All rights reserved to E. S. Shimron, I. Molho, Persky & Co..   Disclaimer | Site Map