Yeshiva
Beit Midrash
- Sections
- Chemdat Yamim
- P'ninat Mishpat
Case: Reuven owns a company (both =pl) that holds the majority of special shares in the defendant company (=def) and sits on def’s board of directors (=bod). The body of special shares holders (=A-1) has veto power over major changes at def, as detailed in def’s charter. Def owns 100% of a subsidiary (=sbsd), which has signed a huge contract with a government agency to provide infrastructure for an area. Pl opposes the deal and wants it paused (leaving time to get the job done if applicable) at least until it can be determined if sbsd can finance the project without def providing the banks with collateral. If sbsd cannot manage without def, then pl can veto the deal through A-1. Def claims that breaking the contract with the government would be damaging both directly (500,000 NIS deposit) and indirectly (possible fines, loss of reputation, etc.), so that there is insufficient justification to freeze the project.
Ruling: [We saw last time that pl and A-1 do not have a direct right to veto sbsd’s decisions but that they did have the ability to prevent def from agreeing to the project. The remaining question is whether pl has lost that right.]
P'ninat Mishpat (835)
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit
727 - Veto Power of Special Stockholders – part II
728 - Veto Power of Special Stockholders – part III
729 - Dealing with Shortcomings of Building Project
Load More
The Shulchan Aruch and Rama (Even Ha’ezer 38:10) disagree if when one a man marries a woman on condition someone will not protest, and that person first agreed to the marriage and later protested, whether the marriage is valid. In the case that the condition was that the person be silent, the marriage is valid after initial silence. The Mishneh Lamelech (Shluchin 5:1) brings three opinions about a partner who acted without authority and the second partner found out later, whether the latter waives the ability to complain by silence, by agreement, or not even with agreement. Ashdot Hapisga (Choshen Mishpat 8) says it depends on the opinions whether silence relinquishes a monetary debt. Mishkenot Haro’im claims that if the silence comes before the questionable action was taken, all agree that it is subsequently too late to protest.
Our case should be equivalent to "on condition of silence," as it is illogical that one can be quiet on matters that effect third parties and protest later. If not, when would the limit to their protest power end?! This is relevant because, as discussed previously, there was no need for a positive decision in favor by A-1. The dayanim disagreed as to what the final moment for protest would have been. One dayan said it was at the time sbsd took part in the tender for the project, as backing out thereafter had consequences. The other dayanim said protest was still possible then, because there were several important unanswered questions at that point, so that there were another three months for A-1 to protest.
The two sides disagreed if during those three months, pl had acted in a way that left open the right to protest (the dayanim analyzed various correspondences), and no one brought valid proof. Therefore, we are to follow the status quo. In this case, pl is trying to change the status quo and prevent sbsd from carrying out its commitment. Therefore, pl cannot stop or even pause the project.
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit
Igrot Hare’aya Semi-solicited Advice to Calm Down Petach Tikva
#227 Date and Place: 8 Tishrei 5669, Yafo
P'ninat Mishpat Repercussions of a Sale That Turned Out Not Happening – part II
(based on ruling 83045 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts)
P'ninat Mishpat Who Breached the Contract? – part IV
Based on ruling 81087 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
P'ninat Mishpat Payments after a Gradual End of Employment
(Based on ruling 82024 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
P'ninat Mishpat P'ninat Mishpat: A Seller with Questionable Rights to the Property – part I
based on ruling 84062 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
P'ninat Mishpat P'NINAT MISHPAT: A Mess of Loans, Repayments and Grievances – part II
based on ruling 83033 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Rabbis in Midrash
Lessons
fast navigation
Various Events FOR WHOM NOT TO VOTE
Rav Zvi Yehuda Kook stressed that Israeli politics is G-dly, so I have no problem answering this common question on a Torani blog. Also, Free-Will is a G-d-given right and obligation, to "destine one's fate" (R. Soloveichik, Kol Dodi Dofek, 67), so I obviously don't tell others how to vote. But once not a few (especially young) have already asked, a couple of personal words from experience and thoughts from chazal & Rav Kook which may be of help to others, mainly for whom NOT to vote.
P'ninat Mishpat Fallout from Failure to Install Elevator – part II
based on ruling 85007 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
