Skip to main content
Shareholder & partnership disputes

When the people who built it together can no longer run it together.

Deadlock, broken trust, and a dispute over who controls the business, resolved before it destroys the value it is fought over.

The most damaging commercial disputes are between insiders: co-founders, family partners, shareholders who once aligned and no longer do. They are damaging because the fight runs through the company itself - its accounts, its decisions, its ability to operate. The firm treats the business as the asset to be protected, not the battlefield.

The work spans
  • Deadlock between equal holders, and the mechanisms to break it.
  • Disputes over control, management exclusion, and self-dealing.
  • Enforcement and interpretation of shareholder and partnership agreements.
  • Buy-out, separation, and dissolution as alternatives to a controlling-versus-controlled fight.
  • Provisional relief to keep the company operating while the dispute is resolved.
  • Two equal partners cannot agree and the company cannot act.
  • A controlling holder is running the company for personal benefit.
  • A partner wants out and there is no agreed mechanism, or the mechanism is being gamed.
  • A shareholder agreement is being read two opposite ways and money turns on which one wins.

The firm separates two maps that insiders tend to blur: the corporate structure (who owns and controls what, entity by entity) and the personal narrative (who did what to whom). Keeping distinct entities legally distinct is often the whole defence, or the whole claim. It then asks the only question that matters commercially - can these parties keep operating together, or is the work to engineer a clean separation - and runs the dispute toward that answer.

04 · What you get

Structure before story

A corporate map that shows where control actually sits, which is where most of these cases are won.

A continuity plan

Relief that keeps the business running rather than freezing it into decline.

A separation that holds

Where parting is the answer, an exit engineered so the dispute does not reopen a year later.

The firm defends the principals of a closely held business in a high-value claim that sought to collapse two corporate entities into one and reach the individuals behind them. The defence holds the entities legally separate and resists piercing, narrowing the real exposure.

Described in abbreviated, anonymised form to preserve client confidentiality.

How do you break a 50/50 shareholder deadlock in Israel?

Through the mechanism in the shareholders agreement if one exists, and failing that through court relief that can order a buy-out, a sale process, or in the last resort a winding up; the goal is almost always a priced separation rather than dissolution.

Can one shareholder be forced to sell to the other?

Yes, in the right circumstances a court can order a buy-out, and where an agreement already provides for one it will be enforced; the fight is usually about price and timing.

What if there is no shareholders agreement?

The company law and the duties owed between holders still apply, but the absence of an agreed exit mechanism makes provisional relief and a clear demand record more important, not less.

Start a conversation.

The firm replies within one business day.