The Firm has 18 lawyers, four interns, and a department specializing in registering land parcellations (consolidation and division procedures) and condominiums. The Firm is unique in the depth of its expertise in real estate law in its many different specialties.
The Firm’s Clients
Shoob & Co.’s client list includes public and private real estate companies, construction companies, other companies, institutional bodies, banks, financial institutions, clients from the ultra-orthodox sector, and private clients.
Handling Complex Real Estate Issues
Over time, the Firm has handled the planning and support of large land complexes, such as:
• Large real estate plots with multiple owners, in the western portion of Rishon Le’Zion, Bat Yam, the Yarkon suburbs, Pi Glilot, Tel Aviv’s Summayl Complex, Herzliya’s Azure Beach, Netanya, Ha’gush Ha’Gadol, Ha’Aleph Compound, H/500, and more.
• Managing compensation claims for claimants vis-à-vis planning and construction authorities because of damages from the approval of an Urban Building Plan (Article 197) or expropriation compensation.
• Facilitating reductions in betterment levies.
• Appeals against building and planning, administrative objections
• Counsel vis-à-vis formulating various complex agreements.
• Complex partnership liquidation issues.
Representation Before All Judicial Instances
Shoob & Co. represents clients before all relevant judicial instances, including local committees, appeals committees on the issue of planning and building, and all other planning bodies. The Firm also represents clients in civil and administrative courts, including the Supreme Court.
Shoob & Co. has obtained many landmark rulings in the real estate sector, including:
• Hamami vs. the Rishon Le’Zion Local Committee – the Supreme Court ruled for the first time that, as part of a compensation claim relating to an approved urban development plan that harms a landowner – 40% of the compensation cannot be deducted, as was customary up to ruling date. This ruling caused an upheaval in the field of urban development compensation claims. The ruling was reaffirmed within the framework of an additional hearing before five justices at the Supreme Court.
• Israel Fruit Distribution Co. vs. the Kfar Saba Local Council – a compensation case where the Court defined for the first time what makes up “reasonable” compensation of landowners.
• Horowitz vs. the Ra’anana Local Council – the Firm represented Horowitz before the Supreme Court in what is today the guiding ruling defining “reasonable” damage that does not require compensation.
• Har vs. the Netanya Local Council – handed down by the Supreme Court – compensation was granted in connection with land expropriation, the development of which was held up for years by various development plans, and the compensation was settled for the first time by considering the various plans as one plan for calculating the damages.
• Bank Massad vs. the State of Israel – the Supreme Court ruled for the first time that landowners whose land was expropriated were entitled to receive compensation for loss of freehold rent until the State granted compensation.
• Isco Buildings vs. the State of Israel – the Supreme Court ruled that the Israel Lands Administration had no entitlement to a fee when transferring building rights between various plots.
• Moshe Shoob vs. the B’nei Brak Local Planning and Construction Committee – a decision handed down by the Regional Appeal Committee under which terms and conditions under Articles 77 and 78, published by the B’nei Brak Local Planning and Construction Committee, conditioning TAMA 38 building permits on the allocation of public areas on the ground floor of apartment buildings.
• Yitzchak Ben Artzi and 82 others vs. the State of Israel – a process by which the holding, by the State, of land owned by the petitioners under Regulation 125 of the Defense Regulation (Emergency), 1945.
• Ya’acov Heitner Relief Endowment Fund vs. the Minister of Finance et al. – the Supreme Court ruled that appropriation compensation should be assessed vis-à-vis “lost lease fees” under conceptual rental fees derived from the varying value of land, etc.
• Shalom Yerushalayim Divon et al. vs. the Petah Tikva Local Planning and Building Committee – the Supreme Court ruled, in a supplemental hearing, that a landowner who built a home and said or a relative resides in it for at least four years after completion of construction will be entitled to an exemption of the betterment levy, regardless of the number and relation between a number of owners of said lands who will seek to exercise this right.
• Yaron Yeshayahu Ltd. vs. the Petah Tikva Municipality – the District Court ruled that the landowner, whose land was expropriated under the provision of Section 195 (2) of the Right of First Refusal aw, may repurchase said if redesignated, subject to two conditions: first, the change in designation is made in accordance with the Planning and Building Law, and the second is that the Authority has disclosed its intention to sell, lease or transfer said to a third party. The Court must, in this case, return, in consideration, the land to the petitioner.
• The Tel Aviv District Court (Planning and Construction) vs. the Nof Yam Blue and White Ltd. – The Supreme Court held that the exceptional use of a permit does not constitute an independent tax event in respect of which a betterment levy should be levied, but an exercise of rights only, such that if there is any previous realization by sale, under which the betterment levy was paid, it will not be possible to charge any additional betterment levy.
• Civil Claim 36720-10-12 Savyonei Yavneh Ltd. vs. the Yavne Local Planning and Building Committee et al. – The company’s claim revolves around a claim for compensation due to financial losses caused to it due to a delay in planning proceedings regarding land purchased by the company in an Israel Land Authority tender.
The Court accepted the suit and stated in its ruling that the authorities must compensate the Savyonei Yavne to the tune of NIS 13 million. The Court estimated the damages of Savyoni Yavneh at a loss of annual yield of the land (6% of the value of the land, which changes from year to year). The Court also ruled that the increase in the value of the land during this period is a fact that does not affect the compensation to which Savyoni Yavneh is entitled.
CofaceBdi Combined risk index summary for October 2017 Deterioration in the Combined risk index of Israel’s economy * About 13.25% of the companies were rated in high and dangerous risk levels * Heading the weak and dangerous branches: Coffee shops and Transport services * Heading the strongest and secure branches: Pharmaceutical and cosmetics industry and […]
ranking of leading urban renovation companies in Israel CofaceBdi 2017 To continue reading the article in Hebrew
Adv. Yoheved Novogroder-Shoshan (Hi-tech Partner) and Adv. Miriam Friedmann (Hi-tech Associate) “Information is the oil of the 21st century, and analytics is the combustion engine.” Peter Sondergaard. One of the most significant commodities of our era is data. The availability and novel methods of processing data has enabled medical practitioners to take tremendous strides in […]
יחסי שליחות מתקיימים כאשר צד א’ – השולח, המייפה את כוחו של צד ב’ – השלוח, לפעול בשמו ובעבורו. כך לדוגמא, במקום בו אייל לא מעוניין כי ידעו כי הוא בעל מניות בחברה, הוא מבקש מדודי להחזיק את מניותיו בעבורו.
מוסד השליחות הוסדר בישראל במסגרת חוק השליחות, תשכ”ה-1965 (להלן: “החוק”) . החוק קובע בין היתר כי כל פעולה משפטית שאין הכרח מהותי או חובה על-פי דין לבצעה באופן אישי, כשרה לשמש כנושא לשליחות.