Shoob & Co. has a sterling reputation, and its client list includes many of Israel’s leading corporate and private real estate developers and management companies. The Firm has fourteen lawyers, four legal interns and a department specializing in real estate parcellations (the consolidations and subdivisions of real estate plots) and condominiums. The Firm is unique in the depth of its expertise in real estate law.
The Firm provides clients with full-service transactional representation, from due diligence reviews and advice on all aspects of the purchase of real estate, implementation of the transaction, drafting and negotiating the relevant agreements (including joint venture and financing agreements), through to the planning approval process optimizing the utilization of property, and handling issues with various authorities, including the tax authorities.
The Firm also represents clients in combination transactions and/or all other real estate transactions, including TAMA 38 agreements, and assists in representing clients at the various authorities’ vis-á-vis the rezoning of land. The Firm advises clients on transactions with contractors, drafting and negotiating agreements with tenants, handles all matters related to protected tenancy, etc.
The Firm specializes in counseling clients in promoting the approval of straightforward and complex urban building plans as well as vis-à-vis real estate consolidations and subdividing land for rights holders after agricultural property has been rezoned for construction and complex procedures that require working in conjunction with the tax authorities and urban planning authorities and understanding the true value of real estate.
The Firm’s Clients
Shoob & Co.’s client list includes public and private real estate, construction companies, other companies, institutional bodies, banks, financial institutions, clients from the ultra-orthodox sector, as well as private clients.
Handling Complex Real Estate Issues
Over the years, the Firm has been involved in complex real estate issues, such as:
• Large plots of real estate with multiple owners, located in West Rishon Le’Zion, Bat Yam, the Yarkon suburbs, Pi Glilot, Tel Aviv’s Summayl Complex, Netanya, Nofei Yam, etc.
• Managing compensation claims for claimants against planning and construction authorities due to damages from the approval of Urban Building Plan (Article 197) or expropriation.
– Facilitating reductions in betterment levies.
– Counsel vis-à-vis formulating development agreements.
– Complex partnership liquidation issues.
Representation Before All Judicial Instances
Shoob & Co. represents clients before all relevant judicial instances in the real estate world, including local committees, appeals committees on the issue of planning and construction, regional committees for planning and construction, the National Council for Planning and Construction, as well as 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 – where the Supreme Court ruled for the first time that, as part of a compensation claim relating to a change in an approved urban development plan that harms a landowner – a relative portion of 40% cannot be deducted from the amount due for compensation as was customary up to the point of the ruling. 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 in the Supreme Court.
• Israel Fruit Distribution Co. vs. Kfar Saba Local Council – a compensation case where the court defined for the first time what constitutes “reasonable” compensation of property owners.
• Horowitz vs. 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. Netanya Local Council – handed down by the Supreme Court – in which 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 fixed for the first time by considering the various plans as one plan for calculating the damages.
• Bank Massad vs. the State of Israel – where 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 – where 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. B’nei Brak Local Planning and Construction Committee – a decision handed down by the Regional Appeal Committee pursuant to which terms and conditions under Articles 77 and 78, published by the B’nei Brak Local Planning and Construction Committee, conditioning the issue of 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, on the part of the State, of land owned by the petitioners under orders issued under Regulation 125 of the Defense Regulation (Times of Emergency), 1945.
• Ya’acov Heitner Relief Endowment Fund vs. the Minister of Finance et al. – where 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.
• Divon vs. Petah Tikva Local Committee – where the Supreme Court ruled on an exemption vis-à-vis a housing unit for land owners that live on the land and are involved in the construction thereon.
• The Tel Aviv District Court (Planning and Construction) vs. Nof Yam Blue and White Ltd. – The District 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 rather an exercise of rights only, such that if there any previous realization by way of sale, under which the betterment levy was paid, it will not be possible to charge any additional betterment levy.
ranking of leading urban renovation companies in Israel CofaceBdi 2017 To continue reading the article in Hebrew
From the resurgence of cybersecurity to deals seeking to bring cannabis firms to stock exchanges, here are the trends that shaped Israeli M&A in 2018
47% of the contractors expect prices to continue rising In spite of Government efforts – only 39% of the contractors expect an increase in branch’s activity this year, 47% of the contractors expect dwelling prices to continue rising, 82% of the contractors expect the collapse of construction realization companies to continue this year too. […]