Sullivan
Microsoft has discontinued support for Internet Explorer. To access the Sullivan website, please install a modern browser like Microsoft Edge or Google Chrome.

Our Litigation team in Israel has vast experience in Israeli civil, securities and commercial law.

Our team specializes in complex, high-net-worth litigation, representing both Israeli and foreign companies, as well as their shareholders, in an array of commercial disputes, including those involving capital markets, corporate law and insolvency. Our team has experience in administrative appeals, class actions, derivative claims, shareholder disputes, control struggles, securities litigation, real estate disputes, antitrust cases, insolvency proceedings and employment disputes.

In addition, the team has a strong focus in corporate law disputes, including control and separation struggles between partners, class actions (on behalf of both plaintiffs and defendants), securities litigation and insolvency. We have vast experience in proxy contexts over control in Israeli public companies whose shares are traded on the Nasdaq or the TASE. We also provide representation in civil disputes to companies from a variety of sectors, including high tech, real estate and healthcare, as well as representation in various administrative proceedings.

Cross-Border Securities Class-Action Litigation Ends Within Few Months In Consensual Dismissal
In a notable ruling from Israel’s Economic Department of the Tel Aviv District Court, Sullivan successfully represented Alarum Technologies Ltd. and two of its senior officers in a securities class action. The proceeding began with a motion to certify a class action filed in Israel in January 2025, alleging misleading disclosures to the market. Shortly thereafter, a parallel class action based on substantially similar allegations was filed in the United States (New Jersey). Our cross-border team led by Noa Azoulay-Havdala and Amichay Tessler (Israel), together with Gerry Silver (U.S.), represented Alarum Technologies and its senior officers throughout. From the outset, our cross-border team took a strategic, coordinated approach to manage the multi-forum exposure. In the first stage, our Israeli team sought and obtained a stay of the Israeli proceeding to allow the parallel U.S. action to be addressed first — a deliberate strategy in light of the procedural posture and the higher likelihood of early dismissal in the U.S. forum. That strategy paid off: the U.S. plaintiffs moved to voluntarily withdrawal their action, and the New Jersey court approved their withdrawal. Following these developments, in the second stage, through disciplined, assertive case management and effective negotiation led by our Israeli team, the parties filed a consensual motion to dismiss the motion to certify the claim as a class action in Israel — without any reward to the plaintiff and without any award of costs to his counsel. The Israeli court dismissed with prejudice the plaintiff's personal claim, and dismissed without prejudice the motion to certify a class action. This outcome saved our clients from potentially long and expensive securities class action cross-border proceedings, which can often run for several years. Disclaimer: This post is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
The Supreme Court of Israel Issues Groundbreaking Decision on Derivative Claims, Referencing Article Co-Authored by Sullivan Partner Amichay Tessler
Tel Aviv, Israel – Recently, in a precedential case, the Supreme Court of Israel (the "Supreme Court") cited and based its groundbreaking decision on an article co-authored by Amichay Tessler, a litigation partner in Sullivan & Worcester's Tel Aviv office. According to Israeli law, a shareholder or a director of a company (and a creditor, in certain circumstances) can file a motion to certify a claim as a derivative claim (“Derivative Claimant” and “Motion to Certify”, respectively). Furthermore, Derivative Claimant can, before they file a Motion to Certify, file a motion for discovery and production of documents against the company, relating the cause of the future Motion to Certify (“Motion for Discovery”). In order to obtain approval for a Motion for Discovery, certain legal requirements must be fulfilled, which include acting in good faith and demonstrating that the Motion for Discovery will serve the company's best interests. Recently, a shareholder in a known retail company in Israel named Max Stock Ltd. (“Max Stock”) filed a Motion for Discovery before a Motion to Certify to the economic department in Tel Aviv district court. In his motion, the Derivative Claimant argued that, allegedly, some of the officers and directors in Max Stock breached their fiduciary duties and exploited business opportunities that allegedly belonged to Max Stock. A few months after Max Stock submitted its response to the Motion for Discovery, the Derivative Claimant sought an extension for submitting a class action against Max Stock, arguing that the documents he asked for in the Motion for Discovery will assist him in the class action as well. The district court denied the Motion for Discovery, and the Derivative Claimant filed a motion to appeal to the Supreme Court (in Hebrew). The Supreme Court denied the motion to appeal on March 31, 2024, citing and basing its ruling in this precedential case on an article co-authored (in Hebrew) by Amichay Tessler, published in the prestigious Law Review of Reichman University. According to Tessler’s article, a Derivative Claimant cannot submit a Motion for Discovery, which is designed to assist him in a derivative action and is meant to benefit the company, to assist him in a class action in which he opposes the company; and by doing so – he, or she, is acting in bad faith, and therefore the conditions to allow Motion for Discovery are not met. This new ruling, which adopts Tessler’s research and conclusion as outlined in his article, deepens the gravity of good faith in derivative procedures, and will shape the future conduct and rulings in following Motions for Discovery. All companies, public and private alike, which face a derivative procedure will be best served to address our litigation practice and be advised on the best and most recent relevant legal theories and tactics. About Sullivan Sullivan & Worcester (Sullivan) is a global law firm with approximately 200 attorneys in Boston, London, New York, Tel Aviv and Washington, D.C. Sullivan’s clients, including Fortune 500 companies, leading financial services firms and asset managers, boards of directors, real estate companies, and emerging businesses, rely on Sullivan’s ability to navigate complex legal and operational landscapes, the impeccable judgment of its lawyers, and its commitment to best‑in‑class client service.