Israel – Termination of international business

4 September 2018

  • Israeli
  • Distribution
  • Litigation

Not what you would expect 

When can you terminate, how should you terminate, and how much are you exposed?!

The outcomes of termination of a business relationship with an Israeli counterpart in Israel arise again and again as a question in many disputes between International corporations and Israeli counterparts, such as distributors or franchisees.

This is mainly because Israeli law does not include specific laws regulating or regarding distribution or franchising or other kinds of business ventures (except a relatively new agency law – referring in a limited manner to specific kinds of agency only) – and thus disputes in said regards are determined based on the general principles of contract law, the contractual and factual bases – obviously resulting in considerable uncertainty as to specific matters.

However, substantial case law, such as in the matter of Johnson & Johnson International that ended up paying compensation in the equivalent to over 1.5 Million US$, indicates the basics and threshold of what can be expected in such disputes, and, if implemented wisely, may assist in planning the disengagement or termination of a business relationship, in a manner that would be the least costly for the terminating party and minimize its exposure to a lawsuit.

In many cases, domestic parties invest many years and/or fortunes, in order to penetrate the domestic market with the foreign service or products, and to promote sales in the subject region, for the benefit of both the international corporation and the domestic party.

Nevertheless, often the international corporation decides for various reasons (such as establishing an “in-house” operation” in the target location or substituting the distributor/franchisee) to terminate the oral or written contractual relationship.

What are the legal foundations involved in such termination as per due notice of termination and corresponding compensation – if at all?

Generally, this issue arises in cases in which the contract does not specify a period of the business relationship, and, as a principle of law, contracts may be terminated by reasonable notice and subject to the fundamental good faith principle.

Contracts are not perceived as binding upon the parties indefinitely. The question is always what is the reasonable time for termination notice, and is the termination done in good faith (which is always a tricky and vague issue). Compensation is commonly awarded in accordance with what the courts find as the due notice period that may also entail compensation for damages related to said breach.

As always, there are exceptions, such as breach of trust toward the manufacturer/franchisor, that may have great impact on any due notice obligations, as far as justification for immediate termination that can be deemed immune to breach of due notice or good faith obligations.

The truth is the reasonability of the due notice varies from case to case!

However, Israeli case law is extremely sensitive to the actual reasoning of termination and how genuine it is, as opposed to asserting a tactical breach argument in an attempt to “justify” avoiding a due notice period or adequate compensation.

In this respect, in many cases simple “non-satisfaction” was denied as a legitimate argument for breach of contract, while safeguarding the freedom of contracts and the right to terminate an ongoing contract with due notice and good faith.

There are various common parameters referred to in the case law, to determine the adequate time of due notice, including, for instance, the magnitude of investment; the time required for rearrangement of business towards the new situation (including time required to find an alternative supplier product which can be marketed); the magnitude of the product/service out of the entire distributor’s business, etc.

Time and again, although not as binding rule, the due notice period seems to be in the range of around 12 months, as a balance between the right of termination and the reasonable time for rearranging the business in light of the termination. There were, however, cases in which due notice for termination was deemed as short as three months and as long as two years – but these are rather exceptional.

Another guiding point in the case law is the factor of exclusivity or non-exclusivity, as well as the concept that the longer the business relationship, the less the distributor/franchisee may expect compensation/reimbursement for investment – based on the concept that he has enjoyed the fruits of the investment.

The outcome of not providing such adequate due notice might result in actual compensation reflecting the loss of profit of the business in the last year before the termination, or for the whole term the court finds a due notice was in place, or, in cases of bad faith, even a longer period reflecting the damages.

In conclusion, given the legal regime in Israel, such exposure might be extremely considerable for any international or foreign business. It would, therefore, be vital and as a consequence of real value to plan the strategy of disengagement/termination of the business with the domestic counterpart in Israel, in advance and prior to executing it, and there are, indeed, adequate and wise strategies that may be implemented for the best result.

[Initial note: This article is not aimed as a political article pro or con boycott movements or the Israeli government, but rather as a legal informative overview, in light of the actual and financial impact or exposure international business may have in the referred to matter.]

It is perhaps not known to many international trading players, but under Israeli law, Bill for prevention of damage to the State of Israel through boycott – 2011, affirmed by the Supreme Court in 2015 (after a slight interpretive adjustment), boycotting Israeli origin products, or deliberate avoidance of economic or academic ties, may give rise to a lawsuit for actual damages under civil law.

In light of the international BDS movement, attempting to place pressure upon the State of Israel by means of economic and cultural pressure, Israel has realized such activity, indeed, causes actual harm and damage to Israeli based business, manufacturers, importers/exporters, etc., as well as to academic students and professors, and so on, in cultural ties of many sorts – just because the origin is Israel.

This boycott movement affects the people and businesses of Israel, as opposed to  Israeli leaders or politicians or  the State of Israel as a state, and conveys questionable (to say the least) economic and cultural negative effects upon the people facing unprecedented obstacles in trade in the international arena – for no wrongdoing on their part.

Regardless of the political opinion one may have concerning the legitimacy, or rather the non-legitimacy, of the BDS movement or concerning the current political policy of the State of Israel – the relatively new law provides actual legal tools to deal with negative economic outcomes (damages, loss of profits, etc.) that businesses or private people encounter or suffer from boycott measures, solely because of their affiliation or relation to the State of Israel.

Regardless of any opinion of the act itself or its enactment, at the end of the day the act exists and may be used and exploited by filing civil lawsuits against anyone who called for or participated in a boycott. In that sense it creates a new civil wrong as part of the Israeli tort laws.

Moreover, even a deliberate avoidance of economic, cultural or academic ties can raise liability for the avoider towards the business or ties avoided, as well as liability for anyone who has called for the boycott or publicly expressed support of it.

The law goes even further – and also excludes the defense argument of “sufficient justification” and thus provides that anyone who has caused or led to a breach of a contract, by calling for a boycott, may be liable for damages, as well.

As for the damages that can be claimed, after the adjustment to the law according to the Supreme Court ruling of 2015 (ruling that compensation must be awarded in correspondence with the actual damages or loss of profit caused, and cancelled the clause for penal compensation) – the entity that may sue for torts is the entity that suffered the damage and what can be sued for is the actual damage according to the regular Israeli torts law.

The law also prohibits a person who calls for a boycott from participating in any public tender, but this is a different focus from the side of the state.

It is worth mentioning  that the rationale for this legislation was also reviewed by the widely respected Israeli Supreme Court, that has strongly elaborated that such legislation is constitutional and, inter alia, that international entities and individuals such as the BDS movement (as opposed perhaps to states) should not be able to harm or interfere with international or domestic economic affairs without at least being accountable for the outcome of such, and that freedom of speech cannot be unlimitedly protected when it in fact calls for action (or for refraining from action)  that has an actual impact on another and is not simply an expression of an opinion.

To date, it seems that the Magistrates and District Courts of Israel have yet to render judgments in actual cases based on the boycott act, indicating that the implementation of the act is still inchoate. However, it seems that instances and measures of boycotting are on the rise and the methods of boycotting are becoming increasingly overt, in a manner that is bound to lead to considerable litigation in the near future.

Needless to say, issues of jurisdiction, and other aspects of private international law, or imposing jurisdiction on foreign players, are also yet to be resolved in reference to the emergence of lawsuits under the boycott law, but these will surely find their creative legal solutions with the actual submission of lawsuits concerning real life cases.

Benjamin Leventhal

Practice areas

  • Arbitration
  • Corporate
  • Litigation
Contact Benjamin

Contact Benjamin





    Read the privacy policy of Legalmondo.
    This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

    Boycot of Israeli products and business –  Risk to be sued for damages

    1 November 2017

    • Israeli
    • International trade
    • Litigation

    Not what you would expect 

    When can you terminate, how should you terminate, and how much are you exposed?!

    The outcomes of termination of a business relationship with an Israeli counterpart in Israel arise again and again as a question in many disputes between International corporations and Israeli counterparts, such as distributors or franchisees.

    This is mainly because Israeli law does not include specific laws regulating or regarding distribution or franchising or other kinds of business ventures (except a relatively new agency law – referring in a limited manner to specific kinds of agency only) – and thus disputes in said regards are determined based on the general principles of contract law, the contractual and factual bases – obviously resulting in considerable uncertainty as to specific matters.

    However, substantial case law, such as in the matter of Johnson & Johnson International that ended up paying compensation in the equivalent to over 1.5 Million US$, indicates the basics and threshold of what can be expected in such disputes, and, if implemented wisely, may assist in planning the disengagement or termination of a business relationship, in a manner that would be the least costly for the terminating party and minimize its exposure to a lawsuit.

    In many cases, domestic parties invest many years and/or fortunes, in order to penetrate the domestic market with the foreign service or products, and to promote sales in the subject region, for the benefit of both the international corporation and the domestic party.

    Nevertheless, often the international corporation decides for various reasons (such as establishing an “in-house” operation” in the target location or substituting the distributor/franchisee) to terminate the oral or written contractual relationship.

    What are the legal foundations involved in such termination as per due notice of termination and corresponding compensation – if at all?

    Generally, this issue arises in cases in which the contract does not specify a period of the business relationship, and, as a principle of law, contracts may be terminated by reasonable notice and subject to the fundamental good faith principle.

    Contracts are not perceived as binding upon the parties indefinitely. The question is always what is the reasonable time for termination notice, and is the termination done in good faith (which is always a tricky and vague issue). Compensation is commonly awarded in accordance with what the courts find as the due notice period that may also entail compensation for damages related to said breach.

    As always, there are exceptions, such as breach of trust toward the manufacturer/franchisor, that may have great impact on any due notice obligations, as far as justification for immediate termination that can be deemed immune to breach of due notice or good faith obligations.

    The truth is the reasonability of the due notice varies from case to case!

    However, Israeli case law is extremely sensitive to the actual reasoning of termination and how genuine it is, as opposed to asserting a tactical breach argument in an attempt to “justify” avoiding a due notice period or adequate compensation.

    In this respect, in many cases simple “non-satisfaction” was denied as a legitimate argument for breach of contract, while safeguarding the freedom of contracts and the right to terminate an ongoing contract with due notice and good faith.

    There are various common parameters referred to in the case law, to determine the adequate time of due notice, including, for instance, the magnitude of investment; the time required for rearrangement of business towards the new situation (including time required to find an alternative supplier product which can be marketed); the magnitude of the product/service out of the entire distributor’s business, etc.

    Time and again, although not as binding rule, the due notice period seems to be in the range of around 12 months, as a balance between the right of termination and the reasonable time for rearranging the business in light of the termination. There were, however, cases in which due notice for termination was deemed as short as three months and as long as two years – but these are rather exceptional.

    Another guiding point in the case law is the factor of exclusivity or non-exclusivity, as well as the concept that the longer the business relationship, the less the distributor/franchisee may expect compensation/reimbursement for investment – based on the concept that he has enjoyed the fruits of the investment.

    The outcome of not providing such adequate due notice might result in actual compensation reflecting the loss of profit of the business in the last year before the termination, or for the whole term the court finds a due notice was in place, or, in cases of bad faith, even a longer period reflecting the damages.

    In conclusion, given the legal regime in Israel, such exposure might be extremely considerable for any international or foreign business. It would, therefore, be vital and as a consequence of real value to plan the strategy of disengagement/termination of the business with the domestic counterpart in Israel, in advance and prior to executing it, and there are, indeed, adequate and wise strategies that may be implemented for the best result.

    [Initial note: This article is not aimed as a political article pro or con boycott movements or the Israeli government, but rather as a legal informative overview, in light of the actual and financial impact or exposure international business may have in the referred to matter.]

    It is perhaps not known to many international trading players, but under Israeli law, Bill for prevention of damage to the State of Israel through boycott – 2011, affirmed by the Supreme Court in 2015 (after a slight interpretive adjustment), boycotting Israeli origin products, or deliberate avoidance of economic or academic ties, may give rise to a lawsuit for actual damages under civil law.

    In light of the international BDS movement, attempting to place pressure upon the State of Israel by means of economic and cultural pressure, Israel has realized such activity, indeed, causes actual harm and damage to Israeli based business, manufacturers, importers/exporters, etc., as well as to academic students and professors, and so on, in cultural ties of many sorts – just because the origin is Israel.

    This boycott movement affects the people and businesses of Israel, as opposed to  Israeli leaders or politicians or  the State of Israel as a state, and conveys questionable (to say the least) economic and cultural negative effects upon the people facing unprecedented obstacles in trade in the international arena – for no wrongdoing on their part.

    Regardless of the political opinion one may have concerning the legitimacy, or rather the non-legitimacy, of the BDS movement or concerning the current political policy of the State of Israel – the relatively new law provides actual legal tools to deal with negative economic outcomes (damages, loss of profits, etc.) that businesses or private people encounter or suffer from boycott measures, solely because of their affiliation or relation to the State of Israel.

    Regardless of any opinion of the act itself or its enactment, at the end of the day the act exists and may be used and exploited by filing civil lawsuits against anyone who called for or participated in a boycott. In that sense it creates a new civil wrong as part of the Israeli tort laws.

    Moreover, even a deliberate avoidance of economic, cultural or academic ties can raise liability for the avoider towards the business or ties avoided, as well as liability for anyone who has called for the boycott or publicly expressed support of it.

    The law goes even further – and also excludes the defense argument of “sufficient justification” and thus provides that anyone who has caused or led to a breach of a contract, by calling for a boycott, may be liable for damages, as well.

    As for the damages that can be claimed, after the adjustment to the law according to the Supreme Court ruling of 2015 (ruling that compensation must be awarded in correspondence with the actual damages or loss of profit caused, and cancelled the clause for penal compensation) – the entity that may sue for torts is the entity that suffered the damage and what can be sued for is the actual damage according to the regular Israeli torts law.

    The law also prohibits a person who calls for a boycott from participating in any public tender, but this is a different focus from the side of the state.

    It is worth mentioning  that the rationale for this legislation was also reviewed by the widely respected Israeli Supreme Court, that has strongly elaborated that such legislation is constitutional and, inter alia, that international entities and individuals such as the BDS movement (as opposed perhaps to states) should not be able to harm or interfere with international or domestic economic affairs without at least being accountable for the outcome of such, and that freedom of speech cannot be unlimitedly protected when it in fact calls for action (or for refraining from action)  that has an actual impact on another and is not simply an expression of an opinion.

    To date, it seems that the Magistrates and District Courts of Israel have yet to render judgments in actual cases based on the boycott act, indicating that the implementation of the act is still inchoate. However, it seems that instances and measures of boycotting are on the rise and the methods of boycotting are becoming increasingly overt, in a manner that is bound to lead to considerable litigation in the near future.

    Needless to say, issues of jurisdiction, and other aspects of private international law, or imposing jurisdiction on foreign players, are also yet to be resolved in reference to the emergence of lawsuits under the boycott law, but these will surely find their creative legal solutions with the actual submission of lawsuits concerning real life cases.

    Benjamin Leventhal

    Practice areas

    • Arbitration
    • Corporate
    • Litigation
    Contact Benjamin