The education axis in Hod Hasharon. Imaging: C. Adi Ad Building
Last April, a bidding process took place on multi-owner land in Hod Hasharon. These are two dunams at the corner of Ramatim and Magdiel streets, in the main business area of Hod Hasharon, which is currently undergoing an accelerated process of urban renewal, adjacent to the planned metro line station, and within walking distance of municipal buildings, Heichal Hatarbut and Beit Yad Labanim. A 22-story building can be erected on the lot, which includes about 9,000 square meters of offices and commercial space. There are currently four old buildings on the lot, with a built-up area of about 750 square meters.
The receiver, Adv. Avichai Vardi, issued an invitation to bid for the purchase of the property, following which a bidding process took place in March between three bidders: Respondent 1, Reality Real Estate Investment Fund; Applicant 1, Benjamin Zigdon Real Estate Entrepreneurship and Construction Ltd.; Kardan Real Estate Fund. The bidding was conducted in the form of an “English sale”, with the opening price set at NIS 54 million, and each participant was entitled to increase the offer by NIS 250,000 at a time. NIS, while the Reality Fund and the Benjamin Zigdon Group continued to bid for the submission of the winning bid of NIS 81.75 million by the Reality Fund and the retirement of the second group.
More in-
After the win, the Reality Foundation announced that it intends to promote a new program in collaboration with the adjacent plots, while increasing building rights in order to set up a mixed-use project that will also include housing.
Ice has now learned that one of the teams competing in the bidding process, Benjamin Zigdon Real Estate and Construction Ltd., decided the next day after the bidding ended that it wanted to offer NIS 84 million for the land, and demanded, backed by some landowners, to accept the Her bid and transfer the winnings to her.
The Company’s contention was that a bidding proceeding taking place as part of an unequal partnership liquidation proceeding to formulate a binding transaction, since no binding agreement had been reached by the court, and that the company’s owners and management had stayed abroad in a way that did not allow it to make an informed decision. The reality fund refused to demand further bidding, while the owners supported accepting the improved offer.The district court denied the request, approved the sale of the property to the reality fund and ordered the receiver to sign the sale agreement with it.
At this point, the company raised its offer to NIS 90 million and once again applied to the district court for an urgent request to order the receiver to hold another bidding process and was rejected again. The company did not give up and appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that it was given a short time to prepare for bidding, and that its current offer, 10% higher than the offer received, serves the owner’s property right and justifies harm to the public interest in the finality of the proceedings.
Judge Ofer Grosskopf rejected the request, stating that the principle of finality of the procedure is of great importance and can override the principle of carrying the consideration, and that accepting the appeal may deter potential participants in future bidding.
“Except in exceptional cases, the moment when the bidding director” hits the hammer “signifies the termination of the bidding, and generally no further offers received after that are taken into account. The schedule for conducting the bidding process was known to all participants, Receiver. The application before me does not include special reasons that justify deviating from the manner of bidding determined by the receiver, and allowing new bids to be submitted after the bidding process has come to an end. “By the petitioner before deciding to withdraw from the bidding in view of the submission of the winning bid. Doc, the court’s authority to intervene in proceedings such as DA is intended to allow for distortions that occurred in the bidding process; .
Advocate Zvi Shuv, an expert in real estate, planning and construction, says that the Supreme Court has ruled that once the bidding is over it is not possible to submit new bids. The considerations considered by the court include that a late initiation of a completed bidding process may deter potential participants in similar proceedings that will take place in the future, and discourage them from investing time and effort in bidding, for fear that their winnings will be canceled later. Moreover, even bidders who choose to participate in the bidding may refrain from submitting their best bid during the bidding process, keeping in mind that in case the bid they submit is not enough, they will be given another opportunity to submit an upgraded bid at a later stage. “The consideration is not the highest consideration, but the consideration of certainty must be taken into account, which is no less important, and in this case the certainty outweighs the consideration, since the difference in proposals was not substantial, so it would have been better to keep the order and not reopen it.”
Comments on the article(0):
Your response has been received and will be published subject to system policies.
Thanks.
For a new response
Your response was not sent due to a communication problem, please try again.
Return to comment