In brief
An Israeli group developing a project abroad usually operates through a dedicated local company, and alongside its articles of association it needs a shareholders' agreement that sets out who decides what, what happens when a partner does not transfer money, how to break a deadlock and how to sell or leave. The agreement can choose the governing law and arbitration for the relationship between the partners, but the corporate-law matters of the company remain subject to the law of the country where it is registered, so the key mechanisms should also be anchored in the articles.
Key takeaways
- 1The articles of association of the local company and the agreement between the partners are two different documents. What is not anchored in the articles may not bind the company or third parties.
- 2A written decision matrix, separating day-to-day management, simple majority, special majority and unanimity, prevents most disputes before they start.
- 3A capital call without a clear mechanism for a partner who has not paid is the point at which groups break apart. Dilution, a priority loan or suspension of rights should be set in advance.
- 4Deadlock mechanisms such as the "Russian roulette" favour the partner with liquidity. In a group with unequal economic power, it is worth considering alternatives.
- 5You can choose the governing law and arbitration for the contractual relationship between the partners, but corporate-law questions remain under the law of the company's country, and some of them fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts there.
Most projects of Israelis abroad do not start with a single developer. They start with three friends, two brothers, an investor and a developer, or a group of five partners, each bringing something different: money, construction experience, connections in the target country or time to manage. At this stage everyone agrees on everything, so it seems possible to make do with the standard articles of association of the local company and a handshake.
This guide explains what should be in the founders' agreement, or by its professional name the shareholders' agreement, of an Israeli group developing a real estate project abroad. It is general and does not refer to a specific country, because the logic is similar in Romania, Greece, Cyprus, Bulgaria or the USA. Every country has local rules that override the agreement, and these are checked with a local lawyer.
Why do you need a shareholders' agreement when the company has articles of association?
Because the articles of association and the shareholders' agreement do different jobs. The articles are the company's public document, registered with the local companies registry and limited to what local law allows to be written in them. The shareholders' agreement is a private contract between the partners, more detailed, and is not disclosed to third parties.
The problem starts when the two documents do not speak to each other. If the agreement provides that a decision to take a loan requires the consent of all the partners, but the articles authorise the director to sign alone, the local bank will rely on the articles. The partner who did not agree will be able to sue the other partners under the agreement, but the loan has already been taken. So the key mechanisms, such as a special majority, restrictions on share transfers and appointment rights, are also anchored in the articles, to the extent local law permits.
There is also a question of governing law. In the European Union, the Rome I Regulation, which determines which law applies to contracts, does not apply to questions governed by company law, such as incorporation, the internal organisation of the company and its winding up. In simple terms: you can agree that the contractual relationship between you will be subject to Israeli law, but how a valid general meeting resolution is adopted, and what is required to issue shares, will be determined by the law of the country where the company is registered.
Who decides what? A decision matrix
The short answer: every decision in the project needs an address and a majority defined in advance. A decision matrix is a table that sets out, for each type of decision, who may make it and by what majority. It is a simple tool for preventing disputes, because it settles most arguments before they arise.
| Type of decision | Examples | Customary approval level |
|---|---|---|
| Day-to-day management | Payments within an approved budget, small engagements, reports to the authorities | The director or the managing partner |
| Material operational decisions | Approving the annual budget, choosing an architect, exceeding the budget beyond a set percentage | Board of directors or a simple majority of the shareholders |
| Strategic decisions | Acquiring land, signing the main contractor agreement, taking a loan and granting security, the sales price list and changes to it | Special majority, for example 75% |
| Change in the capital structure | Capital call, issuing shares, admitting a new partner, amending the articles | High special majority or unanimity |
| Related-party transactions | Engaging a construction, marketing or management company of one of the partners | Approval of the partners who have no personal interest |
| Exit decisions | Selling the project as a whole, a block sale, winding up the company | Unanimity or a high special majority, subject to a drag-along mechanism |
Pay particular attention to the row on related-party transactions. In Israeli groups it is common for one of the partners to also be the contractor, the marketer or the project manager, receiving management fees or an extra share of the profit. There is nothing wrong with this, but the agreement should set out in advance the remuneration, the performance metrics and the way to replace that partner if they are not met, and exclude that partner from voting on all of these.

What happens when a partner does not transfer their share in a capital call?
This is the question on which groups break apart, so the answer should be written down before it is asked. In a development project, additional money will almost always be needed: a delay in the permit, rising material costs, a bank's equity requirement. If the agreement only says "the partners will transfer funds as needed", you have no tool against a partner who does not transfer.
A reasonable capital call mechanism includes four components: who is authorised to issue a call and by what majority; a cumulative cap on each partner's commitment, so that no one commits to an open-ended amount; written notice with a defined transfer date; and what happens to whoever has not met it. The last component has several options, which are sometimes combined:
- Dilution. The partners who transferred receive additional shares, and the share of the partner who did not transfer shrinks. The critical question is at what value. Dilution at nominal value or at a discounted value is designed to make the partner transfer on time, but you need to check that local law permits it and that it will not be considered an unreasonable penalty.
- Priority loan. Another partner makes up the amount as a loan to the company or to the defaulting partner, at a defined interest rate, and it is repaid before any distribution of profits.
- Suspension of rights. The defaulting partner loses voting rights or appointment rights until they make up their share.
- Purchase option. The other partners may buy that partner's shares at a discounted price set in advance.
In some countries, issuing shares requires a general meeting resolution, a step before a notary and registration with the companies registry, and the shareholders have a statutory pre-emption right on the issue. A dilution mechanism written into the agreement without checking these steps may get stuck exactly when it is needed. It is worth attaching powers of attorney and pre-prepared resolutions to the agreement, to the extent local law allows.
What is the difference between a right of first refusal, drag-along and tag-along?
All three deal with the same question: what happens when someone wants to sell shares. A right of first refusal protects the group from an outside partner, a drag-along right protects the majority from a minority blocking a sale, and a tag-along right protects the minority from a sale that leaves it behind.
| Mechanism | What it provides | What to watch for |
|---|---|---|
| Right of first refusal or first offer (ROFR/ROFO) | A partner who wants to sell first offers to the other partners, or lets them match an offer from an outside buyer | Short and clear deadlines, what happens if only some of the partners exercise, whether it also applies to a transfer to a company controlled by the partner |
| Drag-along | A defined majority selling its shares to an outside buyer may require all the others to sell on the same terms | The majority threshold, a minimum price, a buyer who is not a related party, the same terms and the same consideration for everyone, limiting the representations the minority gives |
| Tag-along | When a majority sells, the minority may join and sell on the same terms | From what percentage of shares sold it applies, whether the buyer must buy from everyone, the same consideration per share |
| Lock-up | A prohibition on transferring shares for a defined period, for example until completion of construction | Alignment with the bank's requirements, since the bank usually restricts a change of control in the loan agreement |
In a project financed by a bank loan, every share transfer is in practice also subject to the loan agreement. Banks customarily require their consent to a change of ownership or control, and sometimes also a pledge over the company's shares. So the mechanisms in the shareholders' agreement should be drafted so that they do not contradict what you sign with the lender.
How do you break a deadlock between partners?
Deadlock occurs when two equal partners, or two groups, cannot reach a decision the project needs. The agreement needs a tiered path: first escalation between the management teams, then mediation or expert determination, and only at the end a separation mechanism.
| Mechanism | How it works | Advantage | Disadvantage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Escalation and mediation | A meeting of senior managers, and if there is no agreement, a mediator within a set period | Preserves the project and the relationship | Does not guarantee a decision |
| Expert determination | A professional question, such as the budget or the timetable, is decided by an independent engineer or valuer | Fast and professional | Suitable only for technical questions |
| Casting vote | A chair or a specific partner decides on defined matters | Simple | Transfers effective control to one side |
| Russian roulette (Shotgun) | One partner names a price, and the other must choose: buy at that price or sell at it | Forces a fair price | Favours whoever has cash available |
| Sale to a third party or winding up | If there is no decision, the project or the company is sold | Final | May take place at a bad time in the market |
Russian roulette looks egalitarian, but in a group where one partner has liquidity and the other does not, it allows the stronger partner to name a low price knowing that the weaker one will not be able to buy. If that is the situation in your group, consider another mechanism or a longer financing period for whoever chooses to buy.
What happens when a partner leaves, dies or divorces?
A development project lasts years, and during those years life happens. A good agreement addresses these events in advance, so that the project does not stop because of them:
- Death. Whether the heirs step into the partner's shoes, or the partners have an option to buy the shares at a value determined by an agreed mechanism.
- Divorce. Shares registered in the name of one spouse may be considered joint property under the law that applies to the matrimonial property regime. It is worth providing that a transfer to a former spouse is subject to a right of first refusal.
- Insolvency of a partner. A partner's creditors may try to enforce against that partner's shares. The agreement can give the partners a purchase option in such a case.
- A managing partner who leaves. When the partner managing the project leaves, the distinction between leaving in justified circumstances (Good leaver) and a breach (Bad leaver) determines whether that partner keeps the extra share of the profit.
Which governing law and which forum should you choose?
For the contractual relationship between the partners, you can usually choose the governing law, and Israeli groups often choose Israeli law and arbitration in Israel. This is convenient, but it has two limits worth knowing.
The first limit is corporate law, already mentioned: questions such as the validity of a general meeting resolution or the issue of shares are determined by the law of the company's country. The second limit is jurisdiction. In the European Union, Regulation 1215/2012 gives the courts of the country where the company has its seat exclusive jurisdiction in proceedings concerning the nullity, dissolution or winding up of a company, and the validity of the decisions of its organs. In these matters, arbitration in Israel will not replace the local court.
For everything else, arbitration is an effective tool. Israel, Romania, Greece, Cyprus, Bulgaria and the USA are all parties to the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, so an arbitral award given in Israel is generally enforceable in these countries, subject to the exceptions in the Convention. In the arbitration clause, set the seat of arbitration, the language, the number of arbitrators, the institutional rules if any, and the option to apply to a local court for urgent interim relief.
What should you check on the Israeli side?
Israeli residents who hold shares in a foreign company may be required to report to the Israel Tax Authority, for example on Form 150, a declaration of holding in a foreign resident body of persons. In addition, you should check with an accountant how dividends and profits from the sale will be taxed in Israel, and how credit will be given for tax paid in the project country under the relevant tax treaty. It is worth doing this check before deciding whether the partners hold the shares directly or through a company.
Checklist before signing the founders' agreement
- An agreed business plan, including the capital each partner commits to and a cumulative cap on capital calls.
- A full decision matrix, and a check that the special majorities are also anchored in the articles to the extent local law allows.
- A capital call mechanism with a clear consequence for a partner who has not transferred, after a local check that it is enforceable.
- A right of first refusal, drag-along and tag-along, and a lock-up period coordinated with the lender's requirements.
- A tiered deadlock mechanism that fits the actual distribution of liquidity among the partners.
- Provisions for death, divorce, insolvency and the departure of a managing partner.
- Rules for related-party transactions and for the remuneration of a managing partner.
- The order of distribution of funds on exit: repayment of shareholder loans, return of capital and profit.
- Choice of law, an arbitration clause, and a prevailing language if there is a Hebrew version and a version in the local language or in English.
- An Israeli check of reporting and taxation before deciding on the holding structure.
How do we accompany a founders' group?
We start with the conversation nobody wants to have at the beginning: what will happen if something goes wrong. From it we build the decision matrix, the capital mechanism and the exit mechanisms, and then coordinate them with the articles and with local law together with lawyers licensed in the project country. It is better to finish this work before committing to the land and before approaching the bank.
This article is general information as of October 2026 and is not legal or tax advice for a specific case. Corporate law varies from country to country, and before signing a shareholders' agreement it is worth consulting a lawyer and an accountant who work only for you.
Frequently asked questions
Are a company's articles of association enough to regulate a partnership in a project abroad?
Usually not. The articles are a public document limited by what local law allows, and they generally do not regulate capital calls, deadlock, exit and related-party transactions. These are regulated in a shareholders' agreement, and the key mechanisms are also anchored in the articles.
Can the shareholders' agreement be made subject to Israeli law when the company is registered in Romania or Greece?
For the contractual relationship between the partners, usually yes. But corporate-law questions, such as the validity of general meeting resolutions or the issue of shares, are determined by the law of the country where the company is registered, and in the European Union some proceedings on these matters fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the local courts.
What is a drag-along right?
A right of a defined majority of the shareholders, selling its shares to an outside buyer, to require the other shareholders to sell on the same terms. It allows a whole company to be sold without a minority blocking the sale. It is worth setting a majority threshold, a minimum price and equal terms for everyone.
What do you do with a partner who does not transfer money when the project needs additional capital?
You act under the capital call mechanism in the agreement, if there is one: dilution, a priority loan, suspension of rights or a purchase option. If there is no such mechanism, the options are more limited and depend on local law, so it is set before you start.
Read next · 7 min readWhy a Property Transaction Abroad Needs a Lawyer Who Knows Cross-Border Deals: What the Lawyer Checks, and What Happens Without OneBuying property abroad versus in Israel: local law, a neutral notary, limits on foreigners, Israeli tax and reporting, and what a cross-border lawyer checks.Read the guideSources
- EUR-Lex - Regulation (EC) 593/2008 (Rome I) on the law applicable to contractual obligations
- EUR-Lex - Regulation (EU) 1215/2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition of judgments in civil and commercial matters
- UNCITRAL - Status of the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (1958)
- Israel Tax Authority - Form 150, declaration of holding in a foreign resident body of persons







