Selected projects

In 2022, the Commissioner of Competition approved a transaction in which Azrieli Group acquired 100% of the shares of Mall Hayam in Eilat and the land on which the mall is located. Our office accompanied the companies in the merger review process by the Competition Authority. The competition authority examined, among other things, whether the addition of Mall Hayam to Azrieli’s malls portfolio will allow it to possess favorable contract terms from retailers who rent in several malls simultaneously, and whether the merger will enable Azrieli to set rental terms that will harm competing malls. After a thorough investigation, the supervisor decided to approve the merger, as there was no significant concern of harm to competition.

In 2018, the Deputy Director-General of competiton blocked the merger between Bank Mizrahi and the Union Bank (Bank Igud). Our office accompanied the merger process from its beginning with the Competition Authority until its approval by the Competition Tribunal. Mr. Perlman served as an expert witness on behalf of the parties. The expert opinion preparation included, among other things, an econometric analysis of customer transfers between banks in Israel, which was assessed by the Competition Authority and was submitted to our examination in the Information Room of the Authority as part of the appeal. Our examination found that there were hundreds of thousands of discrepancies between the number of bank accounts according to the Deputy Commissioner's examination and the data reported by the banks according to the instructions of the Bank of Israel. The Court determined that these discrepancies raise questions about the findings of the Authority's examination. The ruling stated that the market definition in the Deputy Commissioner’s decision raises significant difficulties and cannot be used, and that the examination of transfers between banks, which was a central issue in the opposition to the merger, raises difficulties in the conceptual, applicative, and methodological levels.

In 2016, a request for approval of a class action lawsuit was filed against six international truck manufacturers regarding an alleged harm from a cartel in sales to Israel. As part of the case, expert opinions were submitted on behalf of the six manufacturers. The expert opinion included an econometric analysis, which examined the prices of tens of thousands of trucks sold by the manufacturers to importers in Israel, and compared prices between the period in which the claimants alleged that harm was caused and the period thereafter (During and After Analysis). The regression equations in the econometric model included a dummy variable for the period under examination, as well as explanatory variables from the supply and demand sides, which were intended to neutralize the influence of other economic factors that could have affected prices during the period under examination. The econometric analysis concluded that there was no empirical basis for the claim of the existence of harm from a cartel among the international truck manufacturers in sales to Israel.

In 2020, the Director-General of Competition approved a merger between Cellcom and Golan Telecom, after opposing a previous deal between the parties in 2016. Our office accompanied the merger process, including preparing an expert opinion that was submitted to the Authority, assisting in preparing merger notices and responding to data requests from the Authority. The expert opinion analyzed and found that there was a high level of competition between the cellular service providers, which was reflected in customer transfers between companies, and the changes that occurred compared to the situation in 2016. At the time of the merger approval, the Authority found, as our opinion also suggested, that competition is embedded in the cellular services market and the market is characterized by low barriers to entry and high rates of transfers between providers, and that significant improvements in competition in the market have occurred since 2016.

In 2019, the district court rejected a request to approve a class action lawsuit regarding the excessive pricing of cocoa powder. Mr. Perlman served as an expert witness for Strauss Group. In the course of the case, we submitted a preliminary and a supplementary expert opinion, arguing that the sugar market in Israel is characterized by effective competition, with no entry, expansion or import barriers, and is characterized by multiple competitors, brands and prices, and that Strauss Group does not hold significant market power. We also pointed out numerous errors in the claimant’s expert opinions. The verdict found, among other things, that Strauss Group indeed holds limited market power in relation to cocoa powder, and that the claimant failed to establish evidence to support the claim that Strauss Group’s prices were excessive and unfair.

Over the last decade, dozens of requests for approval of class action lawsuits were filed in Israeli courts, alleging excessive and unfair pricing by monopolies. Our office prepared expert opinions on overpricing for a wide range of clients, including Tnuva. Here are some examples:

In 2014, two requests were filed to the district court for approval of class action lawsuits against Tnuva, one regarding excessive pricing of 5% white cheese (fromage blanc( and 38% sweet cream and the other regarding excessive pricing of 32% sweet cream. Mr. Perlman served as an expert witness on behalf of Tnuva. In the expert opinion, we presented to the court the fundamental background of the issue of monopolies setting excessive and unfair prices in the US, in the European Commission and in Israel, and applied them to the circumstances of the case. We also pointed out many errors and contradictions in the calimant’s expert opinion. The court rejected both requests for approval of the class action lawsuits, stating that the claimant did not prove that Tnuva sold the products at a high price level which was unfair.

In 2018, a lawsuit was filed against Sunfrost claiming excessive pricing of their frozen vegetables. Mr. Perlman served as an expert witness on behalf of the defendant. In our expert opinion, based on Sunfrost’s real data, we showed that its profitability and prices are reasonable and are not excessive. In 2020, the district court approved the claimant's request to withdraw from the case. As stated in the ruling, after the claimant was presented with Sunfrost’s real data, to avoid proceeding with the litigation it was deemed necessary to provide further clarifications and additional data. Following the judge's recommendation, direct negotiations were held between the parties, during which Sunfrost provided additional data and clarifications, including confirmation by an auditor regarding the accuracy of the data. As a result, the claimant concluded that there was no basis to continue the proceedings and withdrew from the case.

In 2014, a request was filed to the district court for approval of a class action lawsuit against Tnuva regarding the excessive price of cottage cheese. Mr. Perlman served as an expert witness on behalf of Tnuva. The request was approved as a class action, and Mr. Perlman also served as an expert witness during the lawsuit stage. In the expert opinion presented to the court, we outlined the fundamental background regarding the issue of excessive pricing and the relevant economic tests. We explained the need to apply a two-stage test, regarding both excessiveness and fairness, and we implemented it to the circumstances of the case. After the district court approved the lawsuit, the Supreme Court overturned the decision in 2023 and determined that indeed a two-stage test should be applied and that, considering the circumstances, the price of cottage cheese was not excessive and unfair.