exhibit_99-1.htm

Exhibit 99.1

Presentation to ISS

November 18, 2015

Presenters:

Dr. Ofer Borovsky, Chairman of Nominating Committee, Independent
& External Director

Irit Ben-Dov, Independent & External Director

Yos Shiran, CEO

Disclaimer

These slides and the accompanying oral presentation may contain statements relating to current
expectations, estimates, forecasts and projections about future events that are "forward-looking
statements" as defined in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These forward-
looking statements generally relate to the Company’s plans, objectives and expectations for future
operations, including its projected results of operations and the expected timing of expanding its
manufacturing facilities. These forward-looking statements are based upon management’s current
estimates and projections of future results or trends. Actual results may differ materially from those
projected as a result of certain risks and uncertainties. These factors include, but are not limited to:
the strength of the home renovation and construction sectors; economic conditions within any of our
key existing markets; actions by our competitors; changes in raw material prices, particularly
polymer resins and pigments; fluctuations in currency exchange rates; the success of our expansion
efforts in the United States; the outcome of silicosis claims and the claim by our former quartz
processor; unpredictability of seasonal fluctuations in revenues; delays in manufacturing if our
suppliers are unable to supply raw materials; and other factors discussed under the heading “Risk
Factors” in our most recent annual report on Form 20-F and other documents filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission. These forward-looking statements are made only as of the
date hereof, and the Company undertakes no obligation to update or revise the forward-looking
statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.

Part I:
Caesarstone’s
Business

Company Overview

• 27 years of leadership

• Strong premium brand associated with
quality, innovation and excellent service

• 12% global market share (by volume)

• Distribution network across over 50
countries

• Diversified revenue with approximately
55% of revenue from North America

Quartz Market Opportunity

• 2014 market penetration: 10% by sales

• Fastest growing surfaces category (’99 -
’14)

• Grew at 15.7% CAGR

• From 2% penetration in 1999

• Capturing high % of market share in key
markets

Global Leader in the Attractive Quartz Surface Market

Source: Freedonia, February 2015

Quartz is the
fastest
growing
category

Quartz
10%

Growth

Development

Maturity

Dwindling

Solid

Surface
25%

Granite
27%

Marble

Strong Performance Through the Cycle
($mm)

Key Investment Highlights

• Premium brand with superior customer value proposition

• Leading manufacturer in high growth quartz surfaces market

• Strong, diversified global distribution platform

• World-class marketing, R&D and manufacturing capabilities

• Proven track record of growth and product innovation

• Experienced management team under whose leadership Caesarstone
(“Caesarstone” or the “Company”) has grown significantly and continues to grow

• Attractive financial profile

Caesarstone’s Superior Value Proposition

• Premium product with unique
combination of high quality and long-
lasting beauty

• Trend-setting innovation with top
design

• High service level with
comprehensive sales and marketing
approach

• Caesarstone’s quartz surfaces are
used as countertops in more than 50
countries

Quartz received the highest overall
score among countertop materials
- Consumer Reports Magazine, July 2013

Leading Global Footprint with Diverse Revenue Mix

Singapore

Canada

USA

Australia

Direct distribution

Indirect distribution

Positioned to Capture Growth from Quartz Penetration

$81BN Global Countertop Market Material
Segmentation (2014 sales)

2014 Quartz Share of Countertop Market

by Region (by volume)

Source: Freedonia, February 2015; Company estimates

Note: Quartz share based on value

The U.S. Remains a Significant Opportunity

Caesarstone continues to execute on its go-to-market strategy in the U.S. driven by
increasing quartz penetration

Source: Freedonia, February 2015; Company estimates

1 Calculation applies 1% increase in quartz penetration (by volume) based on 2014 total market volume and 2014 quartz prices as provided by Freedonia February 2015 report

2 HousingEconomics.com , February 2015

3 Home Improvement Research Institute, March 2015

1,001k

2014

2016E

1,400k

U.S. New Housing Starts2

U.S. Home Improvement Product Sales3

Caesarstone U.S. Revenue Performance ($mm)

U.S. Market Penetration (by volume)

1% increase in
penetration ≈ $350mm1

21%

42%

50%

YoY organic growth

23%

Differentiated Approach

• Unique advanced technological capabilities

• Continued investment in IP and know-how protected products

• Product superiority with zero defect policy

• High standards (ISO, Leed, NSF SCS, Greenguard)

• High throughput and lean approach

• Binder chemistry and formulation optimization

World Class Manufacturing and R&D Capabilities

Current Facilities

Proven Track Record of Growth and Innovation

• Proven ability to enter and develop key markets

• Continued introduction of innovative new products

1987

1999

2006

2009

2010

1987
Israel

2009
South

East Asia

Market Entry

New
Products

2003
Concetto

1998

1987
Classico

2009
Motivo

2010
Supremo

1999
U.S.

2003
Canada &
South Africa

2003

1988
Europe

1998
Australia

2006
China

2008
Australia

2010
Canada

2011
U.S. &
Singapore

Direct
Distribution

1987
Israel

Manufacturing

1987
1st plant

2005
2nd plant

(3rd line)

2007
4th line

2002

2nd line

2015

History of execution with a clear strategy to capture future growth

2012
Super
Natural

2012

U.S. plant

6th, 7th lines

2011
Brazil

Q3 2014
5th line

Strong Growth and Profitability

Revenue ($mm)

Adj. EBITDA and % Margin ($mm)

Adj. Net Income and % Margin 1 ($mm)

Gross Profit and % Margin ($mm)

YoY

Growth:

30.6%

22.2%

20.2%

14.2%

33.2%

45.6%

27.3%

22.2%

YoY

Growth:

YoY

Growth:

16.4%

46.8%

32.1%

18.2%

16.8%

85.9%

45.3%

26.6%

YoY

Growth:

¹ Adjusted net income attributable to controlling interest

25.5%

17.0%

27.1%

29.0%

Quarterly Financial Performance

• Industry characterized by seasonality with strong Q3 and
weaker Q1 annually

• Consistent year-over-year revenue growth across quarters

• Robust Adjusted EBITDA growth year-over-year despite
volatility in raw material costs, exchange rates fluctuations
and U.S. manufacturing unabsorbed/start-up costs

Revenue ($mm)

Adj. EBITDA ($mm)

13.6%

27.0%

17.4%

4.6%

21.6%

30.7%

11.0%

14.2%

17.9%

30.4%

9.9%

13.9%

36.9%

23.3%

10.4%

YoY Growth

’11-’12 28.5%

‘12-’13 13.5%

‘13-’14 23.5%

‘14-’15 14.2%

18.2%

18.4%

42.4%

0.8%

22.4%

47.1%

16.1%

YoY Growth

’11-’12 18.9%

‘12-’13 28.9%

‘13-’14 25.4%

‘14-’15 15.3%

Cash Flow Supports Future Growth

• 5th production line at Bar-Lev cost $24mm
(1st phase operational in Q4’13, 2nd phase in Q2’14)

• Strong cash flow generation and growth enabling
$20mm dividend distribution in 2013 and 2014

• Ability to invest in future growth opportunities, both
organic and via potential acquisitions

Strong and robust free cash flow generation will support investment in future growth

Capital Expenditure ($mm)

Adj. EBITDA Less Capital Expenditure ($mm)

% of
revenue:

3.4%

2.8%

19.3%

4.5%

19.3%

22.6%

6.7%

18.9%

% of
revenue:

7.7%

18.0%

2015 Year-to-Date Financials

• Revenue growth of 11.5% YoY, 22.3% on a constant currency basis:

§ U.S. up 22.7% despite slower housing growth, reflecting continued Quartz conversion

§ Australia up 21.3% on a constant currency basis, driven by our new products success (new
Calacatta and Statuario) and strong growth in new housing completions

§ Canada up 38.2% on a constant currency basis driven by continued strong performance in
general and the positive impact of IKEA Canada

§ Israel up 3.9% on a constant currency basis

§ Europe up 23.0% and ROW up 20.6% both on a constant currency basis

• Gross margin of 40.8%, down 140 basis points

§ Unfavorable exchange rates and start-up costs related to the new U.S. manufacturing facility are
partially offset by positive differentiated product mix and raw material costs (most notably
polyester but also quartz)

• Q3’15 included a non-cash expense of $4.7M related to silicosis claims, reflecting estimate of our
total uninsured exposure (recorded under Operating Expenses and adjusted out in non-GAAP
measures below)

• Adjusted EBITDA grew 7.7% to $95.2M

§ Margin of 25.6% vs. 26.5% in 2014, reflecting FX impact and start-up cost of U.S. manufacturing

• Adjusted Net Income of $64.0M; 4.1% above last year

§ Margin of 17.2% vs. 18.4% last year

§ Diluted EPS of $1.80 vs. $1.74

Caesarstone’s Growth Prospects

• Strengthen the brand through investment in strong R&D and continue developing
innovative new colors, designs and textures

• Increase awareness of our premium brand by continuing to focus on quality,
service and implementation of our proven marketing approach

Premium

Brand

• Execute on the U.S. and Canadian opportunity, as well as grow our footprint in
other markets

• Continue to expand direct distribution coverage in the U.S.

Market
Penetration

• Extend our global presence through entry into new geographies and increase our
reach in recently-entered markets

• Find new markets that meet our criteria of having existing demand for stone
products, strong economic growth rates and high GDP per capita

Global
Footprint

Selective
Acquisitions

• Pursue selective acquisitions of manufacturers in order to build scale, enhance
our marketing/distribution, accelerate global expansion

Part II: 2015
Annual General
Meeting

Introduction

Summary

• Caesarstone’s board has proposed a board slate of 9 directors to be approved by the Company’s
shareholders, including 3 members of Kibbutz Sdot-Yam (the “Kibbutz”) and 6 independent directors - one
U.S.- trained director, two external directors under Israeli law and three additional independent directors

• The board composition appropriately reflects the Kibbutz’s ownership of 32.4%

• The Kibbutz’s request to nominate directors was considered by the Company’s nominating committee, as
part of the vetting process

• The Kibbutz’s requirements in its current campaign, which is objected by the Company’s board, were not
raised by the Kibbutz in its discussions with the nominating committee during the vetting process

• The Kibbutz’s authorized representatives informed the nominating committee that it was the Kibbutz's
intention to regain control of the board, after it lost such control following the sale of the Company’s shares
by the Kibbutz and its ownership decline below 50%

• Caesarstone has adopted strong corporate governance practices, including a majority independent board,
and an independent audit committee, compensation committee and nominating committee

• The Kibbutz has a divergent set of motives and concerns compared to public investors and it suffers from
internal infighting

History of the Kibbutz’s Ownership and Management of
Caesarstone

• The Kibbutz founded Caesarstone in 1987. The Company was managed until 2008 by
Kibbutz members, and commencing 2009 it has been managed by the current non-
affiliated CEO, with a majority of non-affiliated management

• The Company was 100% owned by the Kibbutz until Tene (a private equity firm)
purchased a 30% interest starting in 2006

• The Kibbutz owned 54.5% of the Company after its IPO in 2012

• The Kibbutz’s ownership fell below 50% in June 2014 after two follow-on offerings in
which the Kibbutz sold shares worth almost $300 million

• The Kibbutz currently owns 32.4% of the Company’s shares

• What is a kibbutz?

§ A kibbutz (plural: kibbutzim) is a self-governed community of members who share
certain social ideals and economic interests on a communal basis

§ Located in Israel and originally primarily agricultural in orientation, many kibbutzim
now operate manufacturing or industrial businesses

§ All of the members of the Kibbutz continue to jointly own all of the assets of the
Kibbutz, including its shares in the Company

• 72 of the Kibbutz’s 400 members, or 11% of the Company’s Israeli workforce, are Kibbutz
members

• Two of the Company’s facilities in Israel are located on lands leased from the Kibbutz, one
of which is in the area of the Kibbutz itself

• The Company has various long-term agreements with the Kibbutz, related to services
provided by the Kibbutz to the Company, manpower, etc.

Caesarstone’s Relationship with the Kibbutz

The Kibbutz Seeks to Control the Company’s Board

• If the two new Kibbutz nominees are elected, five out of nine board seats will be held by
Kibbutz members or its nominees

§ Three Company-nominated directors are Kibbutz members holding leadership
positions in the Kibbutz

§ The Kibbutz is opposing two Company-nominated independent directors and proposing
two of its own nominees in their stead

• The Kibbutz stated in its November 3 notice that it reserved the right to propose additional
candidates if the Company increased the size of the board of directors to more than nine
members

• In discussions held between the Company’s nominating committee and the Kibbutz’s
representatives (one of whom is currently a director of the Company and one of whom is
proposed to be elected as a director), the Kibbutz expressed interest in regaining control of
the board and acting as the owner of the Company

Reasons for the

Company’s Position Regarding the
Director Elections

Following the Recent Resignation of Two Directors, the
Company’s Board Needs Stability and Enrichment

• The Company’s board included 11 directors until September 2015, when two directors
(both of whom had been Kibbutz nominees) resigned over matters not related to the
Company’s disclosures or business

§These directors’ resignations occurred after an intentional attack initiated by a self-
identified short seller, which led to heightened volatility in the Company’s share price

• The Company’s independent nominating committee and a majority of the Company’s
independent board have decided that a board with nine members would be in the
Company’s and its shareholders’ best interests given the unwieldy nature of an 11-
person board

Following the Recent Resignation of Two Directors, the
Company’s Board Needs Stability and Enrichment
(cont’d)

• The Company’s independent nominating committee has proposed a balanced slate
comprised of new and tenured directors with a diverse set of skills, expertise and
backgrounds; this includes Kibbutz representatives, a well-qualified American
director, a clear, true majority of independents and a clearly independent chairman

• Ronald Kaplan, a new nominee for director who is the chairman of a U.S public company
and whose candidacy is supported by the Kibbutz, sent a letter to the Company stating his
view that the current campaign being undertaken by the Kibbutz does not serve a
productive purpose. He is expecting to serve only alongside the board nominees
proposed and vetted - like he was - by the nominating committee (Ronald Kaplan’s letter
is attached as an appendix to this presentation)

The Kibbutz Is Already Appropriately Represented on
the Board

• This level of representation is appropriate considering the Kibbutz holds 32.4% of the
Company’s shares

• Three out of nine directors proposed by the Company - Shachar Degani, Amihai Beer
and Amit Ben Zvi - were selected by the Kibbutz and approved by the Company’s
nominating committee and full board. These directors would represent the Kibbutz’s
proportionate one-third interest

• These director nominees are also Kibbutz members

• Shachar Degani and Amit Ben Zvi hold the most senior managerial positions in the
Kibbutz

• Amihai Beer serves as legal counsel to the Kibbutz

The Company Nominees Opposed by the Kibbutz Possess
Exactly the Characteristics the Kibbutz Claims Are Lacking
on the Board

• Despite proclaiming its desire to “reinforce” the board, the Kibbutz is opposing Yonatan
Melamed, a veteran independent director with eight years of impeccable service who
is also the nominee for chairman

• Despite proclaiming its desire to “refresh” the board, the Kibbutz is opposing Ofer
Tsimchi, an independent director who was only elected to the board in December
2014

• Additionally, both Yonatan Melamed and Ofer Tsimchi are highly skilled and
experienced executives and directors

We believe that the Kibbutz is seeking to control the Company’s board by
opposing the election of two independent directors recommended by the
Company and seeking the election of two hand-picked nominees that will
conform to the Kibbutz’s agenda

The Kibbutz’s Method of Proposing Candidates Runs
Counter to Notions of Good Governance

• The Company’s nomination process

§ Nominees for election to the Company’s board are selected by the Company’s
independent nominating committee and approved by the board

§ Given its representation, the Kibbutz had multiple opportunities to propose
candidates to the Company’s nominating committee

§ The Kibbutz notified the Company it intended to propose its alternate slate of directors
just hours before the Company’s third quarter earnings conference call

The Kibbutz’s Method of Proposing Candidates Runs
Counter to Notions of Good Governance (cont’d)

• The Kibbutz’s proposed candidates

§ The Kibbutz’s first alternate director nominee, Yitzhak Sharir, was vetted and was not
recommended by the nominating committee in 2014

§ The Company’s nominating committee has had no opportunity at all to vet the Kibbutz’s
second alternate director nominee, Amnon Dick, as the Kibbutz did not present him at
any point in the vetting process

§ Mr. Dick’s independence is questionable as he was until recently chairman of the board
at another company held by the Kibbutz

The Kibbutz’s Interests Are Not Aligned With Those of
the Company’s Public Shareholders

• The Kibbutz historically received significant ongoing cash from the Company prior to the
Company’s IPO. The Kibbutz has continued to seek substantial dividends from the
Company until very recently, irrespective of whether such dividends are beneficial to all
shareholders and without concern for potential differences in jurisdictional tax treatment of
dividend income between themselves and other public shareholders

• The Kibbutz has extracted almost $300 million of value from selling the Company’s
shares

• The Kibbutz is not a regular investor, but a unique social community with a divergent set of
motives and concerns that suffers from internal fights

The Kibbutz’s Interests Are Not Aligned With Those of
the Company’s Public Shareholders (cont’d)

• The Kibbutz is party to a series of related party agreements with the Company that
resulted in the payment of approximately $16 million to the Kibbutz in 2014. While these
agreements are subject to significant scrutiny under Israeli law due to shareholders, board
and audit committee approvals, they place the Kibbutz in a different position from that of
public shareholders

• The board has fulfilled its fiduciary duties for the benefit of all of its shareholders while
respecting the Kibbutz’s interests, relationship and history with the Company. This speaks to
effective checks and balances, a proper board composition and strong management

The Company’s Continued Attempts
to Engage the Kibbutz

The Company Has Endeavored to Engage With the
Kibbutz and Address Its Concerns

• The Company’s independent nominating committee held discussions with the
Kibbutz’s authorized representatives before calling the Company’s upcoming
annual general meeting

§ During these discussions the Kibbutz stated that it was interested in regaining
control of the board and acting as owner of the Company

§ The Kibbutz’s proposed nominees brought to the attention of the Company’s
independent nominating committee during those discussions were Kibbutz
members only; none of such Kibbutz’s nominees were independent directors
or U.S. resident directors

The Company Has Endeavored to Engage With the
Kibbutz and Address Its Concerns (cont’d)

• The Company has attempted to reach out to the Kibbutz since the Kibbutz launched its
proxy contest. Attempts to discuss the matter with the Kibbutz have been rejected
by the Kibbutz

§ These attempts include formal written communication to the Kibbutz’s lawyers which
identified inaccuracies and misstatements in the position statement published by the
Kibbutz and which proposed to set up a meeting with the Kibbutz’s representatives.
No answer of any kind has been received

• The Kibbutz has threatened the Company’s CEO and directors that by communicating
with Kibbutz members with respect to the annual general meeting, the Company has
somehow acted illegally and caused harm to the Kibbutz

• It has been brought to the Company’s attention that a significant number of the Kibbutz’s
members objects to the proxy battle initiated by the Kibbutz. Some of these Kibbutz
members asked to meet with the Company's CEO and independent directors, but the
Kibbutz demanded from the Company and its directors that such meetings not take place

Company’s Reference to the Kibbutz’s
Claims

Kibbutz’s Claim: the Company’s Management Opposed
the Election of an Independent Chairman

• The Company’s independent nominating committee and a majority of the Company’s
board decided it would be in best interests of Company for Maxim Ohana (affiliated
with the Kibbutz) to remain as chairman for one more term in order to transition a new
independent chairman

§ The nominating committee and the Board felt that Mr. Ohana’s service to the
Company was above reproach and, that he had always acted with integrity and in
the best interests of all of the Company’s shareholders

• The Kibbutz rejected the independent nominating committee’s proposal that Mr.
Ohana serve at least one more year during transition to an independent chairman. The
Kibbutz also requested that Mr. Ohana not stand for reelection

• The Kibbutz’s desire to end the service of Mr. Ohana as chairman is an example of
how infighting at the Kibbutz has adversely impacted the Company and how,
over the objections of the nominating committee, the Kibbutz has sought to replace
an individual who acted independently from the Kibbutz with one who will not do
so

Kibbutz’s Claim: the Company’s Management Opposed
the Election of an Independent Chairman (cont’d)

• Contrary to the Kibbutz’s claim, the Kibbutz never proposed that the chairman be an
independent director

• Given the events described above, the nominating committee and the board decided to
nominate Yonatan Melamed, a veteran independent director of the Company, as
chairman

§ Mr. Melamed is a highly skilled and experienced manager, director and chairman
of other companies in Israel

§ He has diligently and independently served on the Company’s board for the past
eight years

• If successful in opposing Mr. Melamed’s election, the Kibbutz hopes that the new
board, which will be practically controlled by the Kibbutz following the annual general
meeting, elect a chairman other than Mr. Melamed

Kibbutz’s Claim: the Drop in the Company’s Share Price
Means That the Kibbutz Should Take Control of the Board

• The Company experienced a drop in share price in 2015. The Company started the year
with a share price in the $60s range

• After rising to the low $70s range, the share price fell to a low $50s range in late August
after the Company slightly lowered guidance for revenues (but not Adjusted EBITDA) to
reflect the impact of foreign exchange and to reflect a slightly lower growth rate in the
United States compared to prior expectations

• Following a targeted attack based on misleading and false information by a short
seller the stock price decreased to the low $40s range in the first half of September

• The largest percentage decline in the stock, approximately 30%, then came in the period
from September 17 to September 29 when two directors nominated by the Kibbutz
(one of whom was affiliated with the Kibbutz and one of whom was independent)
resigned from the Company’s board and alarmed the market

Kibbutz’s Claim: the Drop in Company’s Share Price Means
That the Kibbutz Should Take Control of the Board (cont’d)

• The Company’s share price has recovered somewhat since September, driven in part by
record results for the third quarter of 2015

• Given the events described on the previous slide, the Company believes that the Kibbutz’s
initiative to regain control of the board has nothing to do with the drop in the Company’s
share price

• Furthermore, the drop in the Company’s share price should not be viewed as a
rationale for the Kibbutz to take further control of the board

Kibbutz’s Claim: There Are Serious Corporate Governance
Problems at the Company

• The Company has instituted strong corporate governance practices

§ The Company has had a majority independent board since December 2014

§ The Company has had an independent audit committee since its IPO, an
independent compensation committee since 2013 and an independent
nominating committee since September 2014

§ No members of management sit on the Company’s board.

• The Company is currently seeking to institute an independent chairman of the board

Kibbutz’s Claim: the Kibbutz’s Additional Influence
Would Promote Improved Governance at the Company

• The Kibbutz is already appropriately represented on the board of the Company given its
significant shareholding

• However, the Kibbutz’s involvement in the Company has not historically and has recently
been antithetical to good governance

§ The Kibbutz has taken inconsistent and unpredictable positions. The Kibbutz’s
representatives have supported putting items in the agenda for a shareholder vote (i.e.,
the Company’s compensation policy) and then subsequently voted against them at the
shareholder meeting

§ The Kibbutz’s has engaged an outside law firm to write threatening letters to the
Company’s CEO and directors regarding their discussions with Kibbutz members

Questions?

Thank You

Appendices:

• Ronald Kaplan’s Letter

• Non-GAAP Financial
Reconciliations

(1) Consists of our portion of the results of operations of Caesarstone USA prior to its acquisition by us in May 2011.

(2) Consists of charges to cost of goods sold for the difference between the higher carrying cost of the inventory of two of the Company's subsidiaries- Caesarstone USA's inventory at the time of its acquisition and
inventory that was purchased from its distributor and Caesarstone Australia Pty Limited's inventory that was purchased from its distributor, and the standard cost of the Company's inventory-which adversely
impacts the Company's gross margins until such inventory is sold. The majority of the inventory acquired from Caesarstone USA was sold in 2011, and the majority of the inventory acquired from the Australian
distributor was sold in 2012.

(3) In 2013, share-based compensation consists of expenses related to the stock options granted to employees of the Company. In 2014, share-based compensation consists primarily of expenses related to the
stock options granted to employees of the Company, as well as expenses related to share-based rights granted during the period.

(4) Relates to a change in estimate for the value of inventory following the implementation of the Company's new ERP system in April 2013.

(5) In 2013, consists of direct expenses related to a follow-on offering that closed in April 2013, including a bonus paid by the Company' former shareholder, Tene, to certain of its employees that under US GAAP
the Company is required to expense against paid-in capital. In 2014, consists of direct expenses related to a follow-on offering that closed in June 2014.

(6) Consists of the payment of $1.72 million to certain employees of the Company and $0.25 million to the Company's Chairman for their contribution to the completion of the Company's initial public offering, or
IPO.

(7) Relates to the change in fair value of the contingent consideration that was part of the consideration transferred in connection with the acquisition of Caesarstone USA.

(8) In 2011, litigation gain consists of a mediation award in the Company's favor pursuant to two trademark infringement cases brought by Caesarstone Australia Pty Limited. In 2012, litigation gain resulted from a
settlement agreement with the former chief excecutive officer of Caesarstone Australia Pty Limited related to litigation that had been commenced in 2010. Pursuant to the settlement, he transferred to the
Company the ownership of all his shares in Caesarstone Australia Pty Limited received in connection with his employment. The Company did not make any payments in connection with such transfer or other
payments to the former chief executive officer. As a result of the settlement, the Company reversed the liability provision in connection with the litigation and the adjustment is presented net of the related
litigation expenses incurred in connection with the settlement.

(9) Relates to our writing down to zero the cost of inventory provided to Microgil, our former third-party quartz processor in Israel, in 2011 in the amount of $1.8 million and our writing down to zero our $1.1 million
loan to Microgil, in each case, in connection with a dispute.

(10) Relates to an adjustment of provision for taxable employee fringe benefits as a result of a settlement with the Israel Tax Authority and with the National Insurance Intitute of Israel.

(11) Relates to a refund of Israeli value added tax (VAT) associated with a bad debt from 2007

(1) Consists of charges to cost of goods sold for the difference between the higher carrying cost of the inventory of two of the Company's subsidiaries- Caesarstone USA's inventory at the time of its acquisition and
inventory that was purchased from its distributor and Caesarstone Australia Pty Limited's inventory that was purchased from its distributor, and the standard cost of the Company's inventory-which adversely
impacts the Company's gross margins until such inventory is sold. The majority of the inventory acquired from Caesarstone USA was sold in 2011, and the majority of the inventory acquired from the Australian
distributor was sold in 2012.

(2) In 2013, share-based compensation consists of expenses related to the stock options granted to employees of the Company. In 2014, share-based compensation consists primarily of expenses related to the stock
options granted to employees of the Company, as well as expenses related to share-based rights granted during the period.

(3) Consists of the payment of $1.72 million to certain employees of the Company and $0.25 million to the Company's Chairman for their contribution to the completion of the Company's IPO.

(4) Relates to the change in fair value of the contingent consideration that was part of the consideration transferred in connection with the acquisition of Caesarstone USA.

(5) Relates to a change in estimate for the value of inventory following the implementation of the Company's new ERP system in April 2013.

(6) In 2013, consists of direct expenses related to a follow on-offering that closed in April 2013, including a bonus paid by the Company' former shareholder, Tene, to certain of its employees that under US GAAP the
Company is required to expense against paid-in capital. In 2014, consists of direct expenses related to a follow on offering that closed in June 2014.

(7) In 2011, litigation gain consists of a mediation award in the Company's favor pursuant to two trademark infringement cases brought by Caesarstone Australia Pty Limited. In 2012, litigation gain resulted from a
settlement agreement with the former chief excecutive officer of Caesarstone Australia Pty Limited related to litigation that had been commenced in 2010. Pursuant to the settlement, he transferred to the Company
the ownership of all his shares in Caesarstone Australia Pty Limited received in connection with his employment. The Company did not make any payments in connection with such transfer or other payments to the
former chief executive officer. As a result of the settlement, the Company reversed the liability provision in connection with the litigation and the adjustment is presented net of the related litigation expenses incurred
in connection with the settlement.

(8) Relates to our writing down to zero the cost of inventory provided to Microgil, our former third-party quartz processor in Israel, in 2011 in the amount of $1.8 million and our writing down to zero our $1.1 million loan
to Microgil, in each case, in connection with a dispute.

(9) Relates to an adjustment of provision for taxable employee fringe benefits as a result of a settlement with the Israel Tax Authority and with the National Insurance Intitute of Israel.

(10) Relates to a refund of Israeli value added tax (VAT) associated with a bad debt from 2007

(11) Tax adjustment as a result of tax settlement with the Israeli tax authorities.

(12) The tax adjustments for the three and Twelve months ended December 31, 2014 and 2013 were based on the effective tax rate (excluding adjustments to the tax line item) for these periods, respectively.