Insights & News / Yatir Madar

Gal Livshits, Yatir Madar, and Liron Dahan from our firm’s Litigation Department are representing Gencell in a NIS 16 million lawsuit against the car importer EV Motors as well as Holon Motors. The suit alleges the defendants owe Gencell NIS 4.5 million for systems and equipment they purchased but did not pay for.

Our firm continues to represent Maurice Haliwa, a shareholder in Manor A.D. Construction Investments Ltd., in a lawsuit against Jacky Ben-Zaken and Avraam Nanikashvili. Haliwa recently increased the amount of the original lawsuit from NIS 18 million to NIS 100 million. Advs. Zohar Lande and Yatir Madar represent the client.

Our firm represented Guy Aharonovski in a lawsuit against his former partner in CoinDash, a platform for managing investments in cryptographic currencies. Aharonovski is claiming his former partner disqualified him from his share in the company, founded Queen-Dash behind his back, and issued tokens called CDT that enabled the use of the platform provided by the company.

The Tel Aviv District Court accepted the request of over 50 members of the purchase group United Sarona, represented by Barnea's Head of Litigation, Adv. Zohar Lande, to prevent a vote at the meeting scheduled for today. In the motion that was presented, it was argued that in the process of convening the meeting there were material flaws, including a lack of information.

The purchase group United Sarona, which won a tender a year and a half ago to build several towers near Sarona Market in Tel Aviv, is about to fall apart. In the last few days, several members of the group have begun organizing, through Adv. Zohar Lande, Head of the Litigation Department at Barnea, to file a lawsuit against United Sarona's organizers, after they failed to recruit new members or find alternative funding sources to ensure the progress of the project.

Adv. Zohar Lande, Adv. Jacques Gershoni and Adv. Yatir Madar from the Litigation Department at Barnea, succeeded in cancelling an arbitration ruling in the Tel Aviv District Court, a cancellation which was then upheld by the Supreme Court.

The parties had appointed an arbitrator to hear and rule on a specific dispute between them. After the arbitrator had issued an arbitration award which had been fully carried out by both parties, the arbitrator joined forces with one of the parties, while attempting to ignore the arbitration award, which had already been carried out, with the aim of unilaterally issuing a new arbitration ruling. In fact, the new arbitration ruling overturned the original award, which, as noted, had been fully carried out by the parties.

The party with whom the arbitrator had cooperated (the “other party’’), relying on the new arbitration ruling, filed a dual application to the Tel Aviv District Court - one for the approval of the new arbitration award and the second for the temporary imposition of liens on the property of Barnea’s client.

Barnea's litigation team succeeded in obtaining an order for cancellation of the new arbitration award. The Court clarified that the new arbitration award was given without authority, because it exceeded the limits of the authorization defined by the parties and because it contradicted a previous ruling of the arbitrator.

The other party did not accept the ruling of the District Court and chose to submit a motion for leave to appeal the ruling of the Tel Aviv District Court to the Supreme Court, as well as a request for temporary remedies in the appeal.

Barnea filed a firm response to the other party’s request for temporary relief, in which it was made clear that the need to impose temporary liens was never examined on its merits in the District Court, and elaborated on the fact that the request for leave to appeal the judgment of the District Court lacked any basis both in law and in fact.

The Supreme Court denied the motion for leave to appeal and instructed the other party to pay Barnea's client's legal fees and expenses.

"It is known that the annulment of an arbitration award is a rare occurrence, and that it does not happen routinely," commented Adv. Zohar Lande, Head of the Litigation Department at Barnea. "This rejection by the Supreme Court actually means the upholding of the District Court’s  ruling,  the cancellation of the new arbitration award and, accordingly, the cancellation of the temporary remedies imposed on the assets of our client”.