| In the Supreme Court sitting as a Court of Civil Appeals |
Civil Appeal Authority 51820-02-26
| Before: | The Honorable Judge Khaled Kabub
|
|
| The Applicant: | Ehud Feldman | |
|
Against
|
||
| Respondent: | Nir Epstein
|
|
|
Application for leave to appeal the decision of the Jerusalem District Court (the Honorable Vice President A. Darel) inCivil Case 36152-04-25 [Nevo] of December 17, 2025
|
||
| On behalf of the applicant:
|
Himself | |
| On behalf of the Respondent: | Adv. Assaf Bram; Adv. Guy Ben Gal | |
Decision
Application for leave to appeal the decision of the Jerusalem District Court (Honorable Vice President A. Darel) in the bag Civilian 36152-04-25 [Nevo] dated December 17, 2025. Within the framework of the decision, the Applicant's application was rejected (hereinafter: Feldman) to dismiss out of hand a claim filed against him by the respondent (hereinafter: Epstein), and it was determined that the lawsuit should be clarified in Israel.
On the agenda: A question regarding the interpretation of a jurisdiction clause in a real estate investment agreement in New York.
Background
- Feldman and Epstein are lawyers who operate in the business field. In 2018, Epstein approached Feldman through a mutual acquaintance regarding the possibility of an investment. Feldman presented Epstein with the possibility of investing in a real estate property in Manhattan, New York, which would be executed through an American limited partnership. Epstein was interested, and invested $250,000. Eventually, the investment failed, the property was sold, and the entire investment amount went down the drain.
- Epstein filed a lawsuit against Feldman in the Jerusalem District Court in the sum of NIS 1,175,956, in which he claimed that Feldman violated the provisions of the Investment Consulting, Investment Marketing and Investment Portfolio Management Law, 5755-1995; made false representations and concealed information from him; and acted in bad faith, negligence, and a conflict of interest.
- Feldman sought to dismiss the lawsuit out of hand, inter alia, on the grounds that the investment agreement unequivocally stipulated that the exclusive jurisdiction rested with the courts in New York. For the sake of convenience, I will bring the relevant clause in the investment agreement – clause 11.7 (hereinafter: the jurisdiction clause) – which states as follows:
"[…] the Limited Partners and General Partners agree that any legal proceeding by or against any Limited Partner or General Partner with respect to or arising out of this Agreement will be brought in United Stated District Court for the Southern District of New York or the Supreme Court of the State of New York located in the Borough of Manhattan in the City of New York, New York".