| The Haifa District Court sitting as a Court of Civil Appeals |
| Civil Appeal Authority 30353-06-26 Naor v. Interactive Brokers LLS et al.
|
| Before | The Honorable Judge Idit Weinberger
|
|
|
The Applicant |
Masha Naor, Adv. ID xxxxxxxxx |
|
|
Against
|
||
| Respondents | 1. Interactive Brokers LLS 2. Interactive Stock Exchange Services Ltd. Adv. Eyal Abramov et al. |
|
Judgment
Summary of the application
- Application for leave to appeal against the decision of the Haifa Magistrate's Court (the Honorable Senior Registrar Milad Telhami), granted on 05.05.2026 inCivil Claim in Rapid Hearing 18160-04-24 [Nevo]. As part of the decision, the Applicant's request to recognize "Interactive Stock Exchange Services Ltd" (Respondent 2) as the representativeof "Interactive Brokers LLS" (Respondent 1) in Israel for the purpose of filing court documents in accordance with Regulation 163(c) of the Civil Procedure Regulations, 5779-2018 (hereinafter: the "Regulations"). In the reasons for the decision, it was determined, inter alia, that there was a company estoppel in this matter in light of the decision of the Honorable Judge Baum in a civil suit in Haifa Rapid Hearing 30923-10-22 of January 11,2023, and that weight was also given to the agreement reached between the Applicant and Respondent 2 in the framework of Civil Case 48651-03-21, [Nevo] which was given the force of a judgment, according to which Respondent 2 had no responsibility in connection with the activity of Respondent 1.
The Applicant petitions for the cancellation of the decision, and seeks to determine that Respondent 2 is a representative of Respondent 1 for the purpose of filing the statement of claim, in accordance with Regulation 163(c).
Review of Previous Proceedings
- The Applicant opened an investment account and deposited funds with Respondent 1, a foreign company operating in the United States, which has customer service operated by Respondent 2 in Israel. At a certain point, the Applicant's account was blocked, and it was not possible to withdraw the funds that remained in it. As a result, the Applicant initially filed a claim against Respondent 1 only (Civil Case 48651-03-21) [Nevo] no delivery was made to Respondent 1, after Respondent 2 announced that she was not authorized to receive the statement of claim for her (the claim was not decided by the court in that proceeding). The statement of claim was amended by way of adding respondent 2 as a defendant, and in the framework of the first pre-trial meeting, the court proposed to end the entire proceeding with a compromise between the plaintiff and respondent 2 - a compromise that was given the force of a judgment on January 13,2022.
In the settlement agreement, it was agreed, inter alia, as follows: