In response to this request, Respondent 1 informed the Applicant that since she had opened her account with Respondent 1 through Respondent 2, in accordance with the agreements between the Respondents, her account must be handled by Respondent 2, and therefore in any inquiry she must contact them. This evidence therefore proves a clear "legal contractual" connection between the respondents, contrary to the trial court's ruling.
The trial court did not deal with this important evidence, which is sufficient to prove that respondent 1 sees respondent 2 as its representative in Israel, who is responsible for handling all of its customers who chose to open the account through respondent 2.
- In the respondent's response to the request for leave to appeal, it was argued that respondent 2's activity is limited to providing support services and technical customer service to some of respondent 1's customers, and that respondent 2 does not deny the business relationship or services it provides, but rather insists on the distinction between providing support services to customers and representing respondent 1 in connection with its affairs in Israel. It was further argued that referring a customer to receive service from a local entity is not equivalent to authorizing that entity to manage an account, hold funds, or represent the foreign corporation in a legal proceeding.
- However, there is no need for the representative in Israel to be authorized to manage the account of the foreign company, hold funds or represent the foreign corporation. Thus, respondent 2 is mistaken in thinking that the applicant is interested in attributing material responsibility to it for the actions or omissions of the foreign company, and not it - the applicant is only interested in delivering the statement of claim through it to respondent 1. The delivery was intended, as stated, to ensure that the foreign company was notified, and in light of the long and consistent relationship between respondent 2 and respondent 1, it is clear that it will be able to do so. A careful interpretation of the term "in the same matter" that is necessary in view of the purpose of acquiring authority by way of a constructive presence in Israel also leads to the same conclusion, because another interpretation would sin, in my opinion, a sin against the purpose of Regulation 163(c). Respondent 1 is a foreign company, which has a contractual engagement with Respondent 2, an Israeli company, which enables the opening of an account on its platform, while providing customer service and technical and substantial support. However, as it appears from the circumstances of this case, Israeli customers who opened an account on the platform of respondent 1, through respondent 2, will not find a solution to every problem they encounter, with respondent 2, who in this case explicitly announced (after rendering a judgment with her consent in a previous proceeding) that she was unable to save, i.e., to uphold the judgment given on the basis of her own statement. and the Applicant must contact Respondent 1 directly. These circumstances emphasize the importance of acquiring jurisdiction over Respondent 1, which has many clients in Israel.
- In Civil Appeal 13294-12-25 GLOBALCOVE LIMITED V. COHEN [NEVO] (17.02.2026) IT WAS HELD THAT AN ACTIVITY OF RAISING CAPITAL INVESTMENTS IN ISRAEL FOR A FOREIGN CORPORATION INTENDED TO PROMOTE THE ACTIVITY CONSTITUTES A "MATTER" IN ISRAEL FOR THE PURPOSE OF REGULATION 163(c), EVEN IF THE PROJECT ITSELF IS CARRIED OUT ABROAD.
In the Philip Morris case, it was also clarified that the marketing of products of a foreign company in Israel through a local subsidiary constitutes a clear case of invention under Regulation 163(c), and that the definition of "the same matter" is done according to the general field of activity (such as the cigarette field) and not according to the individual component of the claim (such as the way the products are priced).
- The CEO of Respondent No. 2 testified regarding the service provided by Respondent No. 2 to customers in Israel:
" The account opening form is a very simple form that a person enters basic details about, and if a customer needs assistance in doing so, we help him......... This is about the first part of the question. Another thing, part of the basic service we provide, we actually provide assistance and accessibility to the customer in Hebrew....... The basic service is a service that includes assistance in filling out an account opening form, guidance about the defendant's trading system and general questions. Training about the American broker's trading system, assistance in opening authorizations for various financial products, assistance in opening real-time eavesdropping for various financial assets, and basically all these things that are carried out on the American broker's trading system... I will add to my answer that all the points I emphasized starting from assistance in filling out the account opening form onwards, so as far as we are concerned we call it "basic" customer service, we do it in localization for the Israeli audience (local service)... The formal respondent provides customer service on the platform of the American broker to clients who are interested."