Caselaw

Civil Appeal Authority (Haifa) 30353-06-26 Appeal Financial Case – Supreme Court Masha Naor v. Interactive Brokers LLS - part 12

August 16, 2026
Print

In re-examination, pp.  10,23-25) the CEO of respondent No. 2 was asked:

"Q.  is asked by the Applicant whether the services of the formal respondent are identical to the services of the defendant, right?

  1. Yes."
  1.  It therefore clearly emerges from the words of the CEO of Respondent No. 2 that the services it provides to Respondent No. 1's customers in Israel are identical to the services provided by Respondent No. 1, and that Respondent No. 2 facilitates the opening of the account through it in Hebrew, makes the opening of the account accessible and assists in opening "authorizations for various financial products" and in fact "localizes the services for the Israeli public, " as he puts it.

Hence, respondent 2 represents respondent 1 in Israel in connection with the "matter" that is the subject of the lawsuit, and the relationship between the two companies is permanent and ongoing.

  1. Respondent No. 2's argument that it does not deal with "the same matter" because the decision to seize the sum deposited by the applicant and the blocking of the account is not her decision, and she cannot make another decision, does not lead to the conclusion that this is not the same matter.

A remarkably similar argument was at the basis of the Microsoft ruling, and was rejected by the Supreme Court.  Clarifying the following:

"Since the lawsuit relates to products that Microsoft Israel markets and promotes in Israel, the question of whether Microsoft Israel also dealt specifically with defining the classification level of the software should not be scrutinized; whether it performs monitoring itself to identify harmful or suspicious widgets; and whether it was connected to the decision in the Applicant's case and took steps with respect to the software in this case.  Even if Microsoft Israel does not have the authority to deal with all of these but only Microsoft Corporation, this does not negate the conclusion that Microsoft Israel is a representative of Microsoft Corporation with respect to the "matter" that is the subject of the lawsuit, as defined above.

Previous part1...1112
13Next part
Skip to content