The Marker - Adi Keizman appeals to the Supreme Court the ruling that obligated him to pay ILS 11 million to Rani Rahav
Rahav claimed in the lawsuit he filed against Keizman that Baruch Ivcher assigned him the rights to realize a loan he gave to Keizman ■ Keizman contends in the appeal, inter alia, that his constitutional rights were severely violated when he was not able to submit evidence due to procedural failures on the part of the attorneys who represented him in the past
Efrat Neumann
June 03, 2025 7:36 PM
Adi Keizman filed an appeal to the Supreme Court today (Tuesday) against the March District Court's verdict, which held that he must pay public relations man Rani Rahav ILS 11.3 million and legal expenses of ILS 150,000.
Keizman is appealing, through Advocates Doron Afik and Shelly Willner of Afik & Co. Law Offices, against the judgment and four procedural decisions during the management of the case. He contends that there was a "fatal violation of his basic constitutional rights" and that he was punished for the negligence of his previous lawyers (who were replaced by Afik towards the end of the case) by prohibiting him from bringing evidence in the case. The previous attorneys were added to the appeal as "formal respondents", Gilad Lipker Dagan and Eran Kahlon.
Rahav claimed in a lawsuit he filed in 2022 that his friend Baruch Ivcher, a businessman living in Peru, assigned him the rights to realize a loan he gave to Keizman in 2018 in the amount of Euro 2 million. According to Rahav, the assignment was made in light of a very close friendship between him and Ivcher. According to Rahav, Keizman did not repay the loan, which also includes an agreed compensation of Euro 250,000 and annual interest. In April 2020 Keizman left Israel and moved to Los Angeles with his wife Esti Ginzburg and their children.
Keizman made various arguments against the lawsuit, including that the loan agreement was illegal and that Rahav had no right to receive the right to a loan from Ivcher.
Judge Michal Amit-Anisman of the Tel Aviv District Court rejected Keizman's claims. She found that correspondence between Rahav and Keizman indicates that Keizman did not deny the debt by virtue of the loan agreement in real time, and even updated Rahav from time to time on the efforts to settle the debt. She found that it had been proven, to the extent required, that Rahav had the right to sue Keizman under the loan agreement. She accepted Rahav's calculation that the debt amounted to approximately ILS 11.3 million, together with interest and agreed compensation. The lawsuit against Ginsburg was rejected.
In the appeal that has now been filed, it is stated that the judge ignored the failed representation given to Keizman, while finding that claims regarding the manner of representation would be raised in the appropriate place and that the proceeding would continue to be clarified in an orderly manner. It was also written that there is no dispute that if it were not for the failed representation that caused the penalty of prohibiting the production of evidence, Keizman could have presented at least WhatsApp correspondence and Rahav's confessions that he had no right. According to Keizman, the judge ignored this and also refused to recognize many of the materials that were hidden by Rahav and presented at the hearing, which show that the claim is a false claim.
The appeal also argues, inter alia, that the judge erred when she ruled that the letter of assignment did not have a limitation of offenses, and that she ignored the fact that it was not possible to assign a right to Rahav, as he was the agreed arbitrator in the event of a dispute (whether or not he had not yet begun his work as an arbitrator). It was further argued that the judge erred in rejecting Keizman's other claims.
Attorney Zvi Gelman, who represents Rahav, said: "This is another attempt to evade debts, including after a verdict by the District Court. None of this will help Keizman evade the threat of the law and his debts to Rahav and the other creditors. The sole purpose of the appeal is to delay the enforcement of the judgment in the United States of America, but even that will not help and the debt will be collected to the fullest."