An Israeli entrepreneur and an entrepreneur resident in the United States entered into an agreement to establish a venture to import devices from China and sell them in the United States, and even established a company in the United States for this purpose and rented offices there. When disputes arose between the parties, the U.S. resident entrepreneur empowered his brother, an Israeli resident, to reach agreements with the Israeli entrepreneur, but his attempts were unsuccessful.
The Court held that it had not been shown that the forum in Israel was not the forum of convenience or that there was a forum with a stronger affinity. When the defendant is outside of Israel, the jurisdiction of the Court in Israel is conditional, inter alia, on the fact that the Israeli forum is the forum of convenience. In examining the issue of the forum of convenience, there are three tests, the main of which is the "most affiliations" test, which examines which legal forum has the most significant and substantial connection to the dispute between the parties and to which the most affiliations lead, with the Israeli forum being disqualified only when there is a forum that is clearly more suitable for conducting the discussion. Here, while the defendant is a United States resident and a joint venture was to be carried out in the United States by a company registered therein, because the defendant holds an Israeli passport in addition to the American one, travels to Israel every now and then, the representative elected by him to settle the disputes is an Israeli resident, and the initial meeting between the entrepreneurs was in Israel, the connections that exist to the litigation of the claim in the United States do not clearly outweigh the connections to the courts in Israel, and thus it cannot be determine that the forum in Israel is not the forum of convenience according to this test and to accept the defendant motion to dismiss the Israeli entrepreneur's claim in limine.