International Litigation and Commerce – from an ISRAELI Perspective
ליטיגציה בינלאומית וסחר בינלאומי – מנקודת מבט ישראלית
Blog of 
© Sherby & Co., Advs.
© 2024 Eric S. Sherby Regardless of one’s political leanings, there is probably unanimity that the United States Senate does not rush to ratify a unilateral treaty merely because an administration (Democratic or Republican) decided to sign it. Rather, the U.S. Senate traditionally takes the time necessary to consider the pros and cons of any
© Sherby & Co., Advs.
(c) 2024 Sherby & Co., Advs. As reported in our post of January 11, Israel’s Knesset is considering adopting, for international arbitrations taking place in Israel, the Model Law of the United Nations international Trade Commission (commonly known as the “UNCITRAL Model Law”). In Part I of this series, we examined the circumstances under which
© Sherby & Co., Advs.
מאז שנות ה-50, ארבע אמנות בינלאומיות משפיעות בצורה עמוקה על ליטיגציה אזרחית בינלאומית — (א) אמנת האג לביטול הצורך בחקיקה למסמכי חוץ ציבוריים, 1961 (הידועה כ- “אמנת האפוסטיל”), (ב) האמנה בדבר הכרתם ואכיפתם של פסקי בוררות חוץ, 1958 (הידועה כ- “אמנת ניו יורק”); (ג) האמנה בדבר המצאתם בחוץ לארץ, של כתבי בי דין וכתבים שלא
© Sherby & Co., Advs.
© Eric S. Sherby 2022 Since the 1950s, four international treaties have had a profound effect on international civil litigation – (a) the 1961 Convention Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents (known as the “Apostille Convention”), (b) the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York, 1958) (known as the “New
© Sherby & Co., Advs.
לאחרונה בית משפט מדינתי בעיר ניו-יורק (בתיק 655213/2016) אכף פסק-דין ישראלי בסך של 16 מיליון ₪ שניתן כנגד תושב ניו-יורקי. הפסק הישראלי ניתן בהקשר של סכסוך בנוגע לבעלות בנכסי נדל”ן בארה”ב. בנוסף למתן פסק לפיו על הנתבע לשלם 16 מיליון ₪, נקבע ע”י בית המשפט המחוזי במחוז המרכז (לוד)
© Sherby & Co., Advs.
This is our third (and presumably final) post regarding the Israeli Supreme Court’s decision in JSC VTB Bank v. Margolis (Civil Appeal 1948/15, March 6, 2017). Our first post dealt primarily with the Russia-related issues from the JSC case, and our second post dealt with the Court’s express holding that, for purposes of
© Sherby & Co., Advs.
We recently posted a partial summary of the March 6, 2017 judgment by Israel’s Supreme Court in JSC VTB Bank v. Margolis (Civil Appeal 1948/15, March 6, 2017), in which the Court enforced a series of (related) Russian judgments and addressed multiple issues arising under Israel’s Enforcement of Foreign
© Sherby & Co., Advs.
Israel’s Supreme Court has long articulated a liberal interpretation of Israel’s Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Law (1958). See Encyclopedia of International Commercial Litigation (Israel Chapter) § B11.1. In the recent case of JSC VTB Bank v. Margolis (Civil Appeal 1948/15, March 6, 2017), the Supreme Court extended that liberal approach.
© Sherby & Co., Advs.
Although Israeli courts tend to take a pro-recognition approach to non-Israeli judgments, it is unusual for an Israeli court to issue a 38-page decision when adjudicating such a matter. At the same time, not every day does a non-Israeli judgment creditor seek to enforce a foreign judgment in excess
© Sherby & Co., Advs.
Every year Israeli courts grant orders for the production of evidence, in response to Letters of Request issued under the 1970 Hague Evidence Convention (the “Convention”). In fact, because Israel did not make any declaration pursuant to Article 23 of the Convention (which authorizes a contracting State to refuse