International Litigation and Commerce – from an ISRAELI Perspective
ליטיגציה בינלאומית וסחר בינלאומי – מנקודת מבט ישראלית
Blog of 
© 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.
Case law sometimes chips away at well recognized general rules, and it appears that, with respect to the general rule of enforcing forum selection clauses, Israeli district courts are doing their fair share of chipping — at least insofar as online contracts are concerned. Background: As noted in our
© 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.
Israeli law regarding the exercise of personal jurisdiction has long been characterized by the dichotomy between the conservative approach dictated by the Supreme Court and the more liberal approach practiced by the lower courts. The recent decision in IRS Group Ltd. v. Simon Katan et al (Haifa District Court)
© Sherby & Co., Advs.
[שינויים בחוק [חלק שני כפי שדיווחנו בפוסט ביום 05.10.16, יחולו שינויים מהותיים בדין הקליפורני בהקשר של הסכמי עבודה. להן מספר טיפים עבור כל חברה ישראלית שמעסיקה עובד/ים בקליפורניה: 1 יש לשקול סעיף בוררות במקום סעיף שיפוט: התיקון לחוק הקליפורני אינו מבחין בין סעיף שיפוט זר לבין סעיף בוררות זר.
© Sherby & Co., Advs.
Commentators on international arbitration have taken great interest in the recent decision of Gerald Metals SA v. The Trustees of the Timis Trust & others [2016] EWHC 2327, in which the English High Court held that it may provide interim relief to a party to an international agreement only
© Sherby & Co., Advs.
[חלק ראשון] לאחרונה המחוקק הקליפורני העביר תיקון לחוק שאוסר על מעביד לכפות על עובד שמתגורר “בעיקר” בקליפורניה להסכים (א) לסעיף שיפוט שקובע פורום לא קליפורני או (ב) לסעיף ברירת-דין שקובע דין לא קליפורני. במידה ועובד קליפורני חותם על הסכם שמכיל סעיף שכזה, תהיה לו זכות לבקש מבית המשפט לבטל
© 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