© 2019 Gil Ron, Keinan & Co., Law Office. All rights reserved

© 2019 כל הזכויות שמורות. גיל רון, קינן ושות'                 

Gil Ron, Keinan & Co Law Office
Gil Ron, Keinan & Co Law Office

Class Actions and Derivative Actions Information Center

This page provides updates regarding the status of class actions and derivative actions handled by our office. These cases are managed together with Aviad Seren & Co. Law Office, and in some of the cases other firms part in representation. Names of concluded cases appear in grey.

Corporate Law and Securities

 

De Lange v. Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.  (marketing practices of opioid based drugs)

Keinan v. Perrigo Company plc (securities fraud)

De Lange v. Israel Corporation Ltd. (payments by controlling shareholder to management members)

Stern v. Verifone Holdings, Inc., Heit v. Verifone Systems, Inc. (securities fraud)

Cohen v. Scailex Corporation Ltd. (securities fraud)

 

Azizi v. U. Dori Construction Ltd. (dividend distribution)

Neuman v. Financitech Ltd. (board of directors` negligence)

Cohen v. Zveda (Ace Auto Depot - securities fraud

 

Hatzlacha the Consumers' Movement for the Promotion of a Fair Society and Economy v. Perrigo Company (securities fraud)

 

Hanness and Kamar v. Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.  (disclosure of directors and officers` compensation)

Hatzlacha the Consumers' Movement for the Promotion of a Fair Society and Economy v. Cohen (tender offer)

 

Shkedi v. Intercolony Investments Ltd. (acts against the company`s interest)

Harel-Pia v. Landmark Group Ltd. (securities fraud)

 

Finn v. The Industry Development Bank Ltd. (securities fraud)

 

Yemin v. the Estate of Harel (controlling shareholders misuse of Rogozin Industries' assets)

 

Freibrun v. Boulus Gad Tourism and Hotels Ltd. (securities fraud)

 

 

Consumer Protection

Levi v. Ministry of Health (excessive interest for ER visit fee debt)

 

Varum v. Alpha Bio-Tech Inc. (defective bone grafts)

Nassar v. Champion Motors (defective Volkswagen cars)

 

Regev v. Japanauto-Israel Auto Corporation (defective Subaru cars)

Lev v. Mifal Hapais (breach of Israel State Lottery`s operating permit and regulations)

Danino v. Carmelton Group (private vehicle toll)

Hadad v. Mifal Hapais (breach of Israel State Lottery`s operating permit)

Lapiner v. Derech Eretz Highways, Danino v. Carmelton Group (collection costs)

Goren v. Bitan Wines (charging above the price labeled on products)

Lapiner v. Bezeq (overcharging customers who did not not pay their due debts)

Gvili v. Partner (unlawful charge for rejected calls)

Telraz v. Bezeq (charging clients for false information taken from the database used by the company`s call center)

 

Danino v. 013 Netvision (unlawful charge of collection fees)

De Lange v. Partner, Bloch v. Pelephone (price discrimination between clients)

 

Fattal v. Cellcom, Greenberg v. Cellcom (unlawful charge for call log printout)

The Israeli Consumers Council v. Icon Group (breach of the statutory obligation to supply spare parts for iPad and iPod devices)

 

Giner v. The Israeli Electricity Company  (charge of arrears for unpaid bills which were sent late)

 

Sharvit v. Champion Motors (defective DSG7 gearbox)

Reznik v. Pelephone, Keinan v. Partner, Sigora Bar-Nir v. Cellcom (unlawful charge of Value Added Tax for cellular services given abroad)

Pink v. Bezeq (misleading consumers in their monthly statements)

Antitrust Law

Pink v. SodaStream Israel (anti-competitive behavior and unfair monopoly pricing of CO2 refills)

The Israeli Consumers Council v. Tnuva (unfair monopoly pricing of hard cheese)

Banking, Insurance and Finance

Aviv v. Bank Mizrachi Tefahot (unlawful charge regarding notice of overdue payments)

Stolarski v. S. Shlomo Vehicle (breach of car rental company to fulfill its duties as an insurer)

Lapiner v. Bank Hapoalim (currency transfer and redemption of securities in a direct channel)

Lapiner v. Bank Hapoalim (direct channel fee for immediate charge of payment cards)

Tamar v. Bank Leumi (unlawful charges for depositing a post-dated check)

Azoulay v. PayPal (overcharge in transactions in NIS)

Lapiner v. Bank Hapoalim (unlawful charges for depositing a post-dated check)

Yuval Lapiner Law Office v. Bank Hapoalim (unlawful charges for salaries transfer)

Shabi v. Discount Bank (breach of the Guarantee Law)

Matz v. Ayalon Insurance (unlawful deduction of insurance compensation paid to third parties)

Lapiner v. Bank Hapoalim (construction financing fee)

Yuval Lapiner Law Office v. Bank Hapoalim (unlawful charge of currency conversion fees)

Dialog Tech v. Bank Leumi (charging securities deposit management fees for unlisted securities)

Lapiner v. Bank Leumi (charging fees for forced currency conversions)

Mor v. IDI Insurance Company (breach of vehicle insurance policies)

Harif v. Bank Hapoalim (charging for services that not appear in the bank`s tariff)

Lapiner v. Bank Hapoalim (charging of postal storage service which were never ordered)

Keinan v. Menora Mivtachim Pensions and Gemel (pension funds' holdings of low rated bonds exceed the limits set by the regulations)

 

Lapiner v. Bank Hapoalim, Tamar v. Bank Yahav (discriminating individuals and small businesses)

Giner v. Isracard (unlawful charge of foreign currency commissions)

 

Lapiner v. Discount Bank (charging student accounts with excessive fees)

 

Guy v. Ayalon Insurance (unlawful premium collection)

 

Hagma v. Bank Mizrachi Tefahot, Hagigi v. Bank HaPoalim (unlawful charge of legal expenses)

 

Dimri v. Bank Mizrachi Tefahot, Hagigi v. Bank HaPoalim, Silvera v. Bank Leumi (causing clients` debts, as recorded in the Execution Office files, to incur excessive interest)

 

The Israeli Consumers Council v. Migdal, Clal, HaPhoenix and Menora (funds which belong to uninformed insured persons)

 

Litvin v. Bank Mizrahi Tefahot (unlawful charge of mortgage loans prepayment fees)

 

Silvera v. Bank Leumi (unlawful charge of legal expenses)

 

Aviad v. Menora, Amossi v. HaPhoenix, Kandel v. Migdal (unlawful deduction from payments of claims)

 

 

Other Legal Fields

Citizens for the Environment v. Elcon Recycling Center (2003) (excess morbidity caused by pollutants emission)

Nasser Rabah v. Hadassah Medical Organization (segregation in maternity wards)

Avrukin v. Chevra Kadisha Petah Tikva (segregation in burial of  deceased persons born in the former Soviet Union) | Аврукин против Хевра Кадиша

Hatzlacha the Consumers' Movement for the Promotion of a Fair Society and Economy v. Allalouf & Co. Shipping (unlawful charging of service fees by  shipping agents)

 

Bello v. Keinan Sheffi (violation of the right to privacy by a human resources company)

Alshalom v. Adam Milo (violation of the right to privacy by a human resources company)

Shmul's Heirs v. Clalit Health Services (illegal experiments on elderly patients)

 

 

De Lange v. Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.

Motion to disclose documents prior to a derivative action on behalf of Teva, an Israeli public company, traded in TASE and NYSE. According to the motion, which was filed in April 2019, Teva and its subsidiaries face liability in substantial amounts due to marketing practices of opioid based drugs in the US. The applicant claims that Teva's liability might be a result of Teva's board and executive officers failure to reasonably supervise the marketing of these dangerous drugs.

Status: Application to certify the class action is pending

Documents: Application to Certify the Class Action.

Keinan v. Perrigo Company plc 

A motion to disclose documents prior to a derivative action on behalf of Teva, an Israeli public company, traded in TASE and NYSE. According to the motion, which was filed in April 2019, Teva and its subsidiaries face liability in substantial amounts due to marketing practices of opioid based drugs in the US. The applicant claims that Teva's liability might be a result of Teva's board and executive officers failure to reasonably supervene the marketing of these dangerous drugs.

Status: The application was dismissed without prejudice

Documents: Application to Certify the Class Action, Decision Dismissing the Application.

 

De Lange v. Israel Corporation Ltd. 

 

Application to certify a derivative action on behalf of Israel Corporation, a public company. The application, which was filed in July 2015, relates to a reorganization that the Israel Corporation promoted, performed and completed throughout the years 2013-2015. The controlling shareholders undertook to pay to four senior management members a bonus of approximately NIS 56 million in total, if the reorganization is completed. The applicant claims that such a payment materially damages the corporate governance of the company, and raises several causes of action against the controlling shareholders and the management members. Those causes of action include breach of the fairness duty and the duty to act in good faith, breach of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, and more. Since the payment is made to the management members for actions taken by them in their capacity as the company's managers, it is claimed that the company is entitled to these amounts. 

 

In April 2017, the district court certified the derivative action. It was ruled that management members are not allowed to receive payments from the controlling shareholder, in a manner that breaches the company`s compensation policy. It was further ruled that such behavior breached the management members` duty to act in good faith. The defendants in the derivative action will be the management members and the controlling shareholders.

In March 2018, the district court approved a settlement, according to which the management members will pay the company a sum of NIS 45 million.

Status: The settlement is under execution

 

Documents: Application to Certify the Derivative ActionDecision Certifying the Derivative ActionDecision Approving the Settlement.

 

Cohen v. Scailex Corporation Ltd. 

Application to certify a class action against Scailex, its directors and control holders. The application was filed in November 2014.The applicant claims that Scailex failed to disclose material information, related to a demand made by the tax authorities for payment of NIS 290 million (approximately US$ 80 million). As a result, the Securities of Scailex were traded in the stock exchange, for a very long period, at inflated prices. In September 2016 the application was dismissed.

 

Status: The Application was dismissed. 

Documents: Application to Certify the Class Action, Judgement Dissmissing the Application.  

 
 

Azizi v. U. Dori Construction

 

Application to certify a derivative action on behalf of U. Dori Construction, against its parent company and directors. According to the application, which was filed in August 2014, for several years the Company distributed dividends to its shareholders, while its financial condition did not permit such distribution. As from May 2014, the Company issued several reports, dramatically correcting its financial statements, showing a deviation of approximately NIS 440 million from the reported results. The applicant claimed that the parent company return the dividends distributed to it, and the directors compensate the Company for dividends distributed to the other shareholders . In addition, the applicant demanded that the parent company returns the service fees paid to it by the Company. In April 2015 an Amended and consolidated application was filed. 

After the filing of the Amended and Consolidated Application, the Dori Group underwent a reorganization, the result of which was that the public did not hold shares of U. Dori Construction any more. Consequently, a creditor applied to the court requesting to continue the proceedings. The application was denied, and the proceedings were dismissed. In January 2018 the Supreme Court denied an appeal on the decision to deny the motion to continue the proceedings.

These proceedings were handled in cooperation with Simon Elishakov, advocate. 

Status: Application to certify the derivative action was dismissed.

Documents: Application to Certify the Derivative ActionAmended and Consolidated Application to Certify the Derivative ActionDecision to Dismiss the Application, Decision Denying the Appeal on the Decision to Deny the Motion to Continue the Proceedings.

Neuman v. Financitech

 

Application to certify a derivative action on behalf of Financitech, a public company. The applicant claims that the members of the board of directors of the Company failed to realize outstanding mortgages which secured material debts. The debts were not paid when they became due, and years have passed since then. The application was filed in March 2014. The District Court certified the application in May 2015, in a decision that established new rules regarding court interference in judgements made by a company`s board of directors.

In March 2019 a settlement agreement was approved. According to the settlement, a sum of NIS 1.9 million given by the company`s controlling shareholder as an owner`s loan, will be defined as a postponed loan. In addition, the insurance company which insured the members of the board of directors and the controlling shareholder, will pay the company a sum between NIS 250,000 and NIS 600,000, as will be decided by the court.

 

Status: Settlement execution completed. 

Documents: Application to Certify the Derivative ActionDecision Certifying the Derivative ActionMotion to Approve a Settlement,  Decision Approving the Settlement.

 
 

Cohen v. Zveda (Ace Auto Depot) 

 

Application to certify a class action on behalf of purchasers of Ace Auto Depot bonds, against the directors and control holders of the Company. The application was filed in November 2013. In the financial reports for June 2011, it was presented that the board of directors decided that there was no reasonable concern that the Company would not meet its obligations in the coming two years. The applicant claimed that such statement was untruthful, due to information that was brought to the board members' attention. Furthermore, the board of directors did not make such a decision. The applicant further claimed that throughout a period of four months, the bonds were traded at inflated prices. 

In August 2017 the parties reached a settlement, according to which the investors will receive compensation, in the sum of NIS 4.2 million, which amounts to approximately 70% of the total damage to bonds. In December 2017 the settlement was approved.

 

We represented the applicant together with Bram-Saluki, Law Office. 

 

Status: Settlement execution completed. 

Documents: Application to Certify the Class ActionMotion to Approve a SettlementNotice Regarding the SettlementDecision Approving the Settlement.

Hatzlacha the Consumers' Movement for the Promotion of a Fair Society and Economy v. Perrigo Company

 

Application to certify a class action against Perrigo, filed in March 2013 on behalf of Perrigo share purchasers on the Tel-Aviv Stock Exchange. The applicant claimed that throughout several months Perrigo failed to disclose information regarding financial instruments it held, the disclosure of which would have impacted the share price. Following disclosure, the price decreased by approximately 17%. The application was submitted on behalf of the purchasers in Israel, following their exclusion from a similar lawsuit, which was submitted in the United States

 

The parties reached a settlement, based on the settlement reached in the US proceedings. 

 

Status: Settlement execution completed.

 

Documents: Application to Certify the Class Action, Application to Approve the Settlement, Decision Approving the Settlement

 

 
 

Hanness and Kamar v. Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.  

 

Application to certify a class action against Teva on behalf of the Company's shareholders. The application was filed in November 2012. The applicants, prominent corporate law professors, claimed that Teva failed to disclose the compensation of its directors and officers, on an individual basis, as it is obliged to do by law. 

 

In June 2013 the parties reached a settlement, according to which Teva would make such a disclosure. The court approved the settlement, and ruled that "The undertaking of disclosure according to the settlement is an undertaking with clear importance, and it benefits the shareholders of the company… [the disclosure] certainly establishes a benefit for the shareholders who are a members of the class … the settlement brought significant value to the class members." 

 

Status: The Settlement was approved, and Teva is disclosing the information accordingly. 

 

Documents: Application to Certify the Class Action, Settlement AgreementApplication to approve the Settlement, Court's Ruling Approving the Settlement

Hatzlacha the Consumers' Movement for the Promotion of a Fair Society and Economy v. Cohen (Cohen Development)

 

A class action against the public company Cohen Development and its main shareholders, as well as Delek Group. The application was filed in September 2012.  Each of the shareholders held, independent of one another, shares in the company. However, the shareholders together sold their shares to Delek Group, the sale of which established Delek Group as the controlling shareholder. The applicants claimed that such sale required a tender offer, in which all the shareholders would be entitled to participate. The applicants claimed compensation for the control premium gained by the selling shareholders, and stipulated that the purchased shares be rendered dormant. Alternatively, the applicants claimed damages for misleading the purchasers. 

The District Court rendered two precedential resolutions relating to the standing of public organizations as class action plaintiffs. 

The District Court certified the class action, with regard part of the causes of action, against the selling shareholders. The application against Delek Group was rejected.

 

The parties appealed to the Supreme Court. In May 2017 the the plaintiffs` appeal was upheld, and the class action against all the respondents, including Delek Group, was certified. 

In June 2019, the district court approved a settlement. According to the settlement agreement, Cohen Development`s shareholders from the public will be paid approximately NIS 27 million. This sum includes the settlement expenses, attorney fees and lead plaintiff`s reward.

We represent the applicants together with Man-Barak Advocates, Solicitors & Notary, and Professor Ron Shapira.  

Status: The settlement is under execution.

 

Documents: Application to Certify the Class Action, Decision Approving Hatzlacha as Class Plaintiff, Decision Approving Joinder of Additional Applicants, Decision Certifying the Lawsuit, Supreme Court`s RulingMotion to Approve a Settlement, Decision Approving the Settlement.

 
 

Shkedi v. Intercolony Investments Ltd. 

 

Application to certify a derivative action on behalf of Intercolony Investment and its subsidiaries, against the companies` directors and officers, as well as other parties. The application was filed in March 2015. According to the application, a subsidiary of a public company granted an option to purchase a real estate asset to a company controlled by the Chief Executive Officer of the public company. The applicant claims that the option was granted, and then extended, unlawfully. As a result of the above transactions, the company controlled by the CEO generated material profits.

In July 2018 the application was dismissed. The court ruled that the applicant established the claim against the Chief Executive Officer of the public company. However, it was ruled that the applicant did not prove his ownership of the company`s shares. The applicant appealed the decision.

 

Prior to submitting the application to certify the derivative action, an application was filed to disclose documents. The District Court ordered the disclosure of the majority of the documents. The companies appealed to the Supreme Court. In August 2014 the Supreme Court issued a precedential ruling, denying the appeal, and recognizing for the first time multiple derivative actions. 

 

Status: Appeal on the dismissal decision is pending. 

 

Documents: Application to Disclose Documents, District Court's Ruling in the Application for Disclosure, Supreme Court`s RulingApplication to Certify the Derivative Action, Judgment Dismissing the ApplicationJudgment Dismissing the Application

Harel-Pia v. Landmark Group

 

A class action against the directors and controlling shareholders  of a public company, and underwriters of its public offering held in May 2007. The application was filed in May 2009. The applicants claim that the prospectus, under which the company raised approximately NIS 170 million, included misleading statements. Among other claims, the applicants claim that a transaction regarding a material real estate asset was disclosed, while actually the transaction was contingent upon certain conditions that were never fulfilled. 

 

The District Court rendered a precedential ruling, permitting institutional investors that have incurred material damages to act as class plaintiffs. 

 

The class action was certified with regard to the main allegations. A motion to appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court in June 2015.

In September 2017 the court approved a settlement, according to which the investors will receive compensation, in the sum of NIS 22 million. The compensation will be allocated according to an expert opinion regarding the damage incurred.

 

Status: Settlement execution completed. 

 

Documents: Application to Certify the Class Action, Decision Approving the Plaintiff, Decision Certifying the Class Action, Response to the Application to Leave AppealDecision Dismissing the Motion to Appeal, Notice Regarding the SettlementMotion to Approve a Settlement, Expert OpinionDecision Approving the Settlement.

 
 

Stern v. Verifone Holdings, Inc.

Heit v. Verifone Systems, Inc.  

 

Applications to certify a class action against Verifone, a world leading payment processing company, whose shares were traded both in the United States (NYSE) and Israel (TASE). David Stern`s application was filed in January 2008. Mr. Stern claimed that in 2007, over a priod of seven months, the Company's shares were traded at inflated prices, due to erroneous financial statements. In December 2007, the Company reported that such financial statements should not be further relied upon, and the price of the shares dropped by 46%. Mr. Stern`s application was submitted on behalf of the purchasers in Israel. 

 

The District Court ruled twice, that US laws apply to liability of dually traded companies to the purchasers in Israel. Mr. Stern applied to the Supreme Court and requested to appeal those rulings. The proceedings were stayed, due to class proceedings handled at that time in the United States. 

 

In 2014 the proceedings in the United States ended in a settlement, which offered compensation to the purchasers, including the Israeli group. The Company claimed that the settlement has the effect of terminating Mr. Stern`s pending proceedings in Israel. Mr. Stern claimed that Israeli courts should not recognize the settlement, since it prejudices the rights of the Israeli purchasers. In April 2015 the Supreme Court ruled that the proceedings in Israel be terminated, since Mr. Stern`s contentions were raised in objection to the settlement, and rejected by the US court. Therefore, Mr. Stern`s application to certify a class action was denied, with no discussion regarding the rights of the Israeli purchasers. The settlement was recognized only with respect to Mr. Stern.

 

In May 2015, following the Supreme Court`s ruling, Mr. Moshe Heit filed an application to certify a class action against Verifone, on behalf of the Israeli investors, including those who participated in the US settlement. Mr. Heit contends that the Israeli law applies to Verifone`s liability toward the Israeli purchasers, and that the US settlement does not have a preclusive effect on the Israeli investors. In May 2018 Mr. Heit`s application was denied.

 

Status: The Supreme Court denied Mr. Stern`s application; The District Court denied Mr. Heit`s application.

 

Documents: Stern application, District Court`s First Decision Regarding the Applicable Law in the Matter of Stern, District Court`s Second Decision Regarding the Applicable Law in the Matter of Stern, Mr. Stern`s Amended Application to Appeal to the Supreme Court, Mr. Stern`s Supplemental Briefing Regarding the US Settlement, Supreme Court`s Ruling in the Matter of Stern (translation made by the Israeli Supreme Court Project), Heit application, Judgement Dismissing the Heit Application.

 

Finn v. The Industry Development Bank

 

Application to certify a class action against the bank, its directors and the State of Israel as the controlling shareholder. The application was filed in August 2007. The applicant claimed that before the bank underwent a major financial crisis, reporting duties regarding its condition were breached. The parties reached a settlement, according to which purchasers of the bank`s securities were compensated in the amount of NIS 4.8 million. The settlement was approved. 

 

Status: Settlement execution was completed. 

 

Documents: Application to Certify the Class Action, Settlement, Decision Approving the Settlement

 
 

Yemin v. the Estate of Harel (Rogozin)

 

Application to certify a class action against the controlling shareholders and directors of the public company Rogozin, on behalf of the Company's shareholders. The application was filed in August 2007. The applicant claimed that the controlling shareholders misused the company's assets, moneys and business, for their own gain. Following submission of the application a settlement was reached as part of a creditors` scheme of arrangement. According to the settlement, the shareholders received an amount of US$ 1 million. 

 

Status: Settlement execution was completed. 

 

Documents: Application to Acquit from the Proceedings

 

Freibrun v. Boulus Gad Tourism and Hotels Ltd. (Formerly: Rozenberg v. Boulus Gad Tourism and Hotels Ltd.)

 

Application to certify a class action on behalf of purchasers of bonds of Boulus Gad Tourism and Hotels, against the trustee for the bonds, the controlling shareholders and the Company's auditors, filed in July 2002. In 2000 the Company raised approximately NIS 25 million. The funds were embezzled by the parent company, and very shortly after that, the Company ceased to operate. The applicant claimed that the fundraising process was fraudulent from its very beginning, and that the investors were deceived.

The District Court certified the class action against the directors and the controlling shareholders. It further ruled that the trustee and auditors were negligent, but did not certify the action against them, since it was not proved that their acts and omissions caused the damage. In addition, the Court ruled that the applicant be substituted. The applicant appealed this ruling to the Supreme Court. In June 2015 the Supreme Court ordered that the District Court to exhaust the procedure of substituting the applicant as lead plaintiff, while all parties preserve their claims. Following the appointment of a substitute lead plaintiff In March 2016, appeal proceedings were renewed. In August 2018 the Supreme Court denied the appeal.

Following the dismissal of the appeal, the parties negotiated a settlement, which was approved in July 2019. According to the settlement, the directors will pay NIS 600,000. This sum, less the settlement expenses, attorney fees and lead plaintiff`s reward, will be transferred to a public fund, responsible for the administration and distribution of cy pres awards.

 

Status: Settlement was approved.

 

Documents: Application to Certify the Class Action, Ruling Certifying the Class Action, Notice of AppealAppellant's Written Summary, Supreme Court`s Judgement, Appointment of a Substitute Lead PlaintiffSupreme Court`s Final Judgement in Appeal, Settlement Agreement, Final Judgement.

 

Varum v. Alpha Bio-Tech Inc.

Application to certify a class action against two companies - Industrie Biomediche Insubri, a Swiss company that develops and manufactures bone grafts for dental surgeries, and Alpha Bio-Tech, an Israeli company which imports and sells the products in Israel. The Application was filed in March 2019. The applicant claims that one of the products sold to dentists in Israel, and implanted in Israeli patients, was defected and failed to solidify into bone tissue. The applicant requests compensation for the physical harm that was sustained by the Israeli patients, and compensation for all patients for failing to warn them about the potential risk of the product.

Status: Application to certify the class action is pending.

Documents: Application to Certify the Class Action.

 
 

Nassar v. Champion Motors

Application to certify a class action against Champion Motors and Volkswagen, filed in July 2015. The application was filed on behalf of purchasers of cars imported by Champion Motors and manufactured since 2008 by Volkswagen. In the application, the applicants claim that a defect in the cars causes an excessive oil consumption and requires various repairs. The applicants request compensation for sums they where forced to pay due to the defect and an extension of the warranty period.

Our office represents the applicants, together with Saber Nassar.

Status: Application to certify the class action is pending.

Documents: Application to Certify the Class Action.

 

Regev v. Japanauto-Israel Auto Corporation

Application to certify a class action against Japanauto-Israel Auto Corporation and Subaru Corporation, on behalf of purchasers of cars manufactured in 2007-2011 by Subaru Corporation. In the application, which was filed in July 2017, the applicants claim that a defect in the cars causes an excessive oil consumption and requires various repairs. The applicants request compensation for sums they where forced to pay due to the defect and an extension of the warranty period.

Our office represents the applicants, together with Shahar Cohen.

Status: Application to certify the class action is pending.

Documents: Application to Certify the Class Action.

 

Lev v. Mifal Hapais (the Israel State Lottery)

Application to certify a class action, filed in December 2017, against the Israel State Lottery with regard to its operation of a lottery named KENO. According to the application, Israel State Lottery charges the gamblers with participation fees which exceed the amount allowed by the regulations and the Lottery`s operating permit. The applicant demands that the Lottery compensates the gamblers for the losses incurred, acts according to the permit and the regulations, and ceases the unlawful practice.

Status: Application to certify the class actions is pending.

Documents: Application to Certify the Class Action, Settlement Agreement and Decision Ordering to Publish the Settlement.

Danino v. Carmelton Group

Application to certify a class action, filed in July 2017, against the operators of the Carmel Tunnels. According to the application, large private vehicles are charged with a higher toll, that should apply only to public vehicles, as set in the concession agreement. The applicants request repayment of the toll was unlawfully charged, and that the Tunnels operators will cease the unlawful charge.

In June 2018 the parties reached a settlement, according to which the unlawful charged will be fully refunded to the drivers. In May 2019 the district court approved the settlement.

Status: The settlement is under execution.

Documents: Application to Certify the Class Action, Decision Approving the Settlement.

 
 

Hadad v. Mifal Hapais (the Israel State Lottery)

Application to certify a class action, filed in January 2017, against the Israel State Lottery with regard to its operation of electronic slot machines. According to the application, the slot machines do not allow gamblers to place bets on sums as low as NIS 1, which contitutes a breach of the Lottery`s operating permit. In addition, the default bets are set on the maximum sums, thus exploiting the gamblers. The applicant demands that the Lottery compensates the gamblers for the losses incurred, acts according to the permit and ceases the practice of setting a default high bet.

In August 2018 the court dismissed the application.

Status: The application was dismissed.

Documents: Application to Certify the Class ActionJudgement Dissmissing the Application.

Lapiner v. Derech Eretz Highways

Danino v. Carmelton Group

Applications to certify class actions, filed in December 2016 and January 2017, against the operators of the Trans-Israel Highway (Road 6) and the Carmel Tunnels. Monthly bills are sent to customers who use these roads. According to the applications, when a bill is not paid due to a failure relating to the method of payment, a certain collection cost is unlawfully charged. The applicants request repayment of the collection costs that were unlawfully charged, and that the Highway operators will cease the unlawful charge.

In November 2017 the court approved a withdrawal from the Lapiner case, after it turned out that the collection cost was in fact approved by the relevant authority.

In July 2018 the parties to the Danino case reached a settlement, according to which the operators of the Carmel Tunnels will cease the abovementioned charge, and repay 80% of the sums that were charged. In May 2019 the district court approved the settlement.

Status: The Lapiner case was withdrawn; Settlement in Danino`s case is under execution.

Documents: Lapiner`s Application to Certify the Class Action, Danino`s Application to Certify the Class ActionDecision Approving the Withdrawal of Lapiner`s Application, Settlement Agreement in the Danino CaseDecision Approving the Settlement in the Danino Case.

 

Goren v. Bitan Wines

An application to certify a class action, on behalf of customers of the retail chain, filed in November 2016. The applicant claims that the sums charged for products exceeded the prices labeled on them. This practice was found with regard to dozens of products. The applicant demands that the retail chain returns the amounts overcharged and ceases the practice.

Status: Application to certify the class action is pending.

Documents: Application to Certify the Class Action.

 

Lapiner v. Bezeq

 

Application to certify a class action, filed in August 2016. The Applicant claims that Bezeq, the largest communications company in Israel, overcharges its customers for not paying their debts when due. According to the applicable regulations, Bezeq is allowed to charge a certain amount for failure to pay on time, and if the non-payment results from rejection of a cheque or bank's instructions – a higher amount. Bezeq charges both the base amount and the additional higher one. Under the application, Bezeq is required to return the overcharged amounts and cease this practice.

In April 2018 the class action was certified.

Status: Class action is pending.

Documents: Application to Certify the Class ActionDecision Certifying the Class Action.

 

Gvili v. Partner

 

Application to certify a class action, filed in March 2016 against the phone carriers Partner and Cellcom. The applicants seek to represent clients who, while being abroad, received calls and rejected them. The carriers charged for the rejected calls, as if they were answered and then terminated. In making the charge, the carriers violate the license under which they operate, and the agreements with the clients. The charge is also contrary to representations made in the carriers' Internet sites. The applicants demand that the carriers return the amounts unlawfully charged, and cease the charging. In March 2017 the court approved a withdrawal from the case.

 

Status: The case was withdrawn.

 

Documents: Application to Certify the Class Action.

 

Telraz v. Bezeq

 

A class action against Bezeq, Israel's largest telecommunications company. The application to certify the class action was filed in September 2015. According to the application, Bezeq is in breach of its duty to conduct a daily update of the database used by its call center. As a result, customers who apply to the call center are given phone numbers which are assigned to disconnected phone lines. Bezeq charges a fee for each such call. The applicants demand Bezeq to update the call center database as required by law, and to repay its customers sums paid for irrelevant phone numbers. In September 2017 the class action was certified.

In August 2018 the parties reached a settlement. According to the settlement, compensation will be given to customers who were given irrelevant phone numbers. The compensation will be given by assigning a quota of free of charge calls to Bezeq`s call center. The court approved the settlement.

Status: The settlement is being executed.

 

Documents: Application to Certify the Class ActionDecision Certifying the Class Action, Motion to Approve a SettlementDecision Approving the Settlement.

 
 

Danino v. 013 Netvision 

 

Application to certify a class action against Netvision, a leading telecommunications company, on behalf of its clients. The application was filed in June 2015. The Company operates under licenses, issued by the Minister of Communications. The licenses allow the Company to charge collection costs, for unpaid debts. According to the licenses, the costs charged must be reasonable and proportionate to the debt. The applicants claim that the Company is charging excessive collection costs, with no proportion to the debt, even when no collection actions were not taken at all. The applicants request repayment of the excessive collection costs that were unlawfully charged, and that the Company will cease overcharging the clients and change its standard contracts.

In July 2018 the class action was certified, with regard to collection costs which were imposed when no collection actions were taken, and with regard to collection costs which were imposed where the debt was under NIS 40. The parties appealed the decision.

 

Status: Appeals on the decision certifying the class action are pending.

 

Documents: Application to Certify the Class ActionDecision Certifying the Class Action, Notice of Appeal.

De Lange v. Partner

Bloch v. Pelephone

 

Applications to certify class actions against the mobile carriers Pelephone and Partner. The applications were filed in May 2015. The applicants claim that the carriers conducted price discrimination between clients. In addition, it is claimed that the carriers prevent clients from changing to certain payment plans. The carriers` licenses require equitable treatment of all customers.

In may 2016, the proceedings against Pelephone were stayed, due to the Ministry of Communication`s intention to hold a hearing regarding the issue of price discrimination.

Status: Application against Partner is pending; Proceedings against Pelephone are stayed.

Documents: De Lange ApplicationBloch Application.

 

The Israel Consumer Council v. Icon Group 

 

Application to certify a class action, against Icon Group and iDigital, which import and market Apple devices in Israel, on behalf of purchasers of iPad and iPod devices. The application was filed in January 2014. The Council claims that Icon and iDigital do not comply with the statutory obligation to supply spare parts, and are willing to offer only the purchase of complete devices. The Council claims compensation for the consumers who were deprived of their right to purchase spare parts, and stipulate that the Companies comply with the statutory obligations moving forward

 

We represent the Council, together with Professor Alon Klement. 

 

Status: Application to certify the class action is pending. 

 

Documents: Application to Certify the Class Action

 

Giner v. The Israeli Electricity Company 

 

Application to certify a class action against IEC, on behalf of its clients, filed in May 2013. The applicant claims that IEC was delayed in sending its monthly invoices, which in turn caused them not to be paid on time. Subsequently, IEC charges the consumers for arrears. The applicant claimed damages for the consumers, and an order requiring IEC to deliver the monthly statements in a timely manner. In March 2016 the application was dismissed.

 

Status: The Application was dismissed. 

 

Documents: Application to Certify the Class Action, Judgement Dissmissing the Application

 

Sharvit v. Champion Motors

 

Application to certify a class action on behalf of purchasers of cars manufactured in 2009-2011 by the Volkswagen Group (Volkswagen, Audi, Seat and Skoda), in which a DSG7 gearbox was installed. In the application, which was filed in March 2013, the applicants claim that the DSG7 gearbox is defective, causing the cars to tremble, and creating safety problems. An application to approve a settlement was submitted in January 2015. According to the settlement, a compensation of NIS 1,300 will be given for each car in which the defective gearbox was installed. Furthermore, an additional warranty period will be given, and Champion Motors will appoint a designated staff person who will deal with customer complaints regarding the matter. The court approved the settlement.

 

Our office represents the applicants, together with Adi Porat. 

 

Status: The settlement is being executed. Click here to check your eligibility for compensation.

 

Documents: Application to Certify the Class Action, Protocol of a Court Session Regarding the Settlement, Decision Approving the Settlement, Notice Regarding the Settlement, Settlement Agreement.

 

Reznik v. Pelephone
Keinan v. Partner

Sigora Bar-Nir v. Cellcom

 

Applications to certify class actions against the mobile carriers Pelephone, Cellcom and Partner. The applications were filed in July-August 2010. The applicants claim that the carriers charged the consumers with Value Added Tax, for services rendered to them while they were outside of Israel. Such charge is unwarranted. Following the application, the Tax Authority amended the rules and ceased to demand such charges. The applications were dismissed, except the application against Cellcom with regard to a certain service.

In July 2017 an extended panel of justices of the Supreme Court upheld an appeal, vacating the District Court decision. It was held that the defenses provided by the Class Action Law to state authorities do not apply to the mobile carriers, although the carriers transferred the collected tax to the tax authorities. It was further held that Value Added Tax does not apply to pre purchased communication services rendered abroad.

Status: The Supreme Court upheld the appeal and returned the certification applications to the District Court. 

 

Documents: Reznik Application, Keinan Application, Sigora Bar-Nir Application, Decision Rejecting  the Applications, Notice of Appeal, Supreme Court`s Desicion in the Appeal.

 
 

Pink v. Bezeq

 

A class action against Bezeq, Israel's largest telecommunications company. The application was filed in July 2010. Bezeq offered its clients prepaid plans and in the monthly statements indicated the amount saved by the use of the plans. The applicant claimed that such statement was false, since it did not subtract the fixed amount paid for the plan.

 

The parties reached a settlement, according to which Bezeq paid its customers NIS 4.6 million, and donated an amount of NIS 0.8 million to public causes.

 

Status: The settlement execution was completed.    

 

Documents: Application to Certify the Class Action, Settlement Agreement; Award Approving the Settlement

Fattal v. Cellcom

Greenberg v. Cellcom

 

A class action and an application to certify a class action, claiming that Cellcom, a leading mobile carrier, began charging its clients for transcripts detailing their activity, after providing such transcripts at no charge. The clients never agreed to pay for this service. The District Court certified the class action in the matter of Fattal, which was filed in March 2008, and a motion to appeal was dismissed. In the dismissal order, the Supreme Court issued a precedential ruling, establishing new rules with regard to the standard of review of decisions certifying class actions. Following the dismissal of the appeal in the matter of Fattal, the lawsuit was accepted, and Cellcom was ordered to return to its clients the amounts charged. Following an appeal on this award, the parties reached a settlement, under which Cellcom would return half of the amounts charged. Accordingly, Cellcom returned to the class members an amount exceeding NIS 18 million. Such return to clients on an individual basis was unprecedented, in the consumer law field.

 

In April 2015, Mr. Ben-Zion Greenberg filed an an application to certify a class action against Cellcom, following the Fattal case. The class in the Fattal case included clients of Cellcom who were illegally charged until August 2009, the month in which application was certified. Although the District Court stated in the certification decision that the charge was unlawful, Cellcom decided to raise the charge instead of cancelling it. Relying on the Fattal case, Mr. Greenberg contended that Cellcom should return the unlawful charge. Mr. Greenberg also claimed that Cellcom charged unreasonable amounts for the service, which charge is forbidden. In August 2016, the District Court certified the claim, with regard to the main cause of action - charging the clients for service they had never agreed to pay for. In January 2017, On appeal, the Supreme Court vacated the certification decision and ordered that the case will return to the District Court for further inquiry. In December 2017 the District Court certified the claim again, with regard to a part of the class period. In January 2019 the Supreme Court dismissed Cellcom`s appeal and upheld the lead plaintiff`s appeal, certrifyin the class action with regard to the whole class period.

Status: The award was fulfilled in the matter of Fattal; Greenberg`s class action is pending. 

Documents: Fattal`s application to Certify the Class Action, Decision Certifying the Class Action in the Fattal Case, Decision Dismissing the Appeal in the Fattal case; Award in the Fattal Case; Supreme Court's Decision in the Fattal caseGreenberg`s application to Certify the Class ActionDecision Certifying the Class Action in the Greenberg CaseSupreme Court`s Decision Vacating the Greenberg Case Certification Decision; Second Decision Certifying the Class Action in the Greenberg CaseSupreme Court`s Decision in the Appeals on the Second Decision in the Greenberg Case.

 
 

Pink v. SodaStream Israel

Application to certify a class action against Sodastream Israel ltd., on the grounds of unfair terms in consumer contracts, false advertising, abuse of a dominant position and unfair pricing of gas refills for home carbonation systems.

 

According to the application, Sodastream holds a dominant position in the market for home carbonation systems, and in the relevant aftermarket for CO2 refills. Home carbonation systems enable consumers to transform tap water into sparkling water through the use of CO2. Each carbonation system is sold with a matching gas cylinder containing CO2. According to the application, Sodastream engages in unfair practices in order to compel consumers to purchase gas refills only from Sodastream. These practices are designed to maintain Sodastream's dominant position in the relevant markets, while blocking competition. The applicants contend that Sodastream's practices infringe consumer rights and competition law.    

Status: Application to certify the class action is pending. 

 

Documents: Application to Certify the Class Action.

 

The Israel Consumer Council v. Tnuva

 

Application to certify a class action against Tnuva, Israel's largest food manufacturer, on behalf of purchasers of hard cheese. The application was filed in November 2014. Until 2007, the prices of hard cheese were regulated, and maximum prices were established by law. Since the deregulation of the prices of pre-packaged hard cheese, Tnuva raised its price by up to 100%. Such an increase was facilitated by Tnuva's monopolistic position in the Israeli market. This constitutes a breach of the Israeli Antitrust Law, which forbids excessive pricing by a monopoly. 

In June 2019 the district court certified the class action.

Status: Class action is pending. 

 

Documents: Application to Certify the Class Action, Decision Accepting Application to Disclose Documents, Supreme Court`s Decision Dismissing Motion to Appeal the Disclosure Decision.

Aviv v. Bank Mizrachi Tefahot

Application to certify a class action, filed in January 2019. According to the application, the Bank`s tariff states that a fee for sending a notice of overdue payments or overdraft, will be charged after the second notice had been sent. In practice, the Bank is charging the fee starting the first notice. The applicant request repayment of the unlawful charge.

Status: Application to certify the class action is pending. 

Documents: Application to Certify the Class Action.

 

Stolarski v. S. Shlomo Vehicle

 

Application to certify a class action, against Shlomo SIXT, a car rental company, filed on behalf of car owners who suffered damage in car accidents, caused by vehicles owned by the company. The application was filed in November 2018. Shlomo SIXT provides its clients car rental services, which include an undertaking to compensate for any damage caused by the company`s vehicles to third party vehicles. Therefore, the company is obligated to act as an insurer and to carry out any duty which follows. The company renounces these duties. The applicant demands that the company fulfill its duties.

Status: Application to certify the class action is pending. 

Documents: Application to Certify the Class Action.

 

Lapiner v. Bank Hapoalim

 

Application to certify a class action, filed in September 2018 against Bank Hapoalim. The Bank set on its fee list discounted fees for performing direct channel actions (i.e. actions which are not performed by a bank clerk). According to the application, for currency transfer and redemption of securities services in a direct channel, the Bank charges a non-discounted fee. The Bank is requested to cease the excessive charge  and to return the amounts unlawfully charged.

Status: Application to certify the class action is pending. 

Documents: Application to Certify the Class Action.

 

Lapiner v. Bank Hapoalim

 

Application to certify a class action, filed in August 2018 against Bank Hapoalim, Bank Leumi, Discount Bank and Bank Mizrachi Tefahot. According to the application, when a client makes a purchase using a payment card, and his account is charged immediately (and not in a postponed date, as in credit cards), the banks unlawfully charge a direct channel fee (i.e. a fee which is paid for actions which are not performed by a bank clerk). The applicants request repayment of the unlawful charge.

Status: Application to certify the class action is pending. 

Documents: Application to Certify the Class Action.

 

Tamar v. Bank Leumi

 

Application to certify a class action, filed in August 2018 against Bank Leumi. According to the application, the bank charges clients excessive fees for depositing a post-dated check. The claimant contends this surcharge is unlawful and demands that the bank return the fees that were charged in excess.

Status: Application to certify the class action is pending. 

Documents: Application to Certify the Class Action.

 

Azoulay v. PayPal

Application to certify a class action against PayPal, filed in May 2018. According to the application, when a client carries out a transaction in NIS, using PayPal`s payment services, PayPal is obliged to transmit the transaction to the credit card company, in NIS. In this way, the client will be charged with the exact transaction sum. The claimants contend that PayPal transmits the transaction in USD. As a result, the credit card company purchases USD, and the client is charged with a higher sum for the transaction, and in addition, he is illegally charged with a conversion fee.

Status: Application to certify the class action is pending. 

Documents: Application to Certify the Class Action.

 
 

Lapiner v. Bank Hapoalim

 

Application to certify a class action, filed in May 2018 against Bank Hapoalim and Bank Leumi. According to the application, the banks charge clients excessive fees for depositing a post-dated check using an automatic machine.  The claimants contend this surcharge is unlawful and demand that the banks return the fees that were charged in excess.

Status: Application to certify the class action is pending. 

Documents: Application to Certify the Class Action.

Yuval Lapiner Law Office v. Bank Hapoalim

 

Application to certify a class action, filed in March 2018 against Bank Hapoalim. According to the application, the bank charges small businesses excessive fees for transferring salaries to their employees, using a list of beneficiaries.  The claimant demands that the bank returns the fees that were charged in excess.

Status: Application to certify the class action is pending. 

Documents: Application to Certify the Class Action.

 

Shabi v. Discount Bank

 

Application to certify a class action, filed in December 2017 against Discount Bank and the First International Bank of Israel. The Guarantee Law sets various restrictions regarding the collection of a debt from a guarantor. According to the application, the banks breach those restrictions. 

Status: Application to certify the class action is pending. 

Documents: Application to Certify the Class Action.

 

Matz v. Ayalon Insurance

 

Application to certify a class action, against Ayalon insurance, filed in July 2017. According to the application, in cases of car accidents which occurred at a road junction, Ayalon automatically deducts the insurance compensation paid to third parties, on the grounds of contributing negligence. In addition, Ayalon does not provide an explanation for the deduction. The applicant demanded that Ayalon returns the amounts deducted, and ceases the practice.

In March 2018 the court approved a withdrawal from the case.

Status: The case was withdrawn. 

Documents: Application to Certify the Class ActionDecision Approving the Withdrawal of the Application.

 

Lapiner v. Bank Hapoalim

 

Application to certify a class action, filed in June 2017 against Bank Hapoalim. In financing construction projects, the bank charges a fee. According to the application, the fee is unlawful, since it is calculated according to the total construction cost, including the client`s equity. The claimant demands that the bank returns the part of the fee which was unlawfully charged.

In January 2019 the court approved a withdrawal from the case.

Status: The case was withdrawn. 

Documents: Application to Certify the Class ActionDecision Approving the Withdrawal of the Application.

 

Yuval Lapiner Law Office v. Bank Hapoalim

 

Application to certify a class action, filed in April 2017 against Bank Hapoalim. The bank undertook to give small businesses a 50% discount in currency conversion fee on the internet. According to the application, the bank has breached its undertaking. The claimant demands that the bank returns the fees that were charged in excess. 

The parties reached a settlement, which was approved in July 2019. According to the settlement, the class members will receive compensation amounting to 78.4% of the fees that were charged in excess.

Status: The settlement is under execution. 

Documents: Application to Certify the Class ActionMotion to Approve a SettlementDecision Approving the Settlement.

 

Dialog Tech v. Bank Leumi

 

Application to certify a class action, filed in March 2017 against Bank Leumi. According to the application, the bank unlawfully charges securities deposit management fee, with regard to securities which had been unlisted from the stock exchange. The claimant demands that the bank returns the fees that were charged. In June 2018 the application was dismissed.

Status: The application was dismissed. 

Documents: Application to Certify the Class ActionJudgement Dissmissing the Application.

 

Lapiner v. Bank Leumi

 

Application to certify a class action, filed in January 2017 against Bank Leumi. According to the application, when a foreign currency is deposited in an Israeli currency account, the bank converts the foreign currency to NIS, even when the client did not request the conversion. The claimant demands that the bank returns the conversion fees that were charged. 

Status: Application to certify the class action is pending. 

Documents: Application to Certify the Class Action.

 

Mor v. IDI Insurance Company

Application to certify a class action, filed in January 2017 against IDI Insurance Company. The company sold vehicle insurance policies that included, in the case of a total loss, the right to receive payment equaling the value of a new vehicle. As the end of the insurance period approached, the company sent insured persons an e-mail, offering to renew their policies under the same terms. The company violated its obligation, as the new policies included different terms, to the detriment of the insured persons. The claimant demands that the company pays the insured persons according to the terms of the old policies. 

 

Status: Application to certify the class action is pending. 

 

Documents: Application to Certify the Class Action.

 

Harif v. Bank Hapoalim

 

Application to certify a class action against Bank Hapoalim, a prominent Israeli bank. The application was filed in August 2016. The application dealt with the services named "Up Active" and the service packages "Poalim Up Active" and "Poalim UP Smart". The applicant claimed that those services do not appear in the Full Tariff, promulgated by the Minister of Finance, and therefore the bank is not allowed to charge commissions for those services. The applicant demanded that the bank returns the unlawfully charged commissions, and ceases the illegal charge. In February 2017 the court approved a withdrawal from the case.

Status: The case was withdrawn. 

 

Documents: Application to Certify the Class Action, Decision Approving the Withdrawal.

 

Lapiner v. Bank Hapoalim

 

Application to certify a class action against Bank Hapoalim, filed in February 2016. The applicant claims that the bank charges clients for postal storage service, although the client never ordered the service. The bank also makes such charge following the death of the client. The charge constitutes breach of the agreement between the bank and its clients, as well as breach of the bank's tariff, which stipulates that the service be provided only with the client's consent.

 

In September 2017 the court approved a settlement, according to which the bank shall fully repay its customers the fees it charged and will cease the charge.

 

Status: Settlement execution completed. 

 

Documents: Application to Certify the Class ActionMotion to Approve a Settlement. Decision Approving the Settlement

 

Keinan v. Menora Mivtachim Pensions and Gemel

 

Application to certify a class action against Menora, Migdal, Clal and Psagot pension funds. The application was filed in December 2015. The regulations that govern investments of pension funds, limit the percentage holding in non-governmental low rated bonds. According to the application, the pension funds' holdings of such bonds exceeded the limits set by the regulations. The funds are demanded to repay management fees, and compensate the clients for damages caused due to excessive exposure to the bonds. In November 2016 ordered that the case will be heard in the Regional Labor Court.

Status: Application to certify the class action is pending. 

Documents: Application to Certify the Class Action, Decision to Transfer the Case to the Regional Labor Court.

 
 

Lapiner v. Bank Hapoalim, Dan v. The First International Bank

Tamar v. Bank Yahav

 

Applications to certify a class action against Bank Hapoalim, the First International Bank of Israel and Bank Yahav, filed in February and December 2015. Banking regulations forbid banks from charging individuals and small businesses fees exceeding the amount charged for medium and large corporations for the same services. The claimants contend that the banks violate these regulations, and seek reimbursement of the over-charges and an order enforcing the banks to comply with the regulations. 

In June 2017 a settlement with Bank Hapoalim was approved. According to the settlement, the Bank will compensate its clients. In February and March 2018 similar settlements with the First International Bank and Bank Yahav were approved.

Status: The settlements are being executed

Documents: Application to Certify the Class Action against Bank Hapoaim and the First International Bank of IsraelApplication to Certify the Class Action against Bank Yahav, Motion to Approve a Settlement with Bank HapoalimDecision Approving the Settlement with Bank HapoalimMotion to Approve a Settlement with the First International Bank of IsraelDecision Approving the Settlement with the First International Bank of IsraelMotion to Approve a Settlement with Bank Hapoalim, Decision Approving the Settlement with Bank Yahav.

Giner v. Isracard

 

Application to certify a class action against Isracard, a major Israeli credit card company, on behalf of Isracard's customers. The application was filed in January 2015. The applicant claimed that according to Isracard's price list, a commission is charged for the purchase of a foreign currency, but only with regard to dollars, and not other foreign currencies. In practice, Isracard unlawfully charges a commission for the purchase of any foreign currency. The applicant claimed return of the commission that was unlawfully charged, as well as the cessation of the unlawful practice. Following the submission of the application, Isracard changed its price list, allowing to charge a commission for the purchase of foreign currencies other than dollars.

 

In March 2016 the parties reached a settlement, according to which Isracard shall repay its customers the commission it charged. In August 2016 the District Court approved the settlement.

 

Status: Settlement execution completed.

 

Documents: Application to Certify the Class ActionMotion to Approve a SettlementDecision Approving the Settlement.

 
 

Lapiner v. Discount Bank

 

Application to certify a class action against Discount Bank, on behalf of holders of student accounts, filed in July 2014. The applicants claim that when the bank offers improved terms to students, and updates its tariff accordingly, it does not apply the new terms to existing student accounts, but only to new ones. Such distinction has no basis in the bank's tariff, and the bank's publications do not support it either. Therefore, charging existing student accounts excessive fees is unlawful. In November 2016 the class action was certified, with respect to student accounts from the years 2008-2012. Both parties appealed to the Supreme Court. In October 2018 the Supreme Court upheld the Plaintiffs` appeal, dismissed the Bank`s appeal, and ruled that the class will include student account holders from the years 2008-2014.

 

Status: Class action is pending. 

Documents: Application to Certify the Class Action, Decision Certifying the Class Action, Supreme Court`s Judgement in the Appeal on the Certification Decision.

Guy v. Ayalon Insurance

 

Application to certify a class action on behalf of persons insured by Ayalon, filed in April 2014. The applicant claims that premiums are collected for the period beginning on the first day of the calendar month, even if the insurance was concluded later throughout the month. As a result, premiums are collected by the insurance company, with regard to periods in which no insurance coverage exists.

 

The parties reached a settlement, according to which the company will return the premiums which were colleted with regard to periods not covered by the insurance. The settlement was approved in October 2015.

 

Status: Settlement execution completed. 

 

Documents: Application to Certify the Class ActionApplication to Approve the Settlement, Order to make the Settlement PublicDecision Approving the Settlement.

 
 

Hagma v. Bank Mizrachi Tefahot

Hagigi v. Bank HaPoalim

 

Applications to certify class actions against two major banks, on behalf of debtors against whom the banks initiated legal proceedings. The applications were filed in 2011-2012. The applicants claim that the banks recorded their legal expenses and increased the debt accordingly, without approval of the court. The applicants further claim that expenses which were recorded at the court's approval, bore a higher interest rate than that ruled by the court. In November 2016 the parties reached settlements, according to which class members will receive compensation. The compensation sum will be determined according to a sample that will be taken from the class members` accounts by a court appointed expert.

 

Status: Applications to approve the settlements are pending.

 

Documents: Hagma Application, Hagigi Application, Application to Approve the Settlement with Bank Mizrachi TefahotApplication to Approve the Settlement with Bank HaPoalim.

Dimri v. Bank Mizrachi Tefahot

Hagigi v. Bank HaPoalim

Silvera v. Bank Leumi

 

Applications to certify class actions against three major banks, on behalf of clients against whom  the banks have initiated execution and collection proceedings. Dimri and Hagigi`s applications were filed in 2011, and Silvera`s application was filed in July 2015. The applicants claim that in the past, when debtors repaid a portion of the debt directly to the bank or to the lawyer representing it, the bank was late in reporting the payment to the Execution Office. During the delay period, the balance of the debt, as recorded in the Execution Office files, incurred interest at a high rate (known as "bank interest"). After the payment had been lately reported,  the debtor was credited for the delay period. However, the credit was based on a lower interest rate then the one actually recorded, leaving the client damaged as a result of the late report. Following the filing of Dimri and Hagigi`s applications, the Execution and Collection Authority announced that it had fixed its systems, but the clients were not compensated. The compensation is sought in the three applications. 

The parties to the cases against Bank HaPoalim and Bank Mizrachi Tefahot reached settlements. According to the settlements, a court appointed expert will determine the compensation sum for the class members. In addition, the banks have agreed to change their conduct.

In September 2018 the District Court partially dismissed the application to certify the class action against Bank Leumi. The applicant appealed the decision.

Status: Applications to approve settlements with Bank HaPoalim and Bank Mizrachi Tefahot are pending; Appeal on the decision to partially dismiss the class action against Bank Leumi is pending.

Documents: Dimri Application, Hagigi Application, Silvera Application, Application to Approve the Settlement with Bank HaPoalim, Application to Approve the Settlement with Bank Mizrachi Tefahot, Decision Partially Dismissing the Class Action Against Bank Leumi, Appeal on the Dismissal Decision in the Bank Leumi Case.

 
 

The Israel Consumer Council v. Migdal, Clal, HaPhoenix and Menora Insurance Companies

 

Application to certify a class action against four major insurance companies, which was filed in April 2010. The Council claims that the insurance companies fail to comply with regulations ordering them to locate insured persons for whom the companies hold funds. As a result of such failure, the companies possess tremendous sums of money owned by persons who are not aware of their entitlements. The court referred the matter to mediation, handled by Dr. Israel Leshem. 

 

In February 2016 the parties reched a settlement. The insurance companies agreed to take certain actions, in order to secure  that insured persons for whom the companies hold funds, will be informed of such holding. The agreed actions exceed the duties currently imposed by the regulator.The settlement was approved in February 2017.

 

Status: Settlement execution completed. 

 

Documents: Application to Certify the Class Action, Settlement AgreementApplication to Approve the SettlementDecision Approving the Settlement.

Litvin v. Bank Mizrahi Tefahot

 

Application to certify a class action which was filed in February 2010, on behalf of borrowers who prepaid loans, and were charged with a fee named "no-notice fee". Such a fee may be charged by lenders with regard to prepayment of mortgage loans. However, if the prepayment is made by means of a loan taken from the same bank, the charging of this fee is prohibited. The applicant claimed that the bank does charge the fee, including when prohibited.

 

The parties reached a settlement, according to which the bank returned to the borrowers the entire amount claimed.

 

Status: Settlement execution completed.

 

Documents: Application to Certify the Class Action, Settlement Agreement, Decision Approving the Settlement.

 
 

Silvera v. Bank Leumi

 

Class action against Bank Leumi, on behalf of debtors against whom the bank initiated legal proceedings. The application was filed in May 2008. The applicant claimed that the bank recorded its legal expenses and increased the debt accordingly, without the approval of the court. The applicant further claimed that these expenses, which were recorded at the bank account at the court's approval, bore interest at a higher rate than that ruled by the court. The District Court certified the class action, the bank appealed, but then withheld its appeal. The parties reached an unprecedented settlement, according to which the bank will pay or credit the accounts in an amount of NIS 2,500 each. 

 

Status: Settlement execution was completed. 

 

Documents: Application to Certify the Class Action, Decision Certifying the Class Action, Decision Dismissing the Appeal, Amended Settlement Agreement, Award Approving the Settlement

 

Aviad v. Menora

Amossi v. HaPhoenix

Kandel v. Migdal

 

Class actions carried out on behalf of insured persons who sustained injuries as a result of accidents. The plaintiffs claimed that the three insurance companies did not honor the rights of the insured persons, and unlawfully deducted amounts from payments they were entitled to, as a result of their injury. The deduction was made by way of comparing disability rate to a statutory rate, though no such comparison was mentioned in the insurance policies. 

 

The class actions, which were filed in 2005-2006, were certified. The Supreme Court denied the insurance companies' appeal, with a precedential award relating to class action procedure. Thereafter the District Court accepted the lawsuits and ordered the compensation. The class members received dozens of NIS millions. The plaintiffs applied to the Supreme Court, with regard to the three-year statute of limitations pertaining to the entitlement, and other issues. The appeal was withdrawn, under the recommendation of the Supreme Court.

 

Status: Compensation progress has ended.

 

Documents: Decision Certifying the Class Actions, Supreme Court's Ruling, Award, Notice of Appeal, Supreme Court`s Ruling on Appeal on Award.

 

Citizens for the Environment v. Elcon Recycling Center (2003) (excess morbidity caused by pollutants emission)

 

Application to certify a class action on behalf of people who spent more than two years in the Haifa district, and who were diagnosed with lung cancer or Non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The application was filed in July 2019 by Citizens for the Environment organization, against dozens of factories and other entities who emit pollutants known as causing these diseases.

According to the application, although information about the excessive air pollution in the Haifa district has been available for dozens of years, the respondents continued to impose the damage of pollution on the public, breached environmental standards and emission permits, did not properly monitor their activity, and did not take into account their proximity to one another and to residential areas. The respondents` behavior caused excess morbidity among class members.

We represent the applicants, together with Asaf Pink law office, and Dr. (Geography) Eran Tzin and Amnon Keren of the Tel Aviv University Environmental Justice Law Clinic.

Status: Application to certify the class action is pending.

 
 

Nasser Rabah v. Hadassah Medical Organization (segregation in maternity wards)

 

Application to certify a class action, against four hospitals, filed in May 2018. The application was filed on behalf of arab women who gave birth in the hospitals. According to the application, those arab women were segregated from other women and admitted to separate rooms, without any medical justification. The applicants demand that the segregation stops and that compensation is paid to the women who suffered the discrimination.

We represent the applicants, together with Professor Alon Klement and  Hadas Holzstein-Tamir of the Tel Aviv University Class Action Law Clinic. 

Status: Application to certify the class action is pending. 

Documents: Application to Certify the Class Action.

Avrukin v. Chevra Kadisha Petah Tikva (Petah Tikva Burial Services)

Application to certify a class action, filed in November 2016, on behalf of family members of deceased persons born in the former Soviet Union, who were buried in Sgula and Yarkon cemeteries. According to the application, for over a decade, the Chevra Kadisha has been discriminating against Jewish deceased persons born in the former soviet union, by segregating their burial plots from the remainder of the cemetery. In certain cases, fences were erected to separate said plots. The applicants demand that the segregation stops and that compensation is paid to the family members.

We represent the applicants, together with Professor Alon Klement and  Hadas Holzstein-Tamir of the Tel Aviv University Class Action Law Clinic. 

Status: Application to certify the class action is pending. 

 

Documents: Application to Certify the Class Action.

Аврукин против Хевра Кадиша

Просьба о разрешении на подачу представительского иска против похоронного общества "Хевра Кадиша" города Петах Тиквы и её руководства, была подана в ноябре 2016 года, от имени родственников ныне усопших граждан, выходцев из бывшего Советского Союза, и похороненных на кладбищах "Сгула" и "Яркон" в Петах Тикве. 


 

В  заявлении утверждается, что более десяти лет, в Петах-Тикве похоронное общество "Хевра Кадиша" дискриминирует евреев, выходцев из бывшего Советского Союза, производя их захоронения  отдельно от остальных умерших. В ряде случаев также были замечены ограждения между местами захоронения выходцев из бывшего Советского Союза и остальными участками кладбища. Родственники захороненных на отдельных участках требуют немедленного прекращения политики сегрегации во всем, что касается русскоязычных евреев в Израиле, немедленной ликвидации всяческих ограждений и заборов между могилами их родственников и другими участками на кладбище, а также компенсации для них и членов их семей.

документы: Просьба о разрешении на подачу представительского иска.

 
 

Hatzlacha the Consumers' Movement for the Promotion of a Fair Society and Economy v. Allalouf & Co. Shipping Ltd.

 

Application to certify a class action, filed in January 2016 by Hatzlacha, on behalf of importers and exporters. The application is addressed against 15 shipping agents, which in consideration for their services, charge commissions in amounts that exceed the maximum amounts prescribed by the Ports Regulations. The applicant demands that the shipping agents return the overcharged commissions, and charge commissions only within the maximum rates and amounts as permitted in the regulations. 

 

Our office represents the applicant, together with Arnon Rotbard.

 

Status: Application to certify the class action is pending. 

 

Documents:  Application to Certify the Class Action.

 

Bello v. Keinan Sheffi

 

Application to certify a class action against a human resources company, on behalf of persons who undergo tests as candidates for employment. The application was filed in May 2012. The applicant claimed that private information was commercialized by the company, and other legal requirements relating to protection of private information were not kept. The parties reached a settlement, according to which the company would change its course of action and return certain amounts it collected for personal follow-up interviews. 

 

The case was led by Jacob Aviad, from Aviad, Seren & Co.

 

Status: The Settlement was approved. 

 

Documents: Application to Certify the Class Action, Settlement Agreement, Award Approving the Settlement.   

 

Alshalom v. Adam Milo

 

Application to certify a class action against a human resources company, on behalf of persons who underwent tests as candidates for employment. The application was filed in March 2012. The applicant claimed that private information was commercialized by the company, and other legal requirements relating to protection of private information were not upheld. The parties reached a settlement, according to which the company will change its course of action and return certain amounts it collected for personal follow-up interviews. In June 2016 the settlement was approved. 

The case was led by Jacob Aviad of Aviad, Seren & Co.

Status: The Settlement was approved. 

 

Documents: Application to Certify the Class Action, Settlement Agreement , Award Approving the Settlement.

 

Shmul's Heirs v. Clalit Health Services

 

Application to certify a class action with regard to experiments conducted on patients. The application was filed in December 2010. The applicants claim that in two hospitals managed by Clalit Health Services, experiments were unlawfully conducted on elderly patients. No prior consent was granted by the patients and the experiments were not approved as required by law. The case is led by Jacob Aviad of Aviad, Seren & Co. 

In December 2018 the case was dismissed. The applicants appealed the decision.

Status:  Appeal on the dismissal decision is pending. 

 

Documents: Application to Certify the Class ActionJudgement Dissmissing the ApplicationNotice of Appeal.

 

Levi v. Ministry of Health

Application to certify a class action against government hospitals, on behalf of patients who were charged with an emergency room visit fee. According to the application, which was filed in July 2015, when the fee is not duly paid, an excessive interest applies on the debt. The hospitals are demanded to cease the collection of the excessive interst, and to repay the patients the sum illegally charged.

 

Our office represents the applicant, together with Guy Avni & Co.

Status: Application to certify the class action is pending.

Documents: Application to Certify the Class Action.