גדעון גינת

During his tenure, Judge Emeritus adjudicated many formative cases in a wide range of fields, including Liquidation, Intellectual Property, Torts and Administrative Law.

Among Ginat’s key rulings:

• Approval of an application to file a class action against Poalim Capital Markets Ltd following the collapse of Apar Tverya Ltd [CC (Nz) 496-95 Saban v. Lahav (1999) (Isr.)].
• Determination of the extent of government tort liability following floods at the Haifa port.
• Groundbreaking evaluation of the extent of the State’s tort liability as the result of the Israel Defense Forces’ activity during the First Intifada. The Supreme Court rejected an appeal of Ginat’s ruling nearly a decade later.
• Ruling that the Secret Monitoring Law, 5739 – 1979 governs Israeli police activity outside of the State of Israel.
• Determination that single mothers have the right to receive equal treatment in connection with a kibbutz’s allocation of apartments.
• Rejection of Gilad Shamen’s claim for reduced punishment following his conviction for murdering his girlfriend.
• Examination of the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine’s applicability in the precedent ruling in State of Israel v. Toba. Nine years later, the Supreme Court upheld the doctrine’s application in the Issacharov judgment [CrimA 5121/98 Issacharov v. The Military Prosecutor (2006) (Isr.)]
• Adjudicated the Yarden decision, which determined the guidelines for a private company leveraged buyout [CC (TA) 474/04 Yarden v. Lifshitz (2007) (Isr.)]. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling in a settlement reached between the parties without the appeal being reviewed in its entirety [CA 9849-08 Yarden v. Lifshitz (2011) (Isr.)]. In August 2012, an article published in the corporate law journal Taagidim criticized the Supreme Court decision and supported Ginat’s ruling [דון סוסונוב, האם רכישה ממונפת על ידי ההנהלה תיחשב בנסיבות חריגות לעסקה פסולה, תאגידים ט/3, 15 באוגוסט 2012, עמ' 90-141, Don Sosonov “Will a Leveraged Buyout by Management be Deemed under Unusual Circumstances as an Invalid Transaction?” (Hebrew)[. In another Supreme Court case [CA 7972/14, 7735/14 Verdnicklov v. Alovitch (2016) (Isr.)], Justices Y. Amit (Section 37) and N. Solberg (Section 7) referred to and supported Ginat’s August 20, 2007 decision in Yarden v. Lifshitz
• On September 29, 2011, Ginat’s groundbreaking ruling permitted author Yoram Kenyok to register himself as an individual “Devoid of Religion” in the Population Registry [AdminC (TA) 5477-05-11 Kenyok v. The Population Registry (2011) (Isr.)].
• From 1999 onwards, Ginat heard the criminal case of District of Jerusalem, State of Israel v. Moshe Pereg ( La Nationale), a mega criminal/financial case involving the Securities Law; the Insurance Contract Law; the Supervision of Financial Services (Regulated Financial Services) Law; and the scope of prospectus disclosure requirements. Almost 200 witnesses testified and the transcript was 20,000 pages long. All appeals against Ginat’s 600 page decision were subsequently rejected by The Supreme Court (the Honorable A.A. Levy, the Honorable M. Naor, the Honorable A. Hayut) CrimeA 37/07, CrimeA 1005/07. The Supreme Court intervened only in connection with the severity of the sentence.