High-profile case9/7/2026

Dispute Over Control of Maccabi Tel Aviv Referred to Urgent Arbitration

The Tel Aviv District Court denied VR Capital Group’s request to temporarily halt transactions involving shares in the Maccabi Tel Aviv basketball club. The shareholders were required to appoint, by September 9, an arbitrator to hear the dispute concerning the right of first refusal to purchase the shares and the validity of the transactions.

Key facts

•Court: Tel Aviv District Court
•Judge: Ariel Zimmermann
•Case number: Not stated in the source
•Deadline for appointing an arbitrator: By September 9
•Disputed share package: 29% of the shares for $50 million
•Bank guarantee: 12 million shekels

Who Are the Parties and What Is the Dispute About?

Richard Deitz’s VR Capital Group holds 17.5% of the club’s shares. The company sought to halt transactions among the Recanati family, Shimon Mizrahi, and a group of investors led by Jason Levin, arguing that these actions prevent Deitz from purchasing an additional 29% of the shares and gaining control of the club.

The Transaction and the Right of First Refusal

The Recanati family intended to sell 29% of the shares to the Levin group for $50 million. Deitz announced that he was exercising his right of first refusal to purchase the entire stake and provided a bank guarantee of 12 million shekels. He claims that the subsequent actions to transfer the shares to the Levin group and to exercise Mizrahi’s rights violate his rights and alter the balance of power within the club.

What the Court Ruled

Judge Ariel Zimmermann ruled that the application for interim relief was insufficiently clear and did not grant any of the requested orders. At the same time, the court referred the parties to arbitration in accordance with the shareholders’ agreement and required them to appoint an arbitrator by September 9. Under the agreement, the arbitrator must be an attorney specializing in commercial law.

What the Arbitrator Will Have to Decide

The arbitration will address Deitz’s right to purchase the shares, the validity of the transactions already approved, and the manner in which the rights of first refusal are to be exercised. All disputed actions will be subject to this proceeding, which, according to the source report, is expected to take place as early as next week. The source did not state the final outcome of the dispute over control of the club.

What this means for you

The decision shows that an arbitration clause in a shareholders’ agreement may lead to a corporate dispute being transferred from court to private arbitration. However, applying to the court does not guarantee an immediate freeze on transactions: the applicant must clearly explain the need for interim orders. For ordinary investors and shareholders, the wording concerning the right of first refusal and the method of resolving disputes is particularly important.

Find a lawyer for this topic

Case analysis based on court rulings