Court ruling9/8/2026

Supreme Court Leaves Orenstein as Arbitrator in Dan Gertler Dispute

The Supreme Court rejected billionaire Dan Gertler’s request to replace former judge Eitan Orenstein in the arbitration dispute with brothers Moshe and Mendi Gertner. The Court ruled that a position previously expressed by the arbitrator does not, in itself, prove that he is biased.

Key facts

•Court: Supreme Court of Israel
•Justice: David Mintz
•Decision publication date: 08.09.2026
•Arbitration award: April 2024
•Amount awarded: $85 million plus interest from 2006
•The case number is not specified in the source

The Nature of the Long-Running Dispute

The dispute has continued for 16 years and concerns approximately $600 million transferred by the Gertner brothers to Gertler as part of a business partnership involving copper mines in Africa. The brothers sought compensation for the damage caused to them.

What Was Decided in the Arbitration

In April 2024, an arbitration award spanning approximately 1,200 pages was issued. Most of the brothers’ claims were rejected, but Gertler was ordered to pay them $85 million, plus interest from 2006—and according to estimates, the total amount reached approximately $300 million. Gertler’s counterclaim was partially rejected.

Why Gertler Sought to Replace the Arbitrator

The Tel Aviv District Court referred several specific questions back to the arbitrator for a supplementary ruling. Following this, Gertler demanded that the remainder of the proceeding be transferred to another arbitrator, arguing that Orenstein’s unequivocal findings showed that his mind was already made up. The District Court rejected the request, and Gertler petitioned the Supreme Court for leave to appeal.

The Supreme Court’s Position

Justice David Mintz rejected Gertler’s request. He ruled that no substantial concern had been established that Orenstein would be unable to consider the remaining questions impartially; expressing a prior position or issuing a decision does not, in itself, constitute grounds for disqualification. Given his extensive familiarity with the complex case, Orenstein is, in the Court’s view, best suited to complete the arbitration.

What this means for you

The decision indicates that disagreement with findings already presented by an arbitrator is not sufficient to replace him: a substantial concern of bias must be established. Specific questions may be referred back to the same arbitrator, particularly when he is deeply familiar with a lengthy and complex proceeding. The dispute itself has not yet concluded and will continue before Orenstein.

Find a lawyer for this topic

Case analysis based on court rulings