Israeli Supreme Court Rejects Gindi Appeal in 800 Million Shekel Dispute Over Golden Mall
After a decade-long legal battle, the Israeli Supreme Court last week rejected an appeal by 'Luxury Apartments,' controlled by brothers Moshe and Yigal Gindi, against Migdal Insurance Company regarding an 800 million shekel claim. Simultaneously, the court accepted Luxury Apartments' appeal concerning a ruling that required them to compensate Migdal for lost rental income, canceling that obligation.
The decision, made by justices Yael Wilner, Ofer Groskopf, and Ruth Ronen, upheld a 2024 district court ruling that Gindi was not authorized to establish a food market in the Golden Mall without Migdal's consent. The dispute began in 2016 over the operation of a food market opened in the mall, where the Gindi brothers held a 25% stake and Migdal owned 75%. Luxury Apartments claimed Migdal obstructed the market's establishment, causing hundreds of millions in damages. Migdal countered that the agreement did not permit a food market without its approval, which was never granted.
The district court rejected the large claim against Migdal, stating the agreement allowed for a regular commercial floor, not a complex with hundreds of food stalls. It also found Luxury Apartments failed to prove that a permit for the food market could have been obtained or that Migdal's actions caused the alleged damages. Luxury Apartments was represented by attorney Avigdor Kalgasbald, while Migdal was represented by attorneys Zvi Piron and Danny Freiman from the Piron law firm.
Last month, Migdal completed its takeover of Golden Mall by purchasing the Gindi family's 25% stake for approximately 840 million shekels. The mall, established in the early 1990s by Moshe and Yigal Gindi, had been 75% owned by Migdal for nearly 20 years after a billion shekel purchase. About a year ago, Migdal reportedly signed a deal to sell 51% of Golden Mall to the Melisron Group for 818 million shekels.
The same event, reported separately by each outlet. Open a few to compare what different newsrooms emphasize — and what they leave out.
Not the same event — other stories that share this one’s people, places, or theme: background, reactions, and follow-ups.