Certified as a class action, not yet decided on the meritsClass action

Zimmerman v. Mizrahi Tefahot: class action certified over the minimum fee on a securities deposit

The court allowed a class action in the scope of tens of millions of shekels to be brought against the bank, and held that the bank's interpretation of the fee schedule regarding the minimum securities deposit management fee is not consistent with its wording.

Background and facts: the minimum fee on securities deposit management fees

The details here are based on reports in Globes (November 11, 2010) and Walla (November 15, 2010). The full text of the decision was not found openly online. According to Globes, Tel Aviv District Court Judge Anat Baron approved on November 10, 2010 the filing of a class action against Mizrahi Tefahot Bank, in the scope of tens of millions of shekels.

The class plaintiff is Eliaz Zimmerman, through attorneys Sinai Elias and Uri Edelstein. According to Walla, he held a securities deposit at the bank from 1991 to 2006, and paid a deposit management fee.

The parties' arguments

According to Zimmerman, under the fee schedule the bank may charge a minimum quarterly fee for managing a securities deposit. However, its calculation must take into account the fees the bank charged the customer during the quarter for buying and selling securities. According to him, the bank did not do so.

The bank argued that the wording of the fee schedule is clear. According to the bank, the minimum fee is a separate and additional sum, charged regardless of what was charged during the quarter for transactions. According to Walla, the bank argued that the management fees are charged for safekeeping and management services, and not for buying and selling.

What the court held on the Mizrahi Tefahot management fee class action

The court approved the conduct of the claim as a class action. According to Globes, the judge sided with the plaintiff's version on the question of interpreting the fee schedule. She wrote that the bank's argument that the wording of the fee schedule is clear "not only has no substance, but it appears that the opposite is true".

According to Walla, the judge held that at this stage the bank had not laid a sufficient factual and evidentiary foundation for the distinction it argued for, between management fees charged during the quarter and those charged at its end. It was also reported that the bank was ordered to pay legal fees of NIS 40,000 to the plaintiff's lawyers. A decision to certify a class action is not a final decision on the claim.

What it means for Mizrahi Tefahot customers

The decision concerns how a quarterly minimum fee is calculated. A customer who holds a securities portfolio can ask for a quarterly breakdown of the fees, and check whether the minimum fee was charged in addition to the transaction fees or instead of them. The sources checked do not state how the proceeding ended. A later proceeding on quarterly management fees appears on the page Class Action 30742-08-18: quarterly management fees at Mizrahi Tefahot.

Sources

Frequently asked questions about court rulings against Mizrahi Tefahot Bank

What is the Zimmerman class action against Mizrahi Tefahot about?

According to the reports, it concerns how the quarterly minimum fee in securities deposit management fees was charged, and the question of whether buying and selling fees charged in the same quarter must be taken into account.

Who certified the class action and when?

Judge Anat Baron of the Tel Aviv District Court, on November 10, 2010, according to Globes.

What did the judge say about the bank's interpretation of the fee schedule?

According to Globes, she wrote that the bank's argument that the wording is clear "not only has no substance, but it appears that the opposite is true".

Was the bank ordered to pay money to customers?

At this stage only the filing of the claim as a class action was approved. The sources checked do not state how the proceeding ended.

The full text was not found openly online; details according to a report, not yet verified against the text of the decision

How to cite

Motion to certify a class action: Zimmerman v. Mizrahi Tefahot Bank (number not stated), Tel Aviv District Court, 10.11.2010. Source: Net HaMishpat (Israeli courts database), case Motion to certify a class action: Zimmerman v. Mizrahi Tefahot Bank (number not stated).

Read also