1

In the Tel-Aviv Yaffo District Court

Civil Case 41505-06-12

1. Y. G.

2. Akiva Haim Tiberg, I.D. 005060833

3. Keren Tiberg Shapira, I.D. 041252875

4. Gonen Tiberg, I.D. 021948542

5. Prof. Gabriel Moses, I.D. 6980817

c/o their attorney Adv. Dor Heskia (L.N. 23474)

and/or Amos Hacmun et al.

Heskia – Hacmun Law Firm

Of the Gaon Building, 6 Kaufman St., Tel Aviv, 68012

Tel: 03-6081122 ; Fax: 03-6081123

the Plaintiffs

- VS –

1. Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany, INC.

2. Conference on Jewish Material Claims against Germany GmbH

Of 8 Ha'arbaa St., Tel Aviv

the Defendants

The nature of the claim: monetary, declarative, accounting

The Amount of claim: 2,500,001 NIS (before accounting)

2

Statement of Claim

The monetary remedy and accounting

As requested and as specified under this Statement of Claim, the honorable Court

shall be requested to order Defendants 1 and 2 (hereinafter, jointly and severally, also:

the "Claims Committee" or the "JCC", or the "Defendant"), to pay to the Plaintiffs a

monetary compensation for the value of assets as specified hereinafter, and/or a

current equivalent thereof, including the entire sum it had received in exchange

thereto including the fruits deriving therefrom in the case such had been sold – or –

inasmuch as they are yet to be sold, to conduct recovery of rights in the assets per se,

as well as the of entire sum it had received including the fruits deriving therefrom,

inasmuch it had received such sum, as a result of allowing its usage by others, in light

of the specification of accounts that the Defendant shall be required to provide.

In the course of accounting, a full report is being required in regard to recovered

assets and/or compensations received thereagainst, the expenses involved in the

management of recovery procedures and/or receipt of compensation, and the rent paid

for the assets inasmuch as such were recovered and/or the interest accumulated as of

the date of the receipt of the compensation funds and the fruits deriving therefrom. It

is requested to determine that the payment shall be conducted in accordance to the

value of assets per each Plaintiff, in accordance to the value set in relation to the

aforementioned assets, each Plaintiff according to its own part of the relevant estate,

and in accordance to the property that was owned and/or attributed to the Plaintiffs

and their relatives, as applicable, as specified under this Claim.

As specified hereinafter, this claim was limited in terms its monetary remedy, at this

stage, as to fit the threshold of competency by this honorable Court, for this Claim to

be heard therebefore, for the purpose of Court fees and prior to accounting. The

Plaintiffs reserve their rights to request an increase of the monetary amount in

accordance to the remedies and to the accounting, as specified under this Claim.

3

The Declaratory Remedies

The Court shall be further requested to provide judgment in regard to the faults,

wrongs and unlawfulness involved in the Defendant's conduct and to declare and state

as follows:

A. In regard to the violation of the duty to locate and define the Plaintiffs as

the owners of rights:

That the Defendant had acted, and still acts, unlawfully and/or in contrast to

the principles of natural justice by failing to locate the Plaintiffs and by

failing to define them as the correct owners of the rights in the assets that

were robbed and/or nationalized by the Nazis from Helena Liechtenstein,

may god rest her soul, (hereinafter: the "Deceased") (in relation to

Plaintiffs 1 to 4) and from Herman Engel, may god rest his soul (in

relation to Plaintiff 5) during the Holocaust.

B. In regard to arbitrarily stating limitation thresholds:

That the Defendant had acted and still acts unlawfully and/or in contrast to the

principles of natural justice, illegally, immorally, and in contrast to public

policy, by stating limitation thresholds at dates set thereby, after which it

refuses to hear claims for recovery of assets and/or to release funds

received for such assets, arbitrarily and unfairly, without authority and in

lack of authorization or ultra vires, and therefore the limitation dates set by

the Defendant are ought to be annulled.

C. In regard to harm caused to the Plaintiffs due to its refusal to transfer

rights:

That the Defendant had infringed and is still infringing the Plaintiff's rights,

unlawfully and in contrast to the principals of natural justice, without authority

or ultra vires, by refusing to transfer the rights in the assets and the fruits

deriving therefrom to the Plaintiffs and/or to pay the funds held in its

hands to their possession, in exchange for the sale of the assets and the fruits

deriving therefrom and/or as a compensation therefor.

4

D. In regard to the Defendant's duty of recovery towards the Plaintiffs:

That the Defendant is ought to transfer to the Plaintiffs all the rights it holds

in relation with the assets and/or an equivalent compensation, including all

the amounts it had received thereagainst including the fruits deriving

therefrom, in case they were sold – or – inasmuch as these are yet to be sold,

the rights in the assets per se, as well as all the funds, including the fruits

deriving therefrom, it had received, inasmuch as such are received thereby,

resulting from allowing such assets to be used by others.

In addition and/or alternatively, the honorable Court is requested to grant any other

just remedy under the relevant circumstances, as it shall see fit.

It shall be noted that in the course of the discussion regarding the above mentioned

declarative remedies, some issues, which are brought for discussion and judgment

before this honorable Court, are relevant to a certain group of people, which consists

of un-unionized injured individuals that lacks any institutional backing or assistance,

and who also suffered harm due to the faults, wrongs and unlawfulness of the

Defendant's actions and omissions.

It shall be further noted that the monetary remedies are requested, under this Claim, in

regard to the above mentioned Plaintiffs, as a part of the remedies in accordance to the

Court's ruling holding that a lawsuit shall contain the entire claim, to which the

Plaintiffs are entitled, due to the cause of action (Civil Appeal 227/77 Barclays

Discount Bank Ltd. vs. Brenner). Nevertheless, it is requested that the honorable

Court shall use its powers to hear the case in stages and while splitting the hearing, so

that first, the liability and entitlement to the declarative remedies shall be determined,

while the issue of the rate of fair and decent compensation under the circumstances,

shall be determined only later. The compensation amounts are estimated to amount to

millions of NIS, thus the claim was filed to this honorable Court, as stated

hereinabove and hereinafter.

5

Introduction in Essence

1. It should be first noted that this Claim is not filed in some careless fashion, in

light of the identity of the Defendant and the work which it labors to perform.

Nevertheless, unfortunately, while as the Defendant is accustomed in

presenting itself as if it acts for the benefit of the owners of robbed assets and

their heirs, who allegedly would have never been awarded a thing had the

Defendant not acted, the Defendant actually worsened their situation, in

comparison with the situation that could have been achieved in case the

principles of natural justice and the provisions of the general and German law

would have been applied correctly thereby, in regard to them and to the assets

attributed thereto, as in the case under discussion.

2. With all due respect, the Plaintiffs are of the opinion that the Defendant acts

under the unfortunate and regrettable erroneous implementation and

interpretation applied thereby to the German Property Law. It seems that there

is no alternative other than finding that the Defendant, and those who were

involved in its activities, were at least aware of this fact; however, they had

not taken any actions for changing or correcting the situation that caused

severe damages to the Plaintiffs and to other injured individuals.

3. As above specified, the purpose of the Property law was to benefit those Jews,

whose assets/property (within the territory of former East Germany) were

robbed by the Nazis during the Holocaust, by recovering the assets or by

settling the payment of a compensation thereagainst to the robbed owners or

their heirs. The law’s stated purpose was to create legal certainty in regard to

the ownership entitlements to the assets and to prevent a situation, in which,

due to a failure of owners and/or their heirs to be present within the time

period set therefor under the German Property law, the German state’s

treasury, or the German Federal Republic’s treasury, would be the one

awarded as a result of such mentioned acts of thievery originated in the

German Reich regime, upon the end of the Recovery of Estate claims’

limitation period, due its status under these circumstances as the lawful heir

thereof.

4. In this context, the Defendant was designated, under the German Property law

and for the purposes of that law – in place of the German treasury – as the

6

lawful successors of the owners of robbed rights and/or their heirs, inasmuch

as such are absent and had failed to be present for the purpose of

claiming their rights during the time period set under the above

mentioned Property law.

5. As we shall review hereinafter, due to Defendant's deception of the public and

of the German authorities, in the course of its actions for the implementation

of the German Property law, it had perceived itself, as well as presented itself,

as the heir of the original owners’ rights and/or assets, not only towards third

parties and towards the Federal Republic of Germany, for the purpose of

exercising the rights under the Property law, but also towards those Jews,

whose property had been taken away from them, their relatives and

successors, during the reign of the third Reich. In fact, the Defendant

renounced its duties regarding the location and specification of the Plaintiffs

as the owners of rights, which is the issue under the first declarative

remedy requested in this Claim, by which the honorable Court is

requested to determine that the Defendant, by its nature and role, was

ought to act with the goal of of locating the Plaintiffs and specifying them

as being the correct owners of rights to the assets, and by its failure to do

so, it acted, and still acting, unlawfully and in contrast to its mission and to the

principles of natural justice.

6. Moreover, the Defendant had operated by using a large cadre of researchers at

the purpose of locating Jewish ownership over assets, only that they have

failed to take concrete measures aimed at locating the owners of assets or their

heirs. Unfortunately, it turns out that the Defendant and its representatives

failed to carry out even the most elementary actions, to an extent raising

serious concerns regarding the lack of good faith involved in this matter. It

would prove both lawful and just to refer, in the context of this Claim, also to

the intention and to the motive underlying the Defendant’s actions and

omissions, which stands as the background for the decision regarding the

amount of compensation requested herein.

7. As a matter of fact, the Defendant had failed to take measures in order to

locate heirs nor to appropriate and/nor to recover what had been robbed and/or

nationalized out of the estate of Helena Liechtenstein and Herman Engel, may

7

god rest their souls (hereinafter: the “Deceased persons”) by the Nazis during

the Holocaust.

8. As specified under this Claim, although it is aimed, at this stage, towards the

Plaintiffs specified under the preamble, considering the matters to be decided

in relation to the Defendant, it is possible that the judgment by this honorable

Court shall serve as a precedent, judicial estoppel, prevention and Court ruling

– also towards other injured individuals whose rights were infringed, as

described hereunder.

9. The Defendant has been operating during the passing years, as one who does

not owe a thing to the original owners and/or to their heirs. In that context,

payments made by the Defendant mainly until 2004, were made in the context

of a “Goodwill Fund” that presented itself, deceptively, before Jews, whose

and/or their heirs’ property had been robbed, as a fund operating beyond the

letter of the law while paying them funds, to which they are not entitled by

law.

10. As it perceived itself as acting without being bound to any duties, the

Defendant had taken the law into its own hands and even set payment rates

that reflected a certain percentage out of such funds it had actually received as

a result of the sale of a Jewish person’s and/or its heir’s property or as a result

of the receipt of compensation thereagainst.

11. With the passing of the years, the Defendant surpassed itself by setting

technical criteria, on which it had based when choosing to reject recovery

applications it had received from the Plaintiffs, and on other similar cases. As

above specified, the Defendant and its representatives decided that the

Defendant shall accept claims until the year 2004, while as heirs filing

applications thereafter were to be rejected, basing on a limitation claim that

Defendant had “legislated” for itself, for different reasons such as priorities,

order and convenience, which in any case are irrelevant in the circumstances

under discussion.

12. As a matter of fact, the Defendant had taken the law into its own hands and

decided, in an arbitrary fashion and without any authority to do so, that 2004 is

the limitation threshold for filing claims thereagainst for the assets and/or

property in East Germany, and for which the Defendant received actual

compensation and/or payment due to the realization thereof, while ignoring

8

the 30 years limitation period which ends, at the earliest, in 2022 and

which would apply to the case under discussion, had the Defendant

correctly applied the provisions of the German law, and the principles of

natural justice and general law.

13. As described in the Claim under discussion, the Claims Committee had set

2004 to serve as a technical procedural threshold, and by that, as a matter of

fact, shortened the limitation period and worsened the potential condition of

heirs, including that of the Plaintiffs, in cases such as the one under discussion.

The Plaintiffs shall claim that the manner in which the law has been applied by

the Defendant stands in contrast to its purpose, stands in contrast to the

Plaintiffs’ best interest and of others like them, whose rights prevail when

compared to the grounds on which the Defendant is basing its decisions and

actions.

14. The Defendant was not authorized to harm or worsen the Plaintiffs’ rights, and

inasmuch as it had been proven that it had caused harm thereto or worsened

the condition thereof, by its actions or by its omissions by setting the

thresholds for serving their claims, these actions are to be considered as if such

were performed without authorization, in without authority and ultra vires,

and therefore are to be considered as null and void. This matter is the issue

discussed under the second declarative remedy under this Claim, by which

this honorable Court is been requested to find that the Defendant is, and

has been, acting unlawfully and in contrast to the principles of natural

justice, illegally, immorally and in contrast to public policy, by its refusal

to pay the Plaintiffs their funds, which are held in the Defendant’s hands,

and by setting the “limitation” thresholds as abovementioned, and so the

rule that is ought to be applied to those worsening the Plaintiff’s condition

– shall be nullity.

15. The Plaintiffs shall claim that the German Property law was not aimed at

enriching the Defendant’s treasury or the German state’s treasury, but rather to

benefit the original owners and/or their heirs, while as the Defendants, by

its actions and omissions, had in fact worsened the condition of those who

were supposed to be awarded the assets or a compensation thereagainst, while

acting ultra vires.

9

16. This is the matter requested under the third declarative remedy under this

Claim, in other words, the harm caused to the Plaintiffs by the

Defendant’s refusal to transfer rights, under which the honorable Court

is requested to find that the Defendant is and has been harming the

Plaintiffs’ rights unlawfully and against the principles of natural justice,

without authority or ultra vires, by it its refusal to transfer the rights in the

property, or a compensation equivalent thereto, to them.

17. As described under this Claim, the Plaintiff treated the funds and assets it had

received, due to the German Property law for property and assets which

belonged to a specific Jewish owner, in other words to the Deceased persons,

in the same way it treated funds it had received, in relation to laws and/or

other sources of budgetary nature, aimed at compensating and providing

welfare to the victims of crimes committed by the Nazis and their supporters

in general, and which one could attribute to one single person or to another.

18. In accordance to such erroneous and harmful attitude, the Defendant

misinterpreted the purpose of the law, and refused to recover to the Plaintiffs,

the heirs of the Deceased persons, their assets or compensation thereagainst, or

to pay them what they deserve thereagainst. It shall be emphasized that the

array of circumstances raises a real fear that the Defendant’s actions are based

on lack of good faith and lack of integrity, and that its actions and omissions

were conducted in malice and based on irrelevant causes. Nevertheless, this

Claim details the facts and the consequences, in a cautious and matter-of-fact

manner, regarding the Defendant and its representatives, while reserving

additional claims regarding the intention and the motive underlying the facts

19. It shall be further noted that the claims are pointed at the Defendant as an

organization and not in a personal manner, and such are turned only against

some of its managers and/or policy makers, currently or in the past, the actual

holders of the controlling interest and those causing their actions and

omissions to cause the ongoing wrong against the Plaintiffs and others like

them, as specified under this Claim.

20. In light of the aforementioned, the honorable Court is requested the provide

the fourth and final declarative remedy under this Claim, in other words to

declare the Defendant’s duty of recovery towards the Plaintiffs, and that the

Defendant is ought to fully transfer to the Plaintiffs all the rights it holds in

10

relation to the asset, or an equivalent compensation, including all the funds it

had received thereagainst and including the fruits deriving therefrom, in case it

was sold – or – inasmuch as it is yet to be sold, the rights in the asset per se, as

well as all the funds, including the fruits deriving therefrom, it had received,

inasmuch as such are received thereby, resulting from allowing the usage of

such asset by others.

21. In regard to the fourth monetary remedy, it shall be noted that the Defendant is

refusing to report and to expose the value of rights it had deprived from the

Plaintiffs, and the sums it had to pay thereto, thus the duty to provide

accounting is requested as a part of this Claim.

22. In addition, as there are other owners of rights, towards which the Defendant

had acted in a similar manner, the provision of declarative remedies is the

most efficient way to investigate into this matter, so that after judgment is

granted in regard to the Defendant's fundamental liability, one would be able

to follow up by an individual monetary inquiry in each one of the cases,

separately and inasmuch as such inquiry shall be required, and the Plaintiffs

shall request to amend and increase the amount of claim accordingly.

The Facts Factual Background - General

23. The "Iron Curtain" between East Germany and West Germany fell in 1989.

Up until date time, since 1945, there has been some kind of "assets freezing"

de facto, applied to all the assets located in East Germany that once belonged

to Jews, and the Jewish owners were not able to reach them.

24. In fact, as of the end of the Second World War until the fall of the Wall, in

other words during a period lasting 44 years, one could not reach the assets of

Jews that were located in East Germany nor finding out any details in regard

to such assets. Thus, the Jewish owners, their heirs and the successors of the

holocaust survivors were deprived of their rights to reach the property, which

had been robbed, confiscated, seized or nationalized by the Nazis and their

supporters.

11

25. The "Lastenausgleichsgesetz" ("The Balance of Burden Law"), which was

legislated in 1952, enabled owners of Jewish robbed property and/or their

heirs to receive a low and limited compensation that did not reflect the true

value of the property robbed during the Holocaust. This "initial"

compensation, by its nature, was only some kind of "advance payment" at the

expense of what was ought to be paid by force of the Property law that was

legislated later on, as specified hereinafter. It shall be noted, that in cases, in

which compensation had been granted by force of the Balance of Burden law,

the amount granted was even deducted from the compensation to which they

were entitled by force of the Property law. The Claims Committee had also

acted in similar manner, when it exercised the owner's right to recover the

asset and/or to receive compensation thereagainst.

26. It shall be emphasized that the issue under discussion regards only Jewish-

owned assets located in East Germany, as the traceable assets in West

Germany have gone through a process of locating and searching the heirs or

their successors, and these were transferred to the surviving survivors and their

successors, in the passing of years since the end of the war, as above

mentioned.

27. The Property law - Gesetz zur Regelung offener Vermögensfragen

(Vermögensgesetz - VermG) (hereinabove and hereinafter: the "Property

law"), which was legislated in 1990, was aimed at regulating the recovery of

property to its owners or to its lawful heirs. Under these circumstances, a

limited amount of time was designated for filing claims for compensation

and/or recovery, during which "order was ought to be restored" (in regard to

real estate issues – until the end of 1992, and regarding issues not related to

real estate – until mid-1993).

28. In addition, the Property law stated that in case the owners of property would

not to file the claims on their own behalf, the Defendant would be able to file

claims on their behalf, under the name:

Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany, INC.

29. The aforementioned Property law also stated that Defendant 1 could assign its

rights to Defendant 2. Thus, and considering the lack of information in regard

to the manner in which such assigning was carried out as aforesaid, if such

12

was carried out at all, in which manner and to which extent, this Claim is filed

towards Defendant 1 and/or Defendant 2, jointly and severally.

30. It shall be clarified that this claim is referring to the actions and omissions of

Defendant 1 and 2, jointly and severally, as applicable and according to the

context, even in case any of the Defendants is mentioned as the Defendant

within this Claim hereunder. Therefore, it is requested that the Defendants

shall be held liable to provide the remedy jointly and severally, including in

regard to the liability to compensate and to ameliorate damages.

31. According to its own publications, the Defendant is an entity acting as of 1951

for benefiting the welfare of Holocaust survivors. It shall be noted that no such

definition regarding the meaning of the "welfare" of such Holocaust actually

exists, nor to which extent and manner shall the welfare of survivors'

survivors, heirs or successors, count as the welfare of the survivors

themselves.

32. As a matter of fact, the Defendant received monetary and proprietary

compensation, in the name of victims of the crimes committed by the Nazi

regime, and according to its own statements, over 60 billion dollars were

transferred to the survivors to this day, while over 600 million dollars were

transferred to organizations involved in survivors' welfare activity.

33. As aforementioned, according to the Property law and due to Germany's will

to provide the authority and responsibility for the recovery to a Jewish

organization, in other words - the Claims Committee, the right was exclusively

vested in the Claims Committee, the Defendant, and exclusively therein. So it

shall be emphasized that the vesting of the Claims Committee under the

Property law occurred after negotiations took place between the German

government and the Claims Committee, while the latter placing itself as the

representative of the robbed Jewish property and as an organization that

procures to ensure that the property shall be restituted to its Jewish owners.

34. It shall be emphasized that the Property law had stated the right to claim could

be exercised by the Defendant as aforesaid, under circumstances in which no

claim was filed by the Jewish owner and/nor by its heirs, and subject to the

claim being filed thereby within the time period allotted as aforementioned.

35. The Property law, Section 2 paragraph 1, states that (free translation)

"inasmuch as rights of eligible Jews within their definition under Section 1

13

Paragraph 6, or of their lawful successors, were not exercised… in relation to

claims subject to the Property law… the succeeding organizations according to

the Property law… and inasmuch as such had not filed claims, the Claims

Committee shall be regarded as its lawful successors" (the Property law,

Section 2, Paragraph 1).

36. Please note, that in contrast to the Claims Committee's stance, the Property

law did not deny the position of the Jewish owner over its assets and/or its

heirs over the estate, including over property robbed under the Nazi regime or

the consideration thereof. There is an importance in clarifying that the issue

here was not the denial of rights, but rather – under circumstances of lack of

claims on their part within the timeframe set under the Property law – granting

to the Claims Committee a right to step into their shoes and to commence

proceedings in their stead.

37. As above specified, the commencement of proceeding through the Claims

Committee is being carried out by force of a legal construct, which enables the

Claims Committee to act as the robbed Jewish owner's lawful successor,

pursuant to the Property law, before the German authorities and third parties,

but not towards the Jewish owner and/or its heirs.

38. Therefore, the Defendant filed a "Global" claim in the name of the owners of

assets, which were owned by Jews, and thereafter commenced additional

proceedings before the German authorities, until causing the assets and/or

consideration for the sale thereof to be transferred under its possession or

control.

39. In 1994, the Defendant founded the "Goodwill Fund" (hereinafter also: the

"Fund"), in order to pay, according to its view "beyond the letter of the law",

to property owners and/or heirs of those whose right to file claims under the

Property law was exercised as above mentioned by the Claims Committee. As

specified under this Claim, the title does not necessarily reflect the essence,

and as a matter of fact that the entity under discussion is actually ought to

operate by force of a limited and specific authorization under law, in

accordance to the law and to the principles of natural justice.

40. Whilst doing so, the Defendant stated that it would be possible to file recovery

claims there to until December 31st, 1997, and this date was later extended to

December 31st, 1998.

14

41. The Defendant had later enabled filing of claims thereto as of October 1st,

2003 until March 31st, 2004.

42. The Defendant posted a list of the assets transferred thereto by force of the

Property law in its website, while inviting their owners to demand their

recovery. The fact was that the Defendant chose to refrain from posting the

full names of the original property owners and deemed as sufficient to post

partial and limited posts.

43. In light of the aforesaid, as a matter of fact in an ordinary case, in which no

heirs are to be found, Germany would have acted as customary in Israel, in

other words, in case no heirs appear and it proves impossible to trace such

heirs – the German state's treasury would have been the one awarded.

Thereafter, inasmuch as an heir or an entitled successor would have appeared

after such process had existed, it would have been entitled to have a claim for

release or claim for recovery under the German Succession law. The

limitation threshold for such claim begins only after 30 years have passed,

so that counting as of 1990, the result is that the entitled persons would

have been entitled to file recovery claims, as aforementioned, until 2020.

44. The limitation thresholds set by the Defendant for filing Claims worsened the

Plaintiff's rights, while the Defendant was never authorized to take actions that

would cause such results, on the contrary. Thus, and as specified in this Claim,

the Defendant's actions were taken without authorization and without authority

or ultra vires, which are ought to result in Nullity.

45. It shall be emphasized that in case the local state or Germany would have

taken the responsibilities specifically designated to the Claims Committee

upon itself, according to the German law, prior to being awarded the assets as

a residual heir, it would have been required to prove to the Court that it acted

diligently to locate the heirs, and even if it failed to locate any, such award

would have been subject to a Release of Estate claim, which is subject to a

30 years long limitation period, during which such heirs could have

demanded the release of assets held thereby, or claim compensation

thereagainst.

46. As abovementioned, the Claims Committee founded the Fund, through which

it had acted in this matter. The Fund's purpose is to enable heirs, who

allegedly "missed" the date set under the German Property law for filing

15

claims, and to enable them "beyond the letter of the law" to receive

compensation in accordance to criteria set by the Claims Committee.

47. It shall be noted that according to its own publications, as to December 31st,

1998, the Defendant paid, by using the Fund, an amount of approximately 554

million Euros to property owners or to their heirs. The Defendant kept for

itself an additional amount, at the sum of approximately 150 million Euros

according to the Defendant's publications. The Defendant's refusal to pay to

the Plaintiffs is, therefore, not a result of a lack of budget or shortage in cash,

but rather a matter of essence, based on vile, wrongful and harmful

technical reasoning.

From the General to the Specific – the Plaintiffs in this Claim

and the Assets Constituting the Subject of this Claim

Plaintiffs 1 to 4

48. Plaintiffs 1 to 4 are the heirs of the Deceased, Ms. Helena Liechtenstein, may

god rest her soul, as specified hereinafter. For convenience purposes, a graphic

diagram outlining the order of succession is enclosed as APPENDIX A.

49. The Court in the city of Bremen, Germany, has pronounced that the Deceased

and her husband, Mr. Leopold Liechtenstein, may god rest his soul, has passed

away on April 30th, 1945, and that Dr. Paul Liechtenstein as their sole heir. A

copy of the Court's certificate as of November 15th, 1963 and December 17th,

1963, regarding the aforesaid matter, are enclosed as APPENDIX A1.

50. Dr. Paul Liechtenstein, may god rest his soul, passed away on August 1st,

1945, and his sole heiress was Ms. Hanna (Anny) Aufricht, may god rest her

soul. A copy of a certificate by the Court of Neustadt, Germany dated

February 1st, 1960, regarding the aforementioned matter is enclosed as

APPENDIX A2.

51. Ms. Hanna Aufricht, my god rest her soul, passed away in Israel on May 2nd,

1988. The late Ms. Aufricht ordered that her property would be divided

between _____________ (Plaintiff 1) and Ms. Tiberg Ronit, may god rest her

soul, in equal parts. A copy of the late Ms. Aufricht's last will and testament

16

and of the order granted by the Tel Aviv District Court implementing the

aforesaid will dated October 20th, 1988, are enclosed as APPENDIX A3.

52. Ms. Ronit Tiberg, may god rest her soul, passed away in Israel on April 2nd,

2000. The heirs of the late Ms. Tiberg are her spouse – Akiva Tiberg (Plaintiff

2), and her children – Keren Tiberg (Plaintiff 3), Gonen Tiberg (Plaintiff 4)

and Ronen Tiberg, may god rest his soul. A copy of the late Ms. Tiberg's

Probate Order dated August 3rd, 2000, is enclosed as APPENDIX A4.

53. Mr. Ronen Tiberg, may god rest his soul, passed away on May 22nd, 2004, and

his heirs are his father – Akiva Tiberg, and his siblings – Keren and Gonen. A

copy of the late Ronen Tiberg's Probate Order dated December 24th, 2004, is

enclosed as APPENDIX A5.

54. The Deceased was the original owner of rights to a real estate asset located

Tucholskystraße 39/41 in Berlin, Germany (hereinafter: the "Liechtenstein's

estate assets"), which was seized by the Nazi regime during the Second World

War. The Liechtenstein estate assets were among those assets transferred to be

under the Defendant's possession, in relation to which the Defendant filed a

claim in the name of the Deceased.

55. The asset was included in a list posted by the Defendant, as inferred from a

copy of the relevant page of the list, which is enclosed as APPENDIX B. the

list of assets transferred to the Defendant in that context was posted in the

Defendant's website, at: http://www.claimscon.org/forms/assets_statement.pdf

56. It shall be noted that the Defendant had not turned to the lawful heir of the

owner of the asset – Plaintiffs 1-4, although one could assume at a high degree

of probability that it had known their identity, or at least it could have easily

tracked down such identity.

57. In 2011, the Plaintiffs found out about the property's existence, and about the

Plaintiffs being the heirs of its lawful owner. The undersigned's office, which

was appointed to take care of this matter, turned to the Defendant, described

the circumstances of this matter therebefore, presented the documents proving

the rights of the Plaintiffs to the property, and requested its consideration to be

restituted to its lawful owners. A copy of the application to the Defendant

dated September 12th, 2011, is enclosed as APPENDIX C1.

58. The Defendant rejected the Plaintiff's request, by claiming it was submitted

after the deadline. According to the Defendant, after posting the assets list, it

17

was decided to set a final date for the submission of applications, after which

no further applications would be accepted. A copy of the Defendant's response

dated September 20th, 2011, and further correspondence dated January 18th,

2012; January 8th, 2012; January 3rd, 2012; and November 22nd, 2011 are

enclosed as APPENDIXES C2-C6.

Plaintiff 5

59. Plaintiff 5 is the grandson and heir of the late Mr. Herman (Zvi) Engel, may

god rest his soul, who passed away in Tel Aviv, on February 9th, 1953

(hereinafter: the "Deceased person"). A copy of the Probate Order granted by

the Tel Aviv District Court on November 3rd, 1954, is enclosed as

APPENDIX D1. After the death of his father and the marriage of his mother

to his step father, the Plaintiff changed his last name, as inferred from the

documents enclosed as APPENDIX D2.

60. The Deceased person was the owner of rights to real estate assets located at

Anklamer Str. No. 54 and 55 in Berlin, Germany (hereinafter jointly: the

"Engel's estate assets"), which were seized by the Nazi regime during the

Second World War.

61. Among the assets transferred to be under the Defendant's possession and/or

that the Defendant received compensation thereagainst, were also Engle's

estate assets that are the subject of this claim, in regard to which the Defendant

filed a claim in the name of the Deceased person.

62. The asset was included in a list posted by the Defendant, as inferred from a

copy of the relevant page of the list, which is enclosed as APPENDIX E. the

list of assets transferred to the Defendant in that context was posted in the

Defendant's website, at: http://www.claimscon.org/forms/assets_statement.pdf

63. It shall be noted that the Defendant had not turned to the lawful heir of the

owner of the asset – Plaintiff 5, although one could assume at a high degree of

probability that it had known the their identity, or at least it could have easily

tracked down such identity.

64. In 2011, Plaintiff 5 found out about the existence of the Engel's estate assets.

The undersigned's office, which had been appointed to take care of this matter,

turned to the Defendant, described the circumstances of this matter

therebefore, presented the documents proving the rights Plaintiff 5 to the

18

assets, and requested its consideration to be restituted to its lawful owners. A

copy of the application to the Defendant dated September 12th, 2011, is

enclosed as APPENDIX F1.

65. The Defendant rejected the Plaintiff's request, by claiming it was submitted

after the deadline. According to the Defendant, after posting the assets list, it

was decided to set a final date for the submission of applications, after which

no further applications would be accepted. A copy of the Defendant's response

dated September 20th, 2011 and Plaintiff 5's response thereto dated November

22nd, 2011 are enclosed as APPENDIXES F2-F3.

The Plaintiffs' Claims and the Causes of Action

66. As aforesaid, the Defendant had rejected the Plaintiffs' application, while

arbitrarily basing on a technical-procedural threshold, which is not consistent

with the strict law and decency, or with any degree of justice.

67. The Defendant holds the assets' consideration in escrow for their lawful heirs,

and it has the duty to transfer the full consideration to their hands without

setting or placing any limitations. Under the relevant circumstances, the

Defendant must not impose limitations that are stricter than the requirements

set by the law upon the heirs, as it had actually done.

68. The Defendant took measures before the German authorities, in the name of

the heirs, and received their property to be under its possession, without

denying them of their rights. When it was asked to transfer the funds to their

true and final destination, the Defendant refused to do so by clinging to

reasons of "technical" nature and based on self-determined conditions, in an

arbitrary fashion, and based on irrelevant and erroneous reasons.

69. By performing its actions and omissions the Defendant violated a series of

laws, rules and maxims. Its conduct also stands in contrast to values anchored

by the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty, as well as leading to unjust

and unfair consequences in the case under discussion.

70. As a matter of fact, the Defendant's conduct is perpetuating the historical

injustice while actually thwarting the purpose of the German Property law, to

recover what had been robbed and/or to compensate the Jewish owners or their

19

heirs.

71. For the sake of fairness, it shall be noted that the Defendant's confusion might

have been the result of its activity in the context of other programs and laws

regarding Holocaust survivors' compensation, other than the Property law,

whose purpose is to recover or to compensate Jews in the aforesaid manner.

However, the source for such confusion or mistake does not derogate from the

severity of facts or from the wrongs caused thereby, as described in this

Claim.

72. Even when one considers the bottom line, the Defendant is ought to be

deemed as misinterpreting the law, while as instead of retrieving funds and

assets to their owners, it had erroneously determined that it was entitled to use

the funds it had received, as if it were its own funds, for other purposes.

73. This misinterpretation completes and perpetuates in dreadful disgrace the

atrocious act of thievery; it thwarts the purpose of the Property law as well as

one of the Defendant's stated purposes, in other words – compensation and/or

recovery to the original Jewish owners, who were deprived of their rights

and/or assets during the Holocaust.

Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty

74. Section 3 of the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty raised property rights

to a status of a constitutional right, and stated that one must not harm a

person's property, unless such harm is caused pursuant to a law aimed at a

proper purpose and in such proportion not exceeding the measure required

therefor, or pursuant to a law by force of an explicit authorization therein.

75. The Defendant's decision on that aspect does not constitute a "law" and was

not made by force of an explicit authorization in such law, in addition to the

fact that such decision is not required while constituting a disproportionate

harm caused to the Plaintiffs.

76. The Defendant chose to use an improper, and even outrageous, interpretation

to the Property law, by which granting the rights and assets that were robbed

from their Jewish owners during the reign of the third Reich, to the Defendant,

was carried out unconditionally and without any duty towards their original

owners and/or their heirs. This misinterpretation denies the Plaintiffs' property

20

right and stands in contrast to the values set under the Basic Law: Human

Dignity and Liberty.

77. On that matter, one should refer to the rulings of the German High Court,

which previously rejected a similar attempt to provide such interpretation

((BGH, Großer Senat, 28.2.1955, GSZ 4/54) in case regarding assets located

in the territories of former West Germany, during the years following the end

of the Second World War.

78. The harm caused to the Plaintiffs' property is also caused when the funds

received from the sale of the assets are being kept with the Defendant rather

than being distributed, while claiming that the date set by the Defendant for

itself was overdue, or due to other technical claims set by the Defendant that

are ought to be deemed as backing down from the steadfastness of property

and the protection thereof, as an unshakable basic right in relation to the

aforesaid claims on the Defendant's part.

79. The Defendant claims that its actions are based on a proper purpose of care

and treatment regarding the rights of the victims of Nazi crimes, requiring it to

set a final date for the application of recovery demands, so that rights of heirs

or successors would be compromised compared to the "ordinary" law. As

above specified, if the Defendant would not have been designated as the

lawful successor under the Property law, in the stead of the German treasury,

the heirs or their successors would have been entitled to turn to the German

Government's treasury until 2020 and to redeem their rights, which were

robbed unlawfully and unjustly without any doubt.

Principles of Natural Justice

80. The Plaintiffs suffered an unacceptable ongoing injustice, which stands

directly in contrast to the principles of natural justice, and to all that is true and

just in our world. Essentially, the Defendant was entrusted with the tasks of

managing and guarding the rights owners' property, at the purpose of

providing service to the injured individuals and to recover/or compensate them

for the robbery of property, which without any doubt was atrocious and

unlawful, unjust and immoral. The result, by which the owners of rights did

not recover the asset, while also not receiving the proper consideration

thereagainst, is not true and unjust under the circumstances of this case.

21

81. In order to provide the full picture, it shall be noted that the actions of the

Claims Committee under the circumstances described in this Claim had caused

discontent to various entities. In 2010 the British Jewish community's

organization, the Board of Deputies, asked to investigate the Defendant's

conduct in this matter. For that purpose, Advocate Jeffrey Gruder was asked to

inquire and issue a report regarding the Defendant, as well as recommending

the right and proper conduct, according to which the Defendant is ought to act.

82. A copy of Adv. Gruder's report, dated December 2nd, 2010 (hereinafter:

"Gruder's report") is enclosed as APPENDIX G. The author of the report is

a self-employed attorney in Britain, who was certified in 1978 and carries the

distinguished title Queen's Counsel since 1997. Adv. Gruder describes himself

as independent and not related to any of the entities involved, whose research

is impartial, was carried out without receiving any payment therefor and on his

own free time.

83. As one could infer from Gruder's report, despite the fact that the Claims

Committee possessed detailed information regarding the assets and their

owners, as early as 1992, as a result of the research and work carried out by

the Claims Committee for the purpose of filing the claims to the German

government, the list of the assets and their owners was posted in the Claims

Committee's website not before October 2003. The posted list was limited and

it included only the last name and the name of the city in which the asset

transferred to the Defendant was located: "Cohen, Berlin; Levy, Dresden",

and was removed from the website after six months only. Gruder found that

such list could not have assisted owners of rights in their request to recover

their property.

84. As claimed by Gruder, the Claims Committee had a moral duty to publish the

information held thereby, as soon as possible, and to try to assist and locate

heirs, who are the true right owners. That duty is consistent with one of the

Defendant's main goals – recovery of property.

85. Gruder was of the opinion that the use of funds, which derive from the

property of persons, who are still alive but cannot access such funds due to

lack of information, in order to assist separate third parties, involves moral and

ethical difficulties. He wrote as follows:

22

"I regard the removal of this list (and failure to update it) as regrettable and

contrary to the required principle of transparency which I consider should

guide the activities of the Claims Conference". (Paragraph 36)…

"It is only natural for these heirs to want to know the full details of their

families' assets and businesses and the compensation received by the

Claims Conference. This information is clearly available to the Claims

Conference, and I do find it surprising that it has not been published by it

in a comprehensive and comprehensible form, and indeed updated

regularly. I consider that there are strong grounds in favour of the

proposition that the lists so far published are insufficient. I am not aware of

any reason why such a comprehensive list has not yet been published by

the Claims Conference or why the previous list with surnames disappeared

in 2004."…

"The Jewish community is entitled to expect that the Claims Conference

acts, and appears to act, ethically and with the highest possible standard of

integrity, transparency and sensitivity. In the light of this, I would

recommend that the Board of Deputies use its influence in order to seek to

persuade the Claims Conference to publish a comprehensive list of claims

made and settled with the names of the relevant owner or the business, the

address and the amount claimed or settled and to keep this list permanently

on its website and updated regularly." (Paragraph 38).

86. According to Gruder's report, in the course of its activity in the context of the

"Goodwill Fund", the Claims Committee had breached, among other things,

its moral and ethical duties, beyond its legal duties, which derive from the

essence and goals of the Claims Committee, as well as from its stated purposes

and from other sources.

87. Gruder further found that the Claims Committee shirked its responsibilities

and duties towards the rights owners and that the Fund's title "The Goodwill"

– fits its conduct, as it represents the Claims Committee's attitude towards

those it pretended to represent, the Claims Committee shall recover their

property exclusively on a good will basis:

"It is clear the Claims Conference rejects any obligation to assist owners or

heirs in making a claim within the relevant time limit and disclaims any

duty to provide any information in its possession which might have

23

assisted owners or heirs in making a claim under Goodwill Fund when that

remedy was available" (Paragraph 25)

"This assertion encapsulates the position of the Claims Conference once

the legislation was passed by the German Government; the Claims

Conference regarded itself as owning no obligation to owners or heirs. The

Goodwill Fund was just that, a fund set up, as a matter of goodwill, the

payments from which were given ex gratia". (Paragraph 26)

88. The recommendations of Gruder's report state that the Claims Committee is

ought to publish a detailed list of the assets transferred into its hands,

including the assets address and/or business's name, the name of the rights

owner thereto, and the amount paid thereagainst. Later, the Fund should be

available for filing recovery demands for an additional period.

89. According to Gruder, his recommended measures should achieve the proper

balance between achieving justice in recovery cases and reducing the

hindrance to the Defendant's activity, for the benefit and welfare of Holocaust

survivors, as well as for promoting educational and cultural values.

90. According to the Plaintiffs'' best knowledge, the Claims Committee ignored

Gruder's reports and its findings. The Plaintiffs shall claim that the report's

findings provide further support to their claims against the Defendant, whose

arbitrary decision to reject the Plaintiffs' application is unjust and improper

according to any standard whatsoever.

Breach of Duties of Trust and Loyalty

91. In addition to the above specified factual background, it shall be noted that

prior to the reunification of East and West Germany, the Defendant was

involved in negotiations with the German government regarding the rights of

the Jewish owners and their heirs to the assets located in the territories of

former East Germany.

92. It shall be noted that in the course of that negotiations, the Claims Committee's

standing existed by virtue of it being an agent and its function as a

representative for the rights owners, and as such it had imposed upon itself

duties of loyalty and trust towards its principals. In light of such status, an

24

arrangement was set under the Property law, by which in the lack of claim on

part of the Jewish owners or their heirs, their lawful successor for the purpose

of exercising the rights shall be the Defendant. It shall be emphasized that the

arrangement under the law was set at the purpose of protecting the rights of

the Jewish owners and their heirs, and to prevent a situation, in which the

assets and/or the rights shall be granted to the Federal Republic of Germany,

in the territory of which the act of robbery was committed.

93. The Defendant taken upon itself to act as the representative as aforesaid, and

by that it had subjected itself to a specific duty of loyalty towards its principals

– the rights owners and/or their heirs, to act diligently and devotedly, and to do

to the best it can do in order to recover their property to them, in accordance to

the purpose of the law. His honor Judge Dr. Oded Mudrik emphasized the

Defendants' duty of loyalty within his ruling in Civil Case (Tel Aviv) 1296/02

Mariana Rodstein and 1914 others vs. the Claims Committee: "Without getting into the formal underlying structure of the constitution of agency,

the Defendant recognizes its own agency. It accepts the fact that it operated on behalf

of, as well as for the benefit of, any Jew who meets the criteria defining the realm of

its activities. By negotiating with the German government the Defendant is bound by

loyalty only towards its principals; it is the representative of the persecuted persons,

towards which it is bound by a duty of loyalty. It has no duty of loyalty towards

organs of the Government with which in negotiates. It must – and as a matter of fact

it accepts such obligation – to act for the benefit of its principals diligently and

devotedly in order to maximize their chances to receive assistance (in our case – to

receive a grant)…. However, at the same time, the Defendant's obligation towards it

principals – the Plaintiffs – to maximize their chances to receive the grant, still

remains. Therefore, even when it exercises the authority to act, by distributing the

grant funds granted thereto by organs of the German government, the Defendant is

bound by a duty of loyalty, of diligence, devotion and care, to act to the best of its

ability in order to procure that those applying for a grant, and who meet the criteria

for the receipt thereof, would actually receive it. The public nature of the Defendant's

activities enhances its duty of loyalty towards its principals and towards the Plaintiffs

in general".

94. As specified under this Claim, by its own actions and omissions described

herein, the Defendant additionally breached its duties of trust towards the

Plaintiffs by refraining from acting as it was required to act, refraining from

25

making attempts to locate the heirs, and in any case refraining from turning to

such heirs. When the Plaintiffs turned to the Defendant – it had dismissed

them in limine.

Lack of Authority and/or Ultra Vires

95. The Defendant's authority derives from the law, as above specified, and it has

been defined as actions that the Defendant must take for the benefit of the

relevant individuals and for the protection thereof. The trouble lies in the fact

that setting procedural thresholds and limitation periods that worsen the

Plaintiffs' condition, constitute actions taken in lack of authority or ultra vires,

and shall be deemed as ultra vires in relation to the Defendant's authorization,

according to any applicable law and by the nature of the permission and

authority granted thereto.

96. It shall be emphasized that the Defendant acts "on behalf of and for the best

interest of" any Jew who meets the criteria defining the realm of its activities,

as agreed also by the Defendant. Therefor, and as the dates it had arbitrarily

set worsen the condition of the Plaintiffs and those like them, this action

constitutes an action ultra vires, thus it is ought to be annulled.

Negligence and Breach of Duties under the Tort Law

97. Under the Property law and the instructions issued by the German authorities,

in order to recover the assets and/or the consideration thereagainst, the

Defendant had to present various documents and information regarding each

one of the assets, including the details of the owners of the assets, the fact that

they were Jews, and the circumstances/decisions under which the seizure took

place.

98. Under these circumstances, the Defendant possessed the details of the true

owners of the asset and/or of their heirs, and/or the Defendant had to act in

order to obtain such details, which are easily traceable (especially in

comparison to the resources it had invested in order to receive the assets and to

the revenues, inasmuch as such were received thereby, for such assets). By

virtue of its role and essence under such circumstances, the Defendant was

ought to locate the lawful heirs, turn to the Plaintiffs, and to recover the asset

26

to their possession. The Defendant failed to do so, and by that it had breached

its duty towards the Plaintiffs while acting in a careless and negligent fashion.

99. One could learn from the Company for Location and Restitution of Holocaust

Victims' Assets, as an example for the manner in which the Defendant was

ought to act. The Company for Location and Restitution of Holocaust Victims'

Assets, through its "heirs' location" department, is conducting historical and

genealogical research aimed at locating heirs and restituting their assets.

Additional information regarding the department could be found at the

Company's website at:

http://www.hashava.org.il/template/default.aspx?maincat=1&catid=1&pageid

=119. Please see, on that matter, the ruling by his honor Judge Mudrik in the

case of Civil Case 1296/02 Rodstein vs. the Claims Committee [promulgated

June 1st, 2008]:

"The agreed starting point is that the Claims Committee is bound by a duty of loyalty

towards the Plaintiffs and in any case it is bound by a conceptual duty of care towards

them. The public nature of the Claims Committee's activity and the special

dependence of the victims of the Nazis (and the Plaintiffs in general) upon its action

for their benefit enhances both the duty of loyalty and the duty of care…

The Defendant is bound by a duty of loyalty towards the Plaintiffs. It is bound by a

conceptual duty of care towards them. It had breached its concrete duty towards the

Plaintiffs by failing to provide them with sufficient tools to use by means of

discretion. The main point is that the Plaintiffs were deprived of essential and

relevant pieces of information….

The Defendant's failure in regard to all of the above constitutes negligence.

Considering that causality between the Defendant's negligent conduct and the

Plaintiffs' damages was established, I must find that the cause of action based on tort

had been established."

100. As above specified, the Defendant's role and nature bound it by duties

of loyalty towards the Plaintiffs. The Defendant received the Plaintiffs' assets

to be under its possession, and by that it had taken upon itself to serve as a

keeper of assets and holder of assets belonging to the Plaintiffs, subject to the

duties stated under the Keepers Law, 5727-1967, and the Trust Law,

5739-1979. According to these duties, the Defendant was ought to respect the

27

Plaintiffs' basic rights, and to prefer restituting their assets thereto, rather than

placing technical obstacles or obstacles of another kind.

101. By its actions and omissions, the Defendant conducted wrongfully

towards the Plaintiffs also by an unlawful retention of assets, as stated under

Section 49 in the Tort Ordinance (New Version). The Defendant did not deny

the Plaintiffs' right to the asset and therefore, and in accordance to Section 50

under the Ordinance, it carries the burden of proving that the withholding of

the asset from the Plaintiffs was carried out in accordance to the law. One

should refer to the ruling in the case of Civil Appeal 5964/03 The Estate of

the deceased Edward Aridor, may god rest his soul vs. The Municipality

of Petach-Tikva, O (4), p. 437:

"The priest in the Wilkinson case [supra 75] had received the sacramental bread plate

to be kept under his possession, and according to the Halacha we consider him as if

he had acknowledged the depositor's rights and as being prevented from claiming that

he robbed the asset in the course of his custody. It was found that when the superiors

demanded the retrieval of the sacramental bread plate to be under their possession,

the Court found the priest to be the holder of the plate. And a depositor asking to

retrieve the kept asset back to its own hands, shall demand it to be retrieved into its

own hands, and only after it had faced refusal, it is entitled to a cause of action

against the keeper.

The analogy to our case is obvious: in both cases the Court considers the Defendant

as the keeper of the Plaintiff's asset – in our case we consider the Authority as

accepting the fact that it serves as a keeper – however, in case the Defendant refuses

to accept the Plaintiff's demand, then a cause of action is being established for the

Plaintiff. The Defendant's refusal to accept the Plaintiff's demand; the "contradictory

possession" claim hence claimed by the Defendant against the Plaintiff – those two

constitute a prerequisite for the Plaintiff's right towards the Defendant. The

Authorities refusal to compensate the Plaintiff is the fact that entitles the Plaintiff

towards the Authority".

102. The Defendant acted unlawfully, also in regard to the aforesaid causes

of actions, and committed unjust enrichment at the expense of the Plaintiffs,

by refusing to transfer such things, to which they are entitled, to their

possession.

28

The Court's Competence to Hear the Claim

103. This honorable Court is competent to hear the Claim, as being the

appropriate forum to discuss the disputes and make judgment in regard

thereto. It is well known that the proper forum is determined in accordance to

the private international law, by using the "most relevant connections" test,

after examining the relevant connections in regard to a given case, and

considering what is the forum, to which such connections refer.

104. In the case under this discussion, the relevant connections in regard to

the Claim refer to the Courts in Israel as being the appropriate forum. Among

such connections are the Parties whereabouts and the fact that some of the

Probate Orders were granted in Israel. In addition, there is also the issue of the

detachment from the source of the historical injustice, which is obviously

required in such disputes, and the moral considerations involved in the

examination of such issues, which are so unique to the Jewish people, while

one seeks a proper and just remedy under such circumstances.

105. it shall be noted that the Courts' rulings in Israel narrowed the

possibility of turning to a foreign forum as the genuine forum, by placing a

heavy burden of persuasion upon any one who claims that the Israeli forum

constitutes a Forum non conveniens. Such burden of persuasion is expressed

by the fact that the "most relevant connections" test is being considered by an

unusual balance of conveniences, by which the Defendant must show that the

appropriate balance clearly and distinctively favors the foreign forum. Please

see, in that context, Civil Appeal 2705/91 Abu Jahla vs. The Electricity

Company East Jerusalem Ltd., C.R. 48 (1), p. 554, and also Permission for

Civil Appeal 9141/00 Franz Lang vs. Yaron Marks, C.R 56(1), p. 118.

106. The Defendant runs offices in various countries; however, the center of

its activities, as well as the residency of most Holocaust survivors, for the

benefit of whom the Defendant is operating, is in the state of Israel. The

Defendant is conducting its operations in the Hebrew language and even

invited people to apply thereto in regard to the "Goodwill Fund", without

making any distinction between its various offices. The information regarding

the Fund is presented within the Defendant's promotional materials also in

Hebrew.

29

107. It has been found that the Defendant holds a close connection to Israel,

both potentially as well as actually, by its representation of the interests of

Holocaust survivors and their successors, and it would be only natural that this

would be the place in which the authorized forum would hear the claims

thereagainst. Among the relevant connections, one should also consider the

fact that the Plaintiffs' claims are partially based on the Israeli law, and

consideration of great importance regarding judicial policy in regard to

hearing claims that deal with issues as the ones being heard under this Claim.

108. Despite the Defendant's objection, the competence of the Israeli Court,

in the course of claims against the Defendant, and especially in regard to the

"Goodwill Fund", was already examined and determined, in the case of

Various Civil Motions (Tel Aviv) 5730/06 Conference of Jewish Material

Claims Against Germany Inc. vs. Amos Perry [promulgated May 30th,

2006]. His honor registrar Shmuel Baruch, may god rest his soul, held that the

Israeli Courts are competent to hear such claims:

"However, above all, the claim by which the such "Goodwill Fund" is located in

Germany constitutes a parameter that could lead one to the conclusion regarding the

genuineness of the German forum, means that every potential claim filed against the

Applicant, which deals with the same proprietary matters as the ones dealt with by the

representatives in Frankfurt, is ought to be heard before German instances, and such

result does not make any sense. I presume that such claims against the Applicant

might be filed also in the future (as such might have been filed in the past), and one

could not "require" Holocaust survivors and their offspring, some or most of whom

do not even reside in Germany, to commence a full proceeding before a German

forum, only because that "Goodwill Fund" is located (in regard to an questionable

portion of its activity) there.

In fact, this reason alone could lead one to the conclusion that not only that there

seems to be no justification to the claim, by which the German Forum serves as the

appropriate forum to hear the claims filed against the Applicant, but also that its

degree genuineness is also questionable.

…

"As aforesaid, it is hard to imagine that this group of Israeli Plaintiffs, who are

required to use the Applicant's services in order to receive the compensation amounts

to which they are entitled from the German authorities, shall find themselves forced

30

to conduct a complete proceeding in Germany thereagainst, including all the

significant costs that shall be required for that purpose.

I shall add that one could not ignore that fact that the Applicant, as the representative

of the Holocaust survivors' interests, is supposed, intuitively, to hold a strong

connection to Israel, among other issues, also in regard to its expectations in matters

such as the competent forum for hearing claims that might be filed thereagainst.

In my opinion, the Israeli judicial system has an inherent "moral" interest to be in

charge of claims that are linked to such issues, which are unique to the Jewish people,

while foreign instances, although such would probably able to hear such cases in a

proper manner and to provide proper remedies in case such would be justified, still

would not be able to sense their broad meaning and their fundamental importance.

In light of the aforesaid, I am of the opinion that the Israeli forum is the appropriate

forum to hear the claim, and therefore it is granted jurisdiction".

Closing Remarks

109. As detailed under this Claim, upon the reunification of East and West

Germany and the fall of the Berlin wall, during the early 90's of the previous

century, the government of the unified Germany enabled owners of Jewish

property in East Germany, which was seized or forcibly sold under the Nazi

regime, to claim the restitution of their property, or to receive

consideration in exchange thereto, in case such property had been sold.

110. This Claim regards assets that belong to the Plaintiffs as the successors

and heirs of those deprived of their rights during the Holocaust, and

unfortunately were unable to obtain such assets or the consideration paid

thereagainst, due to the Defendant's refusal to release them, while maintaining

to keep them unlawfully.

111. As a matter of fact, the Defendant worsened the Plaintiffs' condition

instead of benefiting the Plaintiffs and assisting them, both in contrast to the

law, by force of which the Defendant draws its status and vitality, and to the

general law and the principles of natural justice. The Defendant's acted

without authority or ultra vires, and therefore its actions are ought to be

annulled.

112. The Defendant's actions and omissions stand in contradiction to the

Basic Laws and to their purpose, while placing the decisions of its institutions

to stand above the law and the Basic Laws. As above mentioned, the practical

31

result is that the Plaintiffs' basic rights are infringed, and that they do not get

the remedies, to which they are entitled under the law and justice.

113. By serving this Claim, the Plaintiffs seek to stand their ground, by

allowing them to correct an historical injustice, which on this specific case is

expressed by a material wrongdoing thereagainst, which lacks of any basis or

justification under law.

114. The honorable court is requested to declare and find that the Defendant

infringed the Plaintiffs' rights and denied them from such rights unlawfully,

while considering that there are also additional right owners, towards whom

the Defendant applied similar conduct, and that by considering that granting

the declarative remedies is the most efficient manner in which this issue can

be resolved.

115. The honorable Court is requested to order the provision of accounts

and to order that the Defendant must pay monetary compensation to the

Plaintiffs, as requested in the preamble to this Claim.

116. The declarative remedies requested under this Claim constitute

alternative and complementary remedies, as applicable, in regard to the

unlawfulness and the wrongs of the conduct by the Defendant and its

representatives. Therefore, the Court is requested, additionally and

alternatively, to grant any other just remedy under such circumstances, to the

Plaintiffs.

117. The Plaintiffs reserve their right to request an amendment and increase

of the amount of claim, as required, and in accordance to the accounting and

the declarative remedies. They further reserve their right to apply for the

addition of other additional plaintiffs, whose case is similar to the Plaintiffs'

stated under the preamble, for the causes stated under this Claim, and

considering all the circumstances.

118. Claims under this Statement of Claim shall be deemed as alternative

and/or cumulative, and/or complementary, all depending on the context, as

applicable.

Therefore, the honorable Court is requested to summon the Defendants to

stand before the Court and to grant the remedies, as requested in the preamble

to this Claim.

32

In Addition, the honorable Court is requested order the Defendants, jointly and

severally, to pay the legal fees and attorneys' fees, plus VAT as applicable by

law, to the Plaintiffs.

_______________________

Dor Heskia, Adv.

Heskia - Hacmun Law Firm

The Plaintiffs' Attorneys