Stimtsky Faces Contempt of Court Motion in Real Estate Dispute
A bitter legal battle between Israeli businessman Ari Stimtsky and his former partner Avihu Efrat escalates as a contempt of court motion is filed in Tel Aviv over unpaid real estate funds.
A business and legal dispute between businessman Ari Stimtsky and his former real estate partner, Avihu Efrat, has escalated significantly. A motion for contempt of court was filed with the Tel Aviv District Court, demanding that Stimtsky and his company, Amos and Daughters Investments and Assets Ltd., comply with a judicial ruling and transfer 450,000 euros to Efrat, under threat of fines or imprisonment.
According to the lawsuit, Efrat and Stimtsky maintained a 16-year business partnership for initiating and managing real estate projects in the Czech Republic and Slovakia, structured at 85% for Stimtsky and 15% for Efrat. Stimtsky provided the necessary capital, while Efrat managed operations and development on the ground. In July 2026, Efrat filed a lawsuit and a request for temporary injunctions through attorneys Ofer Tzur, Omer Razin, and Guy Michael Cohen from the Gornitzky & Co. law firm.
Interim Agreement and Disputed Funds
Following a hearing in September 2026 before Senior Judge Hagai Brenner, the parties reached a detailed interim settlement that received the validity of a court decision on September 14. The agreement stipulated restrictions on the transfer of shares and assets in Slovakia and the Czech Republic, alongside the distribution of surplus funds related to the Czech project managed by BENUGA.
Under the terms, 1 million euros was to remain in the company's coffers to complete the project, approximately 3.5 million euros held in escrow were to be released to the company, and 5.55 million euros were to be transferred to Stimtsky to repay loans he had extended to the company, alongside 450,000 euros to Efrat.
Allegations of Breach and Defense Arguments
In the new contempt motion, Efrat claims that Stimtsky and the company severely breached the agreed ruling. He asserts that the 3.5 million euros in escrow were released and deposited into Stimtsky's Czech BENUGA account on September 17, but the 450,000 euros earmarked for him have yet to be paid, labeling the situation as self-help.
The respondents stole our consent, filled their company coffers, and then refused to fulfill their part of the deal.
Stimtsky, represented by attorney Noam Zamir from S. Horowitz & Co., argued in correspondence that Efrat had concealed the filing of a criminal complaint with the Czech police concerning BENUGA. Stimtsky's legal team emphasized that they too had not yet withdrawn funds to cover their loans, urging that the disputes be resolved through scheduled mediation rather than frivolous threats.
Efrat maintains that these are shifting excuses for delaying payment, stressing that no legal injunction or police order prevents the implementation of the court decision. The court has yet to rule on the motion.
