Bio

Simon Weintraub is a partner in the firm’s Banking and Finance Group as well as the High Tech Practice Group. He specializes in banking and finance, venture lending, venture capital and start-ups.  Simon also has extensive experience in oil and gas financing transactions and other complex cross-border structured finance transactions. Simon is also one of the heads of our firm’s Asia Practice. In addition, Simon is a member of the firm’s Executive Management Committee.

Simon specializes in representing foreign clients in their investment activity in Israel including clients from the United States, Canada, United Kingdom, China, Singapore, Japan, South Korea, Azerbaijan, South Africa and many other places. Simon has been an integral part in Israel’s largest oil and gas project finance transactions, as he navigated precedential issues within a new regulatory landscape.

Simon also played a prominent role in the first-ever IPO of an Israeli company on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange. He also advises clients in cross-border lending transactions, global bond offerings, mergers and acquisitions, and in private placements and joint ventures. In addition, Simon routinely advises promising start-up companies particularly in the area of life sciences and represents several foreign venture capital funds and multinational corporations investing in Israel.

IFLR1000 ranks Simon as ‘Highly regarded’ in the Banking, Project Finance and Oil & Gas fields. The Legal 500 recommends Simon Weintraub in the Banking and Finance and Venture Capital fields and describes him as “business minded and straightforward”, “excellent communicator” and “very responsive and commercial. Simon is recognized as well in Chambers Global, in which he has been described as “super-responsive and always there when you need him.”

Simon joined the firm in 2000 and became a partner in 2008. Simon received a degree magna cum laude in political science from York University of Toronto in 1995. He received his business law degree from Bar Ilan University in 1999.

EXPERIENCE HIGHLIGHTS

  • Representation of JP Morgan Chase and HSBC Bank in the oversubscribed USD $2.25 billion global bond 144A bond offering for Delek Drilling LP for the financing of the Leviathan offshore natural gas project. This was one of the largest international bond transactions in 2020 in the energy field.
  • Representation of a consortium of lenders (consisting of 14 Israeli and international banks from around the world) as well as the Facility Agent and Security Trustee, which loaned USD 720 Million to Mubadala Petroleum, to finance the acquisition of 22% of the rights in the Tamar offshore Gas Field. This representation included the subsequent representation of the consortium of lenders when they loaned funds to an entity controlled by Aaron Frenkel which exercised an option and purchased half of the holdings purchased by Mubadala Petroleum.
  • Representation of JP Morgan Chase and Morgan Stanley (jointly) as well as the primary purchasers, including IBI Investment House, in the issuance of bonds relating to Energean Israel in a $2.5 billion global bond 144A offering with respect to the Karish and Tanin offshore gas fields. This representation included the representation of the primary purchasers in a $750 million upsizing of the bond.
  • Representation of ZIM Integrated Shipping Services Ltd. (NYSE: ZIM) in a $100 million credit facility transaction with a fintech start-up called 40Seas Inc.
  • Representation of Shanghai Healthcare Capital (SHC), in a $20 million Series A financing round of a clinical stage biopharmaceutical company called Biomica Ltd., a subsidiary of Evogene (NASDAQ: EVGN).
  • Representation of K2 Health Ventures, in a $100 million credit facility transaction to 89Bio, Inc. (NASDAQ: ETNB), a clinical staged biopharmaceutical company focused in the area of therapies for the treatment of liver and cardio-metabolic diseases.
  • Representation of Voiceitt, a leading start-up in the field of speech recognition technology for non standard speech, in several rounds of equity financing for tens of millions of dollars from leading VC’s and Strategics including, Amazon, Microsoft, Cisco Investments, Third Culture Capital and Viking Maccabee Ventures.

Recognition

Global 2025: Banking & Finance
Banking, Project Finance
Energy, Banking & Finance
Banking Project finance
2023: Energy, Banking & Finance

Chambers Global

“Simon Weintraub is an outstanding attorney and routinely puts together a very competent team to help with whatever aspects a given transaction presents.”

“He is always available, eager to help and has the relevant knowledge surrounding the industry.”

Education
1999 Bar Ilan University | LLB
1995 York University, Toronto | Political Science
Admission
2000 Israel

INSIGHTS

Venture Lending in Israel: Fixed vs. Floating Charge -The Risks of Recharacterization
Intro Welcome to the fourth installment in our series of articles providing an overview of the various aspects relating to the venture lending industry in Israel, including some of the legal, commercial and regulatory factors that should be taken into consideration by anyone looking to enter into this realm. The main goal of this series is to equip readers with valuable knowledge and understanding of the venture lending landscape in Israel, helping them navigate and capitalize on the unique opportunities it presents, particularly for those looking to become stakeholders in the Israeli startup ecosystem. In our fourth installment below, we provide a high-level overview regarding taking of security in Israel focusing on some of the challenges in maximizing lender priority rights. Taking Security in Israel For a security interest to be effective against third parties, such security interest should be properly registered with the relevant authority in Israel. In general, secured creditors have preference with regard to the property over which they hold a security interest, provided that the charge was duly registered and perfected. Israeli law has a hierarchy between types of security interests, primarily fixed and floating charges, the strongest being a fixed charge over specific assets which provides a nearly absolute preference to the creditor. There are some exceptions to the preference of fixed charge secured creditors – these include certain real property taxes, possessory liens on movable assets, certain liquidation expenses (incurred in connection with the realization of the assets) and in the case of fraudulent conveyance. In addition, a creditor that has valid set-off rights can prevail over a secured creditor who has a security interest over rights of the pledgor, which are subject to set-off. Fixed Charge vs. Floating Charge A fixed charge is a charge over a specific set of assets at a certain point in time, whereas a floating charge is a blanket charge over all of the pledgor’s present and future assets, which crystalizes upon the initiation of enforcement proceedings. This distinction is crucial in determining the priority and distribution of proceeds in insolvency proceedings. While a creditor secured by a fixed charge will be entitled to all of the proceeds derived from the realization of the assets subject to the fixed charge, in accordance with the Israeli Insolvency and Economic Rehabilitation Law, 5779-2018, a creditor secured by a floating charge will be entitled to priority on only 75% of the proceeds derived from the realization of the assets subject to the floating charge, and the remaining 25% of the proceeds will be added to the pool of assets available for distribution among both the secured and unsecured creditors, pro rata. Typically Pledged Assets While the floating charge will capture all assets of the borrower existing at the time of enforcement other than assets expressly excluded from such charge, the following assets are typically pledged in the context of an Israeli technology company lending transaction under a specific fixed charge: Fixed assets (computers, desks, machinery, etc.); Registered and unregistered intellectual property Rights under commercial agreements/accounts receivables; Insurance proceeds; Bank accounts; and Equity interests. It is advisable to include provisions in the loan documents requiring the borrower to notify the lender(s) and/or collateral agent regarding the subsequent acquisition of material assets, including intellectual property, following the closing of the transaction, and allowing for periodic amendments of the underlying fixed charge security agreement in order to pick up such new assets and recognize them as being subject to a fixed charge as opposed to the inferior coverage provided under the floating charge. Recharacterization of a Security Interest with respect to Bank Accounts and/or Accounts Receivable In the S.R. Accord vs. the State of Israel, et all. court case from 2022, the Israeli Supreme Court characterized a security interest created over bank accounts and accounts receivable as a floating charge, and not a fixed charge, as opposed to the characterization provided under the respective security agreement. As part of the court's decision, it set out certain indications as to the practical measures that could be taken in order to increase the likelihood that such security interests would be characterized as a fixed charge, as opposed to a floating charge. These key criteria are: (i) the level of control the creditor has over the pledged asset, and (ii) the extent to which the pledged asset is defined with sufficient specificity. Generally speaking, the greater the level of control that the creditor has over the asset in question and the detail in which such asset is specifically identified in the security agreement, the more likely it is that the security interest would be affirmed by the courts as a fixed charge, as originally intended. Ultimately, the court provided indicative guidelines but not clear cut rules. The measures set forth above are of course subject to the commercial agreement of the parties. It should be noted that, from a practical perspective, it would be uncommon in a typical venture lending transaction to provide a sufficient level of control to meet the court’s test. Moreover, Israeli banks do not sign deposit account control agreements as a matter of policy.  A common approach taken by lenders with regards to Israeli bank accounts, in order to mitigate exposure that may arise from the potential recharacterization of a fixed charge over bank accounts, is to set a limit with respect to the aggregate amount of funds that may be held in such accounts during the term of the loan, with the borrower providing a covenant not to exceed such predetermined limit. It is also common for many US based lenders to insist on a certain amount of cash to be deposited in US bank accounts of the borrower subject to an account control agreement. About Us Arnon, Tadmor-Levy proudly stands among Israel’s most prominent law firms, with one of the largest and most respected banking and financial services departments. We have extensive experience in cross-border and other complex financing transactions, representing both lenders and borrowers. Our trusted reputation spans a vast clientele, including leading Israeli and international banks and other financial institutions. Should you have any questions, or are interested in learning more about the various aspects of the Israeli venture lending and private credit industry, please feel free to reach out to a member of our venture lending
Read more
Simon Weintraub

Simon Weintraub

Partner, Executive Member
132 Begin Road, Azrieli Center, Tel Aviv 6702101, Israel
Simon Weintraub