Insightec Lawsuit: EKPAC Contract Suit and Landmark Arbitration

Insightec Ltd., the Israeli maker of MRI-guided focused ultrasound systems, is currently defending a breach-of-contract lawsuit filed in July 2025 by EKPAC Healthcare Ltd. in the Haifa District Court, and previously won a multi-year fight brought by financial advisor Landmark Ventures that ran from an ICC arbitration in New York through the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The two Insightec lawsuits are unrelated on their facts, but both center on the same kind of allegation: that Insightec used a partner’s work and then cut the partner out of the deal.

EKPAC Healthcare’s 2025 Breach of Contract Suit

EKPAC Healthcare Ltd., an international company active in healthcare, industrial services, and fire and rescue technologies, sued Insightec in the Haifa District Court in July 2025. The claim seeks NIS 6,418,044, roughly $1.6 million.¹

EKPAC calls Insightec a “business partner” and alleges breach of contractual agreements, bad faith, and unjust enrichment.² The underlying deal was a sale of advanced ultrasound systems to a hospital in China. According to EKPAC, the two companies worked together on the project, and Insightec then excluded EKPAC from the contract just before it was finalized, costing EKPAC more than $1.6 million in expected profit. The complaint says the allegations are backed by written correspondence and audio recordings.¹

EKPAC is represented by attorneys Daphna Fisher and Yaniv Nissenholtz of Dr. Gideon Fisher & Co. Insightec had not publicly responded to the allegations as of the filing, and the case is in its early stages.

The Landmark Ventures Dispute

The earlier case began with an engagement letter dated July 2011. Insightec hired Landmark Ventures, Inc., a New York financial advisory firm, as its exclusive financial advisor for potential private placement transactions. The agreement had a six-month exclusive period and a fifteen-month “tail period” covering deals with investors Landmark had identified.³

Landmark arranged a term sheet for a $50 million investment from OrbiMed, a healthcare-focused investment firm. Insightec’s board rejected that proposal in May 2012. Soon after, Insightec signed a memorandum of understanding for a $27.5 million investment from GE Healthcare, which was already a shareholder with a board seat. Landmark claimed a $450,000 minimum fee under the engagement letter, arguing that Insightec had leveraged Landmark’s work to attract GE while shutting Landmark out.⁴

The ICC Arbitration

Landmark initiated arbitration before the International Chamber of Commerce in July 2012, as required by the engagement letter. Sole arbitrator Stephanie Cohen presided in New York. She found no support for Landmark’s claims that Insightec had intentionally misled the firm, used it as a “stalking horse” to attract GE, or pursued the GE deal to avoid paying fees. The record showed GE and other shareholders had legitimate concerns about share dilution from the OrbiMed proposal, and Landmark failed to prove Insightec had solicited GE using Landmark’s work product, since GE already had access to the OrbiMed term sheet through its board seat.³

The arbitrator denied Landmark’s claim and awarded costs to Insightec in a final award dated October 8, 2013. Landmark then filed an application under the ICC Rules asking the arbitrator to “correct” and vacate the award, alleging bias and procedural misconduct. That application was dismissed entirely in December 2013 as an attempt to relitigate the case rather than to correct any clerical error. Landmark was ordered to pay Insightec an additional $2,940 in legal fees for responding.⁵

Federal Court Appeals

Landmark next petitioned the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to vacate the award. Judge John G. Koeltl denied that petition and granted Insightec’s cross-petition to confirm it, entering judgment on November 26, 2014.⁶

The Second Circuit affirmed on October 30, 2015, in a decision by Judges Jon O. Newman and José A. Cabranes, joined by District Judge Stefan R. Underhill sitting by designation. The panel emphasized that judicial review of arbitration awards is “very limited” under both the Federal Arbitration Act and the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. It found the arbitrator’s procedural decisions were reasonable responses to Landmark’s own failures to follow procedural rules, rejected the bias allegations as resting on an “attenuated and strictly professional” connection, and held that Landmark’s disagreement with the arbitrator’s contract interpretation did not amount to a “manifest disregard of the law.” The court also upheld the cost award, noting the arbitration’s terms of reference explicitly authorized cost apportionment.⁶

A Separate Suit Against the Arbitrator

During the post-award proceedings, the arbitrator noted that Landmark had also filed a lawsuit against her and the ICC in New York State Supreme Court, alleging breach of contract and seeking damages.⁵ That collateral action ran alongside, but outside of, the direct Insightec dispute.

Business Context Behind the Disputes

Both cases arose against the backdrop of Insightec’s push to commercialize its Exablate MRI-guided focused ultrasound platform. Koch Disruptive Technologies, a Koch Industries subsidiary, led a $150 million Series E and a later Series F round that valued Insightec at about $1.3 billion in 2020.⁷ Revenue then fell from $96 million in 2022 to $87 million in 2023, the net loss widened to $101 million, and the company reported negative equity of $78 million after a 30% first-quarter drop in 2024, drawing a going concern qualification from its auditors.⁸ In June 2024, Insightec raised $150 million at a $375 million valuation, led by Fidelity Management & Research Company with Nexus Neurotech Ventures and Ally Bridge Group co-leading. The Koch family, which holds roughly 40% of the company, did not participate. Insightec said the round would let it avoid the going concern qualification in its second-quarter results.⁹

1
The Jerusalem Post. Intl Company Files NIS 6M Lawsuit Against Insightec
2
Yahoo Finance. Intl Company Files NIS 6M Lawsuit Against Insightec
3
Jus Mundi. Landmark Ventures Inc. v. Insightec Ltd., Final Award
4
Studicata. Landmark Ventures, Inc. v. Insightec, Limited
5
Jus Mundi. Landmark Ventures Inc. v. Insightec Ltd., Decision and Addendum on Costs
6
Cetient. Landmark Ventures, Inc. v. InSightec, Ltd., 619 F. App’x 37
7
Insightec. Koch Disruptive Technologies to Lead $150 Million Investment of Insightec
8
Globes. Israeli Ultrasound Co Insightec Raises $150M
9
Calcalist. Insightec Raises $150 Million in Equity Financing