On November 4, 2025, the plaintiff filed an update notice according to which she filed a motion in the insolvency case to cancel the temporary order regarding the foreclosure orders issued in the present proceeding, as well as a response regarding the deposit deposited in favor of the plaintiff in opposition to the execution of a deed and foreclosure in her favor in the present proceeding. She also filed an application for a permit to conduct proceedings against the defendant to the extent that an order to open proceedings against her is granted.
- Taking into account that in the case of the subsidiary a receivership order has not yet been issued, there is no impediment to the issuance of a judgment in the suit against it.
In this Court - Summary of Proceeding 44913-07-22
- In July 2022, the subsidiary filed a financial claim against the plaintiff in the amount of ILS 15,000,000 (CA 44913-07-22, hereinafter: the subsidiary's claim).
- As part of the subsidiary's claim, the plaintiff filed a motion to obligate the subsidiary to deposit a guarantee to secure the plaintiff's expenses, which was made in a decision dated November 15, 2022, in which the subsidiary was obligated to deposit the sum of ILS 60,000. The bail was deposited.
- On April 3, 2024, the subsidiary filed a request to amend the amount of the claim due to fee considerations, so that the amount of the claim would be reduced to ILS 7,500,000. The plaintiff's response to the request was submitted, and then shortly after the evidentiary hearing scheduled for May 7, 2024, the state's response was submitted, which opposed the request to reduce the fee amounts due to the reduction in the amount of the claim. At the beginning of the evidentiary hearing, which was scheduled for May 7, 2024, I announced that I was rejecting the request to amend the statement of claim to reduce the amount of the claim, and that the subsidiary must arrange the payment of the second half, in order to be able to hear the evidentiary hearing. After weighing the matter, the subsidiary's counsel announced that the subsidiary was seeking to delete the claim and receive back the first half of the fee. Therefore, a judgment was given in the subsidiary's claim, according to which the claim is deleted.
- In the decision of December 4, 2014, it was determined that the subsidiary must be refunded half of the fee it paid. In the same decision, it was also determined that the plaintiff was entitled to expenses in respect of the deleted claim in the sum of ILS 20,000, which was collected from the deposited guarantee. It was also determined that the balance of the guarantee on its fruits would be restored to the subsidiary. In a decision dated December 26, 2024, it was determined that the balance of the guarantee would not be returned to the subsidiary due to foreclosures.
- Finally - that the subsidiary's claim was deleted in a judgment given in the minutes of May 7, 2024 (pages 12-13 of the minutes) and the expenses awarded for them have already been collected.
In this Court - Summary of the Proceedings in the Case That Is the Subject of This Judgment - 56961-03-22
- In March 2022, the plaintiff filed this monetary claim in the sum of ILS 6,000,000.
- After the filing of a statement of defense, two pre-trial proceedings were held, one on June 13, 2023, and the other, on April 9, 2024, in which a stay of proceedings against the tenant was determined due to the insolvency case, so that the case continued to be conducted against the subsidiary and the defendant.
- Three evidentiary hearings were held in which the witnesses were heard.
Testified on behalf of the plaintiffs - Adv. Sara Weinstein, the Company's attorney (hereinafter: the Company's attorney) in the minutes dated May 7, 2024, and Lior Minkin, Property Manager (hereinafter: the Property Manager) in the minutes dated May 7, 2024.