Civil Case (Haifa) 48347-07-23 Rachel Yatach v. Shlomo Greenberg - part 10

VIII.     The business license (paragraph 31 of the summaries).

1. Engagement agreements for holding the events at the Be'erot Yitzhak event complex (paragraph 32 of the summaries).
2. Contracts and agreements with suppliers (paragraph 33 of the summaries).
3. The company's insurance policy, including add-ons and confirmations of premium payments at the end of each year                        (Paragraph 34 of the summaries).
4. The Sales Contracts for the Purchase and Sale of the Real Estate Property Known as Block 7072 Part of a Section         7 at 2 Ben Gamliel Street in Tel Aviv (paragraph 35 of the summaries).
5. In Kedem Be'erot as well, the plaintiff requests to receive the bills for a period beginning 7 years before the filing of the claim, and in this matter as well, she requests to receive documents, even if they have already been given to her in the past.
6. The defendants oppose the motion regarding Kedem Be'erot accounts and repeat most of the claims detailed in the Greenberg Properties lawsuit. In this matter as well, it was argued that the plaintiff is requesting documents that were not included in the statement of claim in completing the plea, and therefore this request constitutes an extension of an improper front.  The defendants emphasize that they never refused to provide the plaintiff with the financial statements and minutes of the general meeting.  These documents have already been given to her in the past and will be provided to her again.  However, the defendants seek to limit the period of review to a period beginning on the date of the deceased's death.
7. Regarding the documents of the real estate transaction, it was claimed that the deceased was aware of the sale since this was mentioned in the allocation agreement dated March 3, 2016. In any event, the land was sold in 2015, and therefore any claim regarding this transaction became statute of limitations.
8. The defendants also claim that the plaintiff's request is burdensome and tainted by bad faith. It was also claimed that the plaintiff is petitioning to receive documents that are not the company's and that it is clear that she is not entitled to review them.

The defendants emphasize that the plaintiff is a shareholder, and therefore is not entitled to review the documents that a director is entitled to review, and therefore her arguments based on Articles 254, 255, 270 - 272 to the Companies Law.  Finally, it was argued that the plaintiff's right to review only documents created after the deceased's death should be restricted.