The allocation agreement also stated that the deceased "[...] Interested in becoming a 10% partner in Kedem [...]". In other words, the deceased was aware of the sale of the land, and all he asked for was to receive shares in Kedem Be'erot. The allocation agreement indicates that the deceased waived his share of the land or the realization consideration. Indeed, to the extent that the deceased had rights and causes of action regarding the sale of the land, these have long since become obsolete, since the land was sold in 2015.
- There is also no explanation of the purpose of reviewing all the documents relating to the rental of the banquet hall and the investments in the banquet hall. The plaintiff owns 10% of the shares and is entitled to review all of the company's financial statements, which were given to it for at least part of the period. The plaintiff does not point to any defect in the reports, data that requires clarification and clarification, etc. The plaintiff's claims do not explain the purpose of the examination of all of the company's bank accounts, lease agreements, engagements with suppliers, and more. Let us recall that the plaintiff is not a director of the company and is not even entitled to appoint a director on her behalf in Kedem Be'erot.
- It should be emphasized that the defendants do not object (paragraph 52 of the summaries) to providing the plaintiff with documents relating to the decisions of the company to employ Greenberg's relatives (Idan and Orit Greenberg).
- I will add that in these circumstances, even the right to inspect by virtue of the rulings regarding judgments for the provision of accounts is not sufficient to permit the examination of all the additional documents. As clarified, the relationship between the company and the plaintiff and between Greenberg and the plaintiff is not sufficient to justify a broad right to inspect the accounts. There is no relationship of trust between Kedem Be'erot and Greenberg and the plaintiff that grants her the right to inspect all the documents, and in the absence of any evidentiary basis for allegations of discrimination or any other independent ground, the right to inspect should not be extended beyond the rights set forth in the Companies Law.
- Before concluding this chapter, I will mention, as noted above, that the plaintiff has the right to review all the documents of Kedem Be'erot that were permitted to be examined, for a period beginning 7 years prior to the filing of the claim, since the right to inspect is attached to the shares that were inherited to her.
- Therefore, I determine that the plaintiff is entitled to review all of Kedem Be'erot's financial statements, starting 7 years prior to the filing of the claim. It is also entitled to review the minutes of the shareholders' meeting, all decisions regarding the distribution of dividends, to the extent that they were made, as well as all decisions regarding the employment of Greenberg's family members.
- I will mention that defendant 2, Har Yarok Investments Ltd., is no longer a shareholder in Kedem Be'erot and therefore the plaintiff should not be given any remedy against it.
Conclusion
- Taking into account all of the above, I obligate Greenberg Properties, defendants 1-2 (in a civil case 48347-07-23) to deliver all documents within 21 days as detailed in paragraph 65 above.
I also bind Kedem Be'erot and Greenberg, defendants 1 and- 3 In file 4828-07-23 to deliver the documents to the plaintiff within 21 days as detailed in paragraph 76 above.