A: This is not accurate.
...
Q: Yes, but here it has already won as part of the first competitive process, and took out a loan of ILS 215 million.
A: I say,
Q: Is this similar to our case? That I gave money to the tower that I don't know what will happen to him, and maybe he will come and maybe he won't?
A: No,
Q: What is it like,
A: It's not the same."
- In addition, Prof. Eden bases his opinion on a case of the American company Alliance One, whose policy was approved by the US Securities and Exchange Commission after a focused examination (in paragraph 7.7 of the 2025 Eden Opinion). According to this argument, advances intended to ensure future supply of inventory are direct costs for the purchase of inventory, and therefore their classification as an asset on the balance sheet is legitimate, as long as the losses for them remain within a normal range. However, here too the cases are different. Beyond the fact that it is not clear what accounting standard applies to the American company and whether it differs from the standards applicable in our case, it appears that while in the case of Alliance One the company held a binding contract that grants it legal rights vis-à-vis the growers (including the right to collect after the termination of the contract), in Agrexco the payments were made without an obligation on the part of the growers to engage with the company in the future. Therefore, Agrexco did not have the "control" component required in accounting for the recognition of the asset. In Alliance One, we are talking about real advances, goods or cash, that were deducted from the final consideration. Thus, in Aliance One's letter to the US Securities and Exchange Commission, it appears that the registration of the advances was backed by contracts (P/17, p. 1662 of the plaintiffs' appendices):
"In order to guarantee an adequate supply of unprocessed tobacco inventory from the farmers, we enter into a contract with the farmers for both advances related to inputs and the subsequent purchases of tobacco."