A: I remember that it was an accounting firm.
Q: Okay.
A: Not a firm. The firm in the sense of the accountant, not the company.
Q: Not Agrexco.
A: No."
- However, with all due respect, I am of the opinion that this claim of the plaintiffs is not sufficiently founded, and is tendentious in an attempt to distance the responsibility from the directors and the CEO of the company and to impose it on the accountants only, when what is stated therein contradicts the statement of claim of the plaintiffs themselves, who state the part of the management in writing the reports. Thus, for example, the plaintiffs noted that CEO Tirosh had instructed the chief pricer to change his recommendation to recognize some of the mandatory balances as losses, and to transfer some of them to the "Advances to Suppliers" section (in paragraph 43 of the statement of claim):
"43. The then CEO of Agrexco, Mr. Shlomo Tirosh, who served in this position from 1994 to 2010, instructed the Chief Pricer to change his recommendation, and to recognize only part of the mandatory balances recorded in the transaction cards as Agrexco losses - in accordance with the surpluses accumulated by the Company in the course of its other activities..."
- It also emerges that it is possible that the person who determined the amount of the loss in the relevant transaction ledger was CEO Tirosh himself (Chapter 18.5 of the investigator's report):
"Investigator: You were involved in making the proposals. In other words, as soon as Ilan Peretz came and told you: Listen, our balance on the transaction card indicates a deficit of 11.5 million euros. Who made the bid regarding the amount recorded as a loss? After all, the person who signed this paper is only you...
Shlomo Tirosh: Only me."
The premise of this argument that the company, headed by CEO Tirosh, was in charge of the reports, and in particular the problematic registration of the payments as an asset, while the accountants were negligent in approving it alone, continues throughout the statement of claim that was filed at the beginning of the proceeding (beyond the aforesaid, also in paragraphs 46, 49, 125, 150, 151 and 152 of the statement of claim).
- The interrogation of CPA Morad also shows that the company is the one who writes the reports, and the auditor only expresses his opinion, which did not raise objection during the discussion (Transcript, p. 1015, questions 14-25):
"Q. Now, do you think that this is a proper accounting presentation that you approve as an accountant?
- So I, first of all, have to remember that the person who made the financial reports is the company's management, and the person who prepares the financial reports is the company's management. The role of the accountants is to intervene when there is a material misrepresentation, and whether the presentation is such that he will not be able to give a smooth opinion. When I take myself to the years 2007-8-9, I think that such a presentation would have been one of the most acceptable and the accountant could have given his opinion without intervening to the client or telling him, wait, if you don't give a disclosure, I have reservations about the financial statements. This,
- Okay. You answered me."
In this state of affairs, the scales are at most tipped, and I am unable to accept the plaintiffs' argument. In other words, the assumption is that the company's management wrote the reports.