A: If not,
Q: That's my question. Because in this trial we are discussing it.
A: That's true, but you can't ignore the fact that the alleged breach of the covenant took place 5 days after the date of the IPO. And so I assume that the person who issued the IPO, knew exactly what was happening and could be, in my opinion, this whole IPO looks very strange. I'm also telling you personal information, everyone was sure that this was an issue of government bonds. At the time, I was the chairman of the investment committee of a large institutional body that offered us to buy it. Everyone said, there's nothing to worry about, the Israeli government won't let its bonds fail.
Q: We'll see soon. I am currently asking you a very specific question, and I want to address this reason that you said. You said that already at the time of the IPO, if it were not for this property, there would not have been a covenant. That's what you said, right?
A: Yes.
Q: And since, that is, I may have fulfilled recognition of the asset, the IPO would not have been carried out at all,
A: Or as I wrote in my opinion,
Q: according to its terMs.
A: They would have improved the interest rate, they would have tried other conditions."
And from the continuation of his investigation, it emerges that had it not been for the accounting recognition of advances to growers as an asset, Agrexco would not have met the covenants already at the time of the issuance of the bonds in 2007 (Transcript, p. 785, questions 19-23):
"... Confirm to me that if by mistake I am right and not you, and it is forbidden to recognize the special payments as an asset, you confirm to me that already in 2007 the company would not have complied with the covenant. I stop. Right?
A: That's right. But I repeat that the IPO was on December 26, after five days the company would not have met the covenant."
This is also evident from the words of Yohanan Gev, CPA, regarding the accounting policy adopted by the defendant with respect to the special payments (the meeting of the board of directors of March 31, 2011, Appendix 11 to Ronen's opinion, at p. 6 of the appendix):