A: [Nodding]
Q: On June 13th... I'm asking you, these "laws" are those of the Companies Authority andEY,
A: [Nodding]
Q: At the end of which Agrexco published financial statements for 2010, it was at the discretion of the Government Companies Authority, right? - That's the name,
A: The financial statements?
Q: Yes. of 2010.
A: It sounds like it's... There were negotiations about what they would look like and a decision was made.
Q: And at the end of the day, a decision was made by the Government Companies Authority to publish these 2010 reports, right?
A: This is how it seems, yes.
Q: Thank you You will agree with me that the amendment, look at the table you made, that the amendment made to the balance sheet of December 31, 2009 is an amendment that is not recognition, there is no change in recognition, it is still an asset, only that the amount of the asset is simply increased both on the assets side and on the liabilities side.
A: That's exactly what I wrote, yes.
Q: Thank you And the equity is the same both before the correction, note the last column on the left, both before and after the correction.
A: Yes.
Q: Does that mean that according to these reports, advances are recognized as an asset?
A: According to these reports,
Q: Yes,
A: that in the opinion of the plaintiffs, especially the opinion of the person who gave an opinion, in my opinion, the 2010 reports are also false."
Later in his interrogation, the expert, Dr. Ronen, explains the "motives" for which, according to him, the Government Companies Authority approved these reports, but these reasons do not support the plaintiffs' claims (Transcript, p. 343, paras. 8-14):
A: On the other hand, on the other hand, yes,
Q: Yes,
A: The Companies Authority has its constraints that were mentioned in the investigator's report, I can refer you to the page,