Q: Yes,
A: In the investigator's report, I was told that the Companies Authority is not interested in a retroactive amendment because it endangers its directors."
Thus, in his interrogation, Dr. Ronen agrees that this is a conscious decision by the Government Companies Authority not to carry out a "re-presentation" and to prefer the publication of the reports on time to the enforcement of the reporting rules or the replacement of the accountants (Minutes, p. 344, s. 14 to p. 345, s. 14):
"Q: Wait! So let's clarify, you said, we approved and we won't have any confusion here, the equity remains the same equity, the Government Companies Authority did not accept your position today that this asset should have been taken and credited to profit and loss,
A: I didn't say that, I said that she did accept my position but decided that it was better to publish the reports that way,
Q: No problem.
A: than to fire "Cost" and hire a new accountant.
Q: No problem, I understand the argument, I'm now talking about her decision to publish the reports so that they didn't attribute it to profit and loss.
A: As the reports show,
Q: No, S-,
A: Published,
Q: "Published".
A: There was no "restatement" in them,
Q: Thank you
A: Contrary to accounting rules.
Q: Thank you
A: But...
Q: This is contrary to the accounting rules that the Government Companies Authority is familiar with.
A: Nope! Contrary to the accepted accounting rules.
Q: Okay.
A: The Companies Authority's considerations were... Listen, Mr. Kostelitz,
Q: I'm listening. I'm listening.
A: Even with the Securities Authority, the Securities Authority does not always do so, enforces its will, sometimes it comes to the conclusion that it is better to compromise here and there so that the reports will come out on time and the story will get a partial picture than not a picture at all."