Q: And you gave it your hand, and you signed these financial statements for 2010, knowing that this is the policy that is written in them.
A: of June 2010."
Thus, in the continuation of his interrogation, Mr. Oren says that he learned about the customary practice from the "overlap" he received from the outgoing CEO of Agrexco, Mr. Shlomo Tirosh and the accountants (Transcript, p. 829, questions 18-25):
"Q: Yes, 100 percent. My argument in this lawsuit, although you are not familiar with the details of the lawsuit, our argument in the lawsuit is not against this payment itself, but against the fact that it was not properly recorded. And so I ask whether the fact that it is recognized as an asset, even though it does not have to be returned, when did you learn it and from whom?
A: It's not a matter of whether you don't have to pay back, but I learned both from Shlomo and from conversations I had with the accountants ahead of the semi-annual reports, that that's how it was recorded, that's the policy and the expectation is that the money will return."
And more. CPA Aviv's investigation shows that the chief pricer also knew about the accounting policy (Protocol, p. 489, paras. 15-19); The company's accountant also knew (Minutes, p. 490, questions 1-3); and also the CEO Tirosh, who, as stated, himself gave the instructions for the accounting registration (Protocol, p. 490, paras. 6-11).
- Indeed, the company's management's awareness of the accounting policy does not exempt the auditor from his obligation to exercise independent professional judgment. However, even if I assume the existence of negligence on the part of the auditors, no causal connection and damage resulting from it have been proven. In the circumstances of the case, and as will be further detailed below, the plaintiffs were unable to show that it was the accounting treatment that underpinned the investment decisions or caused the alleged damage.
- In direct continuation of the above, it has not been proven that had it not been for the accounting record, an early repayment mechanism would have been activated. As stated above, the bondholders did not rely on the work of the accountants or on the equity data for their decisions, but rather relied on the support of the state. To summarize this point, it follows from the first two findings that arise from the main findings in the Barlev opinion (ibid., at p. 6):
"The following are the main findings detailed in the opinion: