Conclusion
- In summary, I am unable to accept the plaintiffs' claim as to the defendant's negligence or to misleading reliance on the financial statements for the years 2007-2009. Indeed, and as determined above, the accounting registration of the special payments as an "asset" did not meet the requirements of accounting standardization. However, this determination in itself does not establish tort liability on the part of the auditing accountant. Reliance on a narrow and isolated accounting classification is not sufficient to substantiate the plaintiffs' claim for damage. Attributing the status of a entity without which this accounting record cannot exist, to deepen Agrexco's insolvency, will be a specific piece of evidence that distorts the truth as it emerges from the overall picture according to the evidence presented in the action.
- After examining the totality of the evidence, I have reached the conclusion that it has not been proven that the defendant deviated from the standard of conduct of a "reasonable auditor" in an exceptional manner or that there was a causal connection between her actions and the alleged damage. In this context, weight should be given to the fact that in real time the Government Companies Authority did not express reservations about the accounting treatment, even though this does not constitute a positive confirmation of its correctness, in a manner that shows that the interpretation adopted at the time was not perceived as a clear or severe deviation from professional practice. In addition, the data and testimonies show that the financial statements did not constitute a "reason without which there is no reason" for investing in the company's bonds or for damage to the company itself; This was systematic and long-standing conduct that was known to various parties, including the controlling shareholders and senior officers, which the plaintiffs chose not to sue. For our purposes, the concluding words of the Honorable Justice Pliner in the Shipka case (para. 78) are appropriate:
"I am of the opinion that the collapse of the company, while leaving debts estimated at about ILS 32 million, also indicates a much more fundamental problem than alleged mistakes in connection with the stadium project and a number of other small projects (which were already completed on that date). It seems that even if the company's revenues had risen to those claimed by Barlev and Levy in their opinions, this would not have led to the "saving" of the plaintiff's investment in the company, and this investment would have been wasted due to the collapse. My impression is that being aware of the legal situation, and in an attempt to search for deep pockets, the plaintiff chose to sue only the accountants, all while the relevant parties, the parties to the investment agreement and those responsible for the representations, are not required to be held accountable."
- Since the elements of negligence and the causal connection have not been proven, the tort of negligence is not formed. Therefore, the need for a decision on the threshold arguments becomes unnecessary, and the decision is given on the merits of the matter.
The lawsuit is dismissed.