The Claim and the Application for Temporary Relief
- On January 1, 2025, the present claim was filed, along with a request for temporary relief. According to what is written in it, the lawsuit was filed by Kibbutz Buchritz. The person behind the filing of the lawsuit is Yosef.
Copied from Nevo10. The lawsuit seeks remedies of declaring the validity of the 2008 agreement; Enforcement of this Agreement; a determination that defendants 1-3 were not entitled to transfer their rights in the development complexes to defendants 4-6, and that the plaintiff's rights outweighed their rights; an injunction prohibiting the Tshuva Group and defendants 5-6 from competing with Psagot in all matters relating to the development complexes; And so on. As part of the request for temporary relief, a temporary injunction was requested prohibiting the defendants from promoting construction in the development complexes or assigning their rights in connection with these complexes.
- The defendants submitted responses in which they objected to the request for temporary relief (one response was submitted on behalf of the Teshuva group and one response was filed on behalf of defendant 4). One of the claims raised by the Tshuva Group is that a lawsuit was not lawfully filed by Kibbutz Buchritz, since no lawful decision was made by the company's board of directors to file the lawsuit (an affidavit by Shalom was even attached to the response, according to which he did not approve the filing of the lawsuit, but the affidavit was deleted after Shalom did not appear for the hearing in which the declarants were interrogated). In the hearing held on February 9, 2025, Yosef's counsel agreed that "to the extent that it is determined that the claim was filed illegally and there is room to charge him with costs, it will be possible to charge him with costs" (p. 2, lines 2-3 of the transcript). On February 17, 2025, a hearing was held on the application, in which the parties' statements were questioned. After the parties submitted their summaries, a decision was made on the application for interim relief, in which the request was rejected. The main reason for rejecting the application was considerations related to the balance of convenience. As to the claim that the claim was filed without authority, it was determined that it was a weighty claim, and that "there is a real question mark as to whether the claim was filed by a person who is mentioned in it as a 'plaintiff'" (paragraph 22 of the decision). However, in view of the conclusion that the application should be dismissed on its merits, the claim of lack of authority in the framework of the decision was not decided. It was further determined that "the question of expenses will be decided after it is determined whether the claim was filed by Kibbutz Bucheritz, and in any case whether she or Yosef should be charged with costs" (paragraph 33 of the decision).
The Motion for Summary Disposal
- On April 20, 2025, the Tshuva Group filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit in limine, on the grounds that it was not lawfully filed by Kibbutz Buchritz. In this context, the Tshuva Group argues that the decision to file the lawsuit was made by Yosef alone, in contrast to Section 104 of the Companies Law, 5759-1999 ("Companies Law"), and therefore this decision is invalid. In her response to the motion, the plaintiff argued that in accordance with the Companies Law, the defendants have no standing to dispute the validity of the decisions of the company's board of directors.
In the hearing of the application, which took place on May 29, 2025, it was determined, with the consent of the parties, that "the plaintiff was given a period of time until September 1, 2025, in order to submit to the court a duly prepared affidavit of Mr. Shalom Buchritz, confirming his consent to the management of the lawsuit by the plaintiff, and alternatively, a judgment of an authorized court stating that Mr. Yosef Buchritz is authorized to conduct the present lawsuit on behalf of the plaintiff... If such an affidavit or judgment is not submitted, a decision will be made on the motion for summary dismissal" (p. 17 of the transcript). To date, the plaintiff has not filed an affidavit or judgment as aforesaid, nor has she asked for an extension to do so. When the set date has passed (and even beyond), the request for dismissal must be decided in limine.