In the alternative track of claims in the Writ of Execution, the counter-plaintiff is entitled to approximately ILS 1.27 million, and at least ILS 137,760.
He is also entitled to compensation for gate losses in the amount of ILS 1,075,274 and expenses paid to the Ness office in the amount of ILS 500,000. To all of this must be added legal expenses amounting to approximately ILS 2 million (not including success fees).
To his summary, the counter-plaintiff added a table (in paragraph 204) summarizing the total compensation at the top of this damage as ILS 6,115,991.
The main arguments of Mr. Nehemiah
- There is no basis for Mr. Knafler's claim that he was given false representations prior to his engagement with the company.
Thus, for example, with regard to the debt to the property management company, at the time of the signing of the agreement, in May 2016, the debt for 2015 was a negligible sum of €30,000. and in 2016, negotiations were conducted with the management company in relation to its obligations. In addition, it should be remembered that while Guy Development declared, as part of the agreement, that it had no debts to any third parties, the property companies declared that they were complying with their obligations. This, of course, is a more moderate statement. In any event, no representation was made that the property companies have no debts to third parties. In addition, Mr. Nehemia made it clear to the counter-plaintiff that the repayment of past debts would be the responsibility of the company, and this fact also proves that no representation was made to Mr. Knepfler that there were no debts that existed.
Another representation made in the agreement was that the Company's most recent financial statements faithfully reflect its situation and that it is not aware of material information that may affect the value of the assets, which is not reflected in them. This statement was true and accurate.
The test balance sheet on which the counter-plaintiff relied came into existence in August 2016, and it did not exist at the time the agreement was signed. In his cross-examination, Mr. Knafler did not know how to relate to this balance, and he certainly cannot establish a basis for any deception.