The main arguments of the parties
- The arguments of the parties are many and very complex. In this section, I will present the main ones. I will address another part at the stage of discussion and decision, and in the rest I did not find any justification to change the result I reached.
The main arguments of Mr. Knepler
- According to the counter-plaintiff, the lawsuit on the agenda is simple. ADN is in a cash flow crisis. Knafler was persuaded to enter into an agreement with her in light of the misrepresentations that Mr. Nehemia presented to him. The company's directors did not fulfill their duty to check the matter, and were captivated by his words. Had they performed their duties, they would have discovered both the misrepresentations and the justification of Mr. Knefler's claims, and would have taken the necessary actions.
Later on, the directors chose to approve the deal with the Dayan Group, which contradicted the agreement with Mr. Knefler. There was talk of a contrary deal. They did not take into account the implications of the move for Mr. Knefler, and preferred Mr. Nehemiah's personal interest. The latter made millions of shekels from the contradictory deal and even received a salary. And no one made sure that there was enough money left in the coffers to return to Mr. Knepfler his investment after the cancellation of the agreement with him. The defendants acted in contravention of this agreement, and unlawfully cancelled it only after the engagement with the Dayan Group had already been approved, without a clear reason.
- From an evidentiary point of view, the counter-plaintiff substantiated his arguments. On the other hand, the positions of the counter-defendants should not be trusted. Already at the outset, the difference in approaches between Mr. Nehemia and the directors is striking. Nehemia claimed that Mr. Knafler was not entitled to any return, and that the latter should even compensate the company. The other directors, on the other hand, claimed that the company intended to make restitution, at most minus the agreed compensation.
As for these directors, they chose not to call substantive witnesses to testify to support their position, and instead they made do with their own testimony. Thus, they did not summon Mr. Rappaport, who prepared the economic forecast file that was given to Mr. Kneffler, to testify; Nor did the CFO who allegedly sent Mr. Knafler a warning letter. The legal advisors on whom they supposedly relied have not yet been summoned to testify. This avoidance works against them, as does the fact that their affidavits were almost identical. It should also be taken into account that their testimony suffered from a "chronic lack of memory." The counter-defendants also did not question Mr. Knepfler regarding the alleged damage, and hence this is substantiated.