Basha (Jerusalem) 7150/07 S.A.D.R. Building Works Company Ltd. v. Victor Yona - part 2

Similarly, the affidavit shall include all expenses incurred, directly or indirectly, for any person or entity in connection with the soccer team and its surroundings, together with references.  The aforementioned here will also apply to Hapoel Jerusalem's youth team.  The data will also include a full breakdown of the 'labyrinths' through which the receipts or expenses passed until they reached their targets.

Such an affidavit shall be filed within 90 days from the date of this arbitral award."

10. In addition, under the heading "Individual Grounds", the arbitrator addressed a number of financial issues and decided them, as follows:
11. The soccer team's debt to the National Insurance Institute - it was determined that the defendant is obligated to ensure that the NII's payments in respect of the soccer team are all cleared (pp.  26-27 of the arbitrator's award).
12. The soccer team's debt to the Income Tax - it was held that the defendant must take care of the discharge of all the football team's debts to the Income Tax (pp.  27-28 of the arbitrator's award).
13. The football team's debts to the Gihon Company - it was held that the defendant is obligated to bear the debts to the Gihon Company, insofar as they derive from the football team and its surroundings (p.  28 of the arbitrator's award).
14. The defendant is obligated to pay plaintiff No.  4 (the Jerusalem Association), the sum of ₪200,000 at the representative rate of January 1, 2004, plus linkage and interest differentials from then until actual payment, and the sum of ILS 45,000, plus linkage and interest differentials from September 1, 2003 until actual payment, for the "sale" and "loan" of players.  It was ruled by the arbitrator that these sums would be paid by the defendant to the plaintiffs' attorney, who would hold them in trust, and that these funds would be used for the needs of the soccer team, which would be expressly instructed by plaintiff 2 (Yosef Sassi) and the defendant (Victor Yona), and in the absence of an agreement, a decisive adjudicator would decide between them (pp.  28-30 of the arbitrator's award).

The defendant's obligation to pay from funds received from the distributor of entrance tickets to soccer games (David Tal), which were deposited into his personal account, in the sum of ILS 225,000, together with linkage and interest differentials as of January 1, 2004.  The sum will be paid to plaintiff No.  4, and the funds will be made, as aforesaid, in a collective dispute (pp.  30-31 of the arbitrator's award).

1. The defendant's obligation to pay plaintiff 4 the sum of ILS 50,000, plus linkage differences and actual interest, for a check to the order of the professional manager of the soccer team, which was deposited in the defendant's private account (p. 32 of the arbitrator's award).
2. The defendant's obligation to pay plaintiff 4 the sum of ILS 20,000, plus linkage differences and interest from the date of filing the amended claim until the actual payment, for changing the group's logo (p. 33 of the arbitrator's award).
3. Legal expenses and attorney's fees, as determined in another decision of the arbitrator of January 31, 2007, which include two-thirds of the arbitrator's fees, and attorney's fees in the amount of 17.5% plus VAT, of the amounts awarded.
4. For the sake of good order, I would like to note that the applicants' counsel, Adv. Ronit Wolf, in her application inMiscellaneous Requests 7150/07 The aforementioned made an accurate calculation of the sums (Appendix B to the application, with the summary appearing in paragraphs 5-12 of the application), and reached a total sum of ILS 2,291,101 (i.e., approximately ILS 2.3 million, as of September 24, 2007).
5. In addition, the respondent is obligated, according to the arbitrator's award, to pay out of pocket the group's debts to the Income Tax and National Insurance, which are assessed by the applicant's counsel, on the order of "Many millions of shekels" (Section 13 of the above application).

Confirmation of the arbitrator's award by the District Court

13. The proceedings between the parties continued even after the arbitrator's award, when they were submitted to the Jerusalem District Court, urging both parties to approve or cancel the arbitrator's award.
14. I brought together the various introductory lecturers (Opening Stimulus 5145/06; Opening Stimulus 6034/07; Opening Stimulus 6023/07, [Published in Nevo]), and I held a discussion of all of them.
15. After a hearing that lasted several hours, a judgment was rendered, in the courtroom, on 28 June 2007 (a final and binding version, given on 23 Tammuz 5767 (9 July 2007)), in which I ruled that the motion to annul the arbitral award was denied, while the motion to certify the arbitral award was granted. Yes, I postponed Opening Stimulus submitted by the Respondent to return the hearings to the arbitrator (hereinafter - the "Judgment").

In addition, I ordered the respondent to pay attorney's fees in the amount of $25,000, plus VAT, and this amount will be "translated in shekels", as of June 28, 2007, according to the representative rate on that day, and will bear linkage and interest differentials from June 28, 2007, until the date of actual payment.  This amount of attorney's fees was determined according to the declaration of the applicants' attorney, on a fee agreement between the applicants and their attorney.

16. The significance of the above is that in terms of the legal system in Israel, the arbitrator's award has been approved, and it can be implemented like a court ruling.
17. I will comment that I have been informed that the respondent has submitted Request for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court, on the aforementioned judgment.  I have not seen the BRA, and I do not see the need to relate to the chances of its acceptance or non-acceptance, in accordance with the accepted rules of etiquette between this court and the Supreme Court.  Therefore, I did not see fit to analyze the decisions that Adv. Avi Segal, counsel for the applicants, attached to his reply summaries, from which he tried to conclude that the trend of Supreme Court Justice Yoram Danziger, who gave a number of decisions on the issue of arbitration, was not to permit Request for Leave to Appeal on a judgment of a district court confirming an arbitral award, since Request for Leave to Appeal This is not given as a matter of routine, but only in exceptional cases, when a question arises of a legal or public nature (beyond the interests of the parties themselves), or when there is a need for the intervention of the Supreme Court for reasons of justice or for the purpose of preventing a miscarriage of justice.
18. In any event, there is no dispute that no application for a stay of execution was filed with this Court, nor with the Supreme Court, and in any event, no decision was made to stay the execution of a judgment confirming the arbitrator's award.
19. Moreover, during the hearing before me on January 14, 2008, when the question of the delay of execution arose, the recorded transcript stated as follows (p. 52, lines 15-26):

"Honorable Judge: Mr. Shiloh, what you are doing now, you are doing a delay, a delay, instead of formally filing a request for a stay of execution, you are doing a private delay of execution?