In any case, the plaintiff, to whom the correct facts were discovered only after the filing of the statement of claim, refers to the publications regarding the surrogacy company that transferred the defendant in the failed and unusual proceeding as personal accusations that amount to defamation. The plaintiff, who did not even know anything about the circumstances of the surrogate's abortion, complained that the defendant had opened a group on the social network Facebook called "Surrogacy - Revealing the Truth", and also complained that the defendant had opened a website - "Surrogacy - the most comprehensive knowledge site in Israel".
In addition, with regard to the abortion that the surrogate undergone, we can refer and learn specifically from the testimony of the defendant, who noted that the doctor of the surrogacy company was the one who "told her" to terminate the pregnancy, and in this regard see Tax Appeal 126 of the Protocol, paras. 1-8 (emphases not in the original):
Adv. Ophir: The pregnancy was terminated by an abortion, right?
The witness, Mrs. Priluk: The pregnancy was terminated because Manor's doctor told me to terminate the pregnancy.
Adv. Ophir: OK and signed documents?
The witness, Mrs. Priluk: I had no choice.
Adv. Ophir: What do you mean you have no choice? You can say no, I don't want to terminate the pregnancy.
The witness, Mrs. Priluk: I signed a document After he told me I recommend ending the pregnancy, he doesn't have a heart, he doesn't have a pancreas, he doesn't have kidneys, he doesn't have.
The defendant also added later:
The witness, Mrs. Priluk: I trusted your professional and medical opinion, but To the best of my knowledge, the treatment is intended to maintain the pregnancy Just like you give folic acid, just like you give other things, and if she doesn't get the pills or the folic acid or everything you need, then there can be defects in the fetus.
And at the end of the day - all the conduct surrounding the surrogacy process does raise question marks. a surrogate who disappeared in an exceptional case; and afterwards, a miscarriage that the surrogate undergoes; two frequent trips by the defendant to Georgia, in the second when the surrogate was found pregnant with another couple; A plaintiff who served as CEO and owner of the surrogacy company that bears his name, sold the company and nevertheless came to the aid of the defendant - and did not bring any witnesses to support his claims, and even changed the version between his affidavit and the statement of claim regarding the abortion procedure.
- During the failed and unusual surrogacy process of the defendant and her spouse, the surrogacy company was sold to Daniel. Most of the publications for which the lawsuit was filed revolved around that sale, as well as claims regarding the surrogate company. Claims regarding the surrogate company and its acquisition were also published in the media, in articles in the financial press, in a lawsuit filed by Danel's VP in which an article referred to, in the defendant's words, that "Danel's shareholders ousted Danel's chairman and CEO." An elaboration in this regard will be provided in section 10.3 below.
- As a result of the failed and unusual surrogacy procedure, the defendant did indeed establish a group on the social network Facebook and also established a website. These were not intended to harm the plaintiff, as he tried to present, but were certainly intended to assist couples in the surrogacy process. Assistance that led to additional testimonies that supported the complaints against the surrogacy company. This will be discussed in the following paragraphs.
- In summary, the first of three topics - a description of the events and distress of the defendant and her spouse and the failed "surrogacy" process
All of the above reveals conduct that is at least amateurish and inappropriate in the framework of a failed surrogacy procedure. And so on:
- The surrogate chosen for the defendant and her spouse was not supervised at all and "disappeared" when nothing is known about her location or health condition;
- Even the plaintiff, who was clearly trying to glorify his name, admitted that this was an exceptional case and thanked God that the surrogate had been found, and as he put it, "and thank God that in the end she was found, she was found healthy and whole";
- And what happened after the surrogate was found? Even after the surrogate was found, the process was not completed successfully. The surrogate aborted the fetus. In the statement of claim, the plaintiff claimed that it was a "natural abortion." He later admitted that he had found out from another proceeding between the parties that it was an abortion initiated due to the fetus's medical condition.
During the failed surrogacy process, the surrogacy company owned by the plaintiff was sold to a third party. The plaintiff still insists on his personal insult and petitions for compensation for the defendant's publications that referred to the surrogate company, which turned out to be a failed company. Here it should be said that the reference to the surrogate company as a failed company is learned from publications about the sale to Danel; from claims raised by the plaintiff against the purchasing company, Danel, when it became clear that the purchase transaction was a failed transaction; As well as from additional testimonies and publications, as well as a lawsuit filed by Danel's VP and the defendant's reference to the fact that "Danel's shareholders ousted Danel's chairman and CEO" after that failed acquisition. All of these will be discussed in the following paragraphs.
- Discussion on the second of three issues - the plaintiff's claims against the surrogacy company are not unfounded, this is evident from additional testimonies heard in the proceeding as well as evidence brought by the defendant
- At the end of the day, the surrogacy process that the defendant and her spouse underwent was not conducted correctly, did not end correctly, and even the plaintiff admitted it in his own way, while referring to it as the "exceptional case". In the course of the discussion of the proceeding here, it became clear that the failed conduct of the surrogacy company also characterized other cases, and not necessarily only the case of the defendant and her spouse. In this regard, the defendant referred to a series of testimonies and evidence, to which the following paragraphs will relate.
- Testimony of the plaintiff's former partner in the surrogacy business
- As part of the proceeding, Dr. Pavel Itzikson, an embryologist who had been in contact with the surrogacy company for about eight years, testified. Initially, he provided services to the surrogate company and later became a partner of the plaintiff in the surrogacy business. In fairness, it should be said that Dr. Itzikson's words should be treated with caution, since it was clear that there was no friendly relationship between him and the plaintiff, to say the least. Itzikson also referred to an arbitration proceeding and a lawsuit that he filed together with a company he owns against the plaintiff here and his wife. And together with the caution with which Dr. Itzikson's testimony should be treated, what is stated in it should not be ignored.
- Pavel Itzikson noted in his affidavit, among other things, as follows: "I know that Ami Manor would have made sure to carry out the 'closure' talks with the couples himself. I joined two such conversations at the time. I saw in front of me a skilled and charismatic salesman whose "professional" background is hard to resist. He sold chickens, sold real estate, sold eggs and "sold" the person standing in front of him as soon as an opportunity arose" (paragraph 7 of the main witness's affidavit). This issue remained even after the cross-examination, which was conducted only around the subject. The cross-examination focused mainly on attempts to refer criminal suspicions against Dr. Pavel Itzikson in the framework of conduct in another framework, as well as to Dr. Itzikson's work in another framework. In part, the cross-examination referred to the long years in which the plaintiff and Dr. Itzikson cooperated.
- Newspaper Publications and Conduct After Danel's Acquisition of the Surrogacy Company, Referring to the Failed Deal and the Claims Against the Surrogacy Company
As the defendant presented in the affidavit, the acquisition of the surrogacy company caused a storm in the acquiring company - Danel, in light of allegations regarding irregularities, corruption, and the correct scope of activity and the nature of the surrogacy company. The defendant referred to a series of news items that were published, almost all of them, after the lawsuit was filed. It is true that the information is later than the defendant's publications included in the lawsuit, but it is still possible to learn from them the extent to which the surrogacy company was indeed a failure and in fact its acquisition transaction. Thus, for example:
- First, a publication in the Calcalist newspaper from December 2023, which relates, among other things, to the deal to acquire the surrogacy company, which turned out to be a loser
The defendant referred to the revolt of shareholders in Danel, and to the publication in the press regarding the dismissal of the chairman of the Danel board of directors and a request to replace additional directors, inter alia, due to the purchase of the surrogacy company, which was presented as improper. In the publication dated December 19, 2023 (Appendix 11 to the defendant's affidavit), there is a direct reference and reference to the fact that "a valuation conducted by the PwC firm for Manor a month after the acquisition, based on data it received from Manor, assumed negligible profitability in 2020. In fact, Manor lost 8 million shekels that year..." (emphasis added).
- Second, Danel's CFO claims that he was fired, according to him, because he warned of irregularities and corruption, among other things, in the acquisition of the surrogacy company.
The defendant referred to an advertisement in The Marker newspaper regarding the dismissal of Danel's CFO. The publication even stated that the CFO filed a lawsuit in which he claimed, among other things, that he was fired "because he had warned of irregularities and corruption, including in transactions to acquire holdings in Manor and Einim."
- Third, an advertisement showing the failure of the surrogacy company and relating to its situation prior to the acquisition
The defendant referred to a publication dated March 31, 2024 in the Calcalist newspaper titled " Within two years: Danel writes off most of her investment in the surrogacy services company Manor Medical". The article describes how, while the surrogacy company was acquired for the sum of ILS 95,000,000 (95 million), its value after two years is only ILS 5,000,000 (five million). The article refers to various financial figures, to the claim that the company's business has been harmed due to the Russia-Ukraine war. He also referred to the explanations and accusations that the plaintiff hurled at Daniel, as a reason for the failures of the surrogacy company. More on this in the next paragraph.
- Fourth, even the plaintiff noted that the surrogacy company had failed, but claimed that the fault was in the Danel company.
The defendant referred to the plaintiff's statements, as published in the press in 2022 and in an article dated December 19, 2023 (Appendix 11 to the defendant's affidavit and see also paragraph 10.3(a) above). In his words, the plaintiff admits that the company he sold is a failed company that is close to a going concern note, but the fault is not with him but with Danel, and as he puts it, "Danel will tell you that the weakening of the company's profits stems from the war in Ukraine, but I tell you that it is because the company does not know how to work, and because the current management is at its stagnation and is letting competitors take over its market share."
- In summary, the picture that emerges from the publications and reports presented by the defendant
It is impossible to know for sure whether there were indeed irregularities and corruption in the purchase transaction of the surrogacy company, which turned out to be a failure. However, it is possible to refer to the following:
- First, according to the surrogacy company's data, its profits in 2020 were supposedly a negligible amount. In practice, it turned out in retrospect that the situation was much worse than the data that was transferred, and in practice, the surrogacy company lost ILS 8,000,000 (eight million) in 2020. It was also reported that shareholders revolted and the dismissal of Danel's chairman, inter alia, because of this (see Collective Dispute 10.3(a) above);
- Second, Danel's CFO alleged corruption and irregularities regarding the acquisition of the surrogacy company (see Collective Dispute 10.3(b) above);
- Third, regarding the failure of the surrogacy company, it follows that within two years of its acquisition, almost all of its value was wiped out (see Collective Dispute 10.3(c) above);
- Fourth, even the plaintiff referred to the failure of the surrogacy company, but claimed that the blame for this rested on the shoulders of Danel, who acquired the surrogacy company (see Collective Dispute 10.3(d) above).
- Testimonies heard from various testimonies brought by the defendant
The defendant collected a number of testimonies that testified regarding the plaintiff's conduct. Testimonies that did not compliment the plaintiff and raised questions as to the manner in which she operated. Thus, for example:
- One Witness, Mrs. Z.K.
- Z.K. complained about the inconsistency in the external data of an egg "donor" to whom she was referred for the purpose of purchasing eggs; Ms. Z.K. further and specifically noted that when she asked to conduct medical examinations, funded by her, the surrogacy company refused to do so, receiving the answer from the plaintiff's daughter - "not in our school"; Ms. Z.K. stated that the surrogacy company prohibited doctors on its behalf from assisting other Israeli parents who were in distress; in particular, Ms. Z.K. stated that when she brought an independent doctor on her behalf to Georgia, After all, the surrogacy company tried to recruit him to its ranks, on the condition that he did not advise Israeli parents undergoing surrogacy in Georgia.
- Z.K. referred to a case of a couple who found themselves in a situation in which it was claimed that the proceeding was in violation of Georgian law. In this regard, she declared as follows: "I was also a witness to my people's attempts to blind the couple's eyes... In order not to know about the problems he did and how he acted in violation of Georgian law in their name. He took care of them for a lawyer - his lawyer; Such an attorney is obviously loyal and committed to Ami Manor and the Manor company. Introduce the couple to the fact that the lawyer doesn't know English, and then also provide an interpreter. The interpreter was allegedly required to translate only what they wanted the couple to know." Ms. Z.K. later stated that when the couple contacted the association in which she is active, they were referred to other good lawyers who "helped many parents who were 'stuck' in Georgia at the end of the surrogacy process because the Israeli Agency acted 'on their behalf' in clear violation of Georgian law" (quotes from paragraph 7 of Ms. Z.K.'s affidavit).
- Z.K. noted that when she asked to conduct an "extended genetic panel", she was answered in the negative, while pointing to the plaintiff's home (Tax Appeal 89, lines 1-4 per per) - 'Sir asked, so I respect the question and the court's honor. What is acceptable and this is the professional routine of doing an extended genetic panel, the lady sitting here with the skirt told me that it's not in our school, that is, it's not acceptable to do things that are professional.' Ms. Z.K. further added, while referring to other cases to which she was exposed and also relating to the defendant's case, as follows (Tax Appeal 91, paras. 13-20) - "And things that as I wrote in the affidavit and I stand behind every word in my affidavit, when you see A, I saw it on a small personal level, but when you see a case like Esti, a case like Sharon, a case like Maayan, God is great, and other cases where people were afraid or paid money to keep them silent, and they were afraid of death, because when a child is held with them, or ( It's not clear) is held by them, so these people are scared to death and they have all kinds of methods of silencing and methods of arbitration and preventing people from speaking. The only one who finally opened her mouth and said the name Manor was this lady."
- Z.K. testified about the direct connection between the doctor she asked to handle her case and Mr. Ami Manor, and complained that Ami Manor conditioned various conditions that in her opinion harmed the doctor's independence, and as she said (Tax Appeal 92, paras. 29-33) - "I should not depend on Ami Manor to do me favors, I should not depend on anyone, a doctor should be independent, free and professional. That's all and I don't need the stipulations of Mr. Ami Manor, who is not a doctor, by the way, he is not a doctor and he is the one who will condition me regarding my work with my doctor, as I said, no thanks."
- Second Witness, Mrs. Y.N.
- Y.N. referred to the arbitrary manner, which was contrary to the agreement, in which she was presented with an existing situation of surrogate for her. And so Ms. Y.N. referred to clause 3.6 of the agreement in which she entered into, which explicitly stated as follows - "... The selection of the surrogate will be made by the applicant himself, with the assistance of society and the doctors, after it has been approved by both the doctors and the psychologist."
- In practice, Ms. Y.N. describes how the Manor company did not provide her and her spouse with a surrogate "within the time frames they undertook." Thus, Ms. Y.N. and her partner approached Manor, and waited, as she put it, "in practice there was no progress there and we had nothing to do about it" (paragraph 7 of Ms. Y.N.'s affidavit). At the end of the day, Manor informed her at a certain time that she had to decide immediately whether she agreed to a particular surrogate. It was made clear to Ms. Y.N. that if she delayed her decision, she would lose the opportunity to bond with the surrogate and she would move on to another couple. Manor exerted pressure "a few days before the actual return" and deprived her and her partner of any possibility of discretion and any possibility of examining the only surrogate who was in fact 'forced' by Manor. She was 'forced' because the alternative was a long wait, when "Manor does not know when the next time it will be possible to carry out the procedure" (paragraph 13 of Y.N.'s affidavit).
- Y.N. noted that "the protocol for the preparation of a surrogate took several weeks", and hence - Manor could have contacted her and her spouse in advance - so that it was possible to act in accordance with the agreement, and it was possible to allow Ms. Y.N. and her partner to examine and choose the surrogate. In this regard, Ms. Y.N. added that there is a reason for "the rarity of surrogates in Manor" - and the reason is economic. Any amount of money, as it puts it - "every shekel" that is not paid to the surrogate - remains in the hands of the Manor company and increases its profitability.
- Third Witness, Mrs. S.S.
- S.S. also referred to failures, and in fact, breaches of an agreement - with regard to the selection of someone who was defined as an egg donor. Thus, she pointed out that contrary to the agreement, she did not receive the results of the egg donor's genetic tests. Moreover, even a psychological diagnosis to which Manor was committed was not provided by the company. All of this led to Ms. S.S. being forced to become pregnant in order to give birth to what she called in her affidavit a "roulette child." In practice, Ms. S.S. aborted the child who was absorbed into her womb, and for that too she is pointing arrows at the Manor company - as detailed in the next paragraph.
- S.S. referred to the fact that the egg donor had blood type B. Such a contribution required prophylactic treatment and the administration of a vaccine that would prevent the creation of antibodies, which it called Rh antibodies. The Manor company did not provide Ms. S.S. with the information, and as a result, antibodies developed in her body that "postponed the pregnancy" and led to a miscarriage "for genetic reasons at 11.5 weeks."
- Fourth Witness, Mrs. A.P.
- In her affidavit and testimony, Ms. A.P. raised serious allegations against Manor, including claims that a camera and listening equipment were placed in the room where she and her partner lived, as well as other claims.
- From Ms. A.P.'s testimony, I will refer to the fact that she was forced to stay in Georgia for many months and for more than six months. The stay in Georgia was forced on her due to a legal proceeding that was opened in connection with the surrogacy process for which Manor was responsible.
- According to Ms. A.P., Manor's illegal conduct led the Georgian authorities to take legal action that obligated her to remain in Georgia. A.P. has serious and personal allegations against Mr. Ami Manor, and she described herself as "like a puppet in the hands of a pervert, a criminal, who peeks at me in intimate moments and blackmails me with threats" (paragraph 16 of Ms. A.P.'s affidavit), and beyond that, Ms. A.F. added additional descriptions and nicknames regarding Mr. Ami Manor.
- On the merits of the matter, even if we refer to the very fact of waiting in Georgia for the legal proceeding itself, it is not unreasonable to accept a claim against Manor - which promised and committed to a proper surrogacy process and in fact dragged Ms. A.P. into a legal proceeding that delayed her for many months in Georgia.
- To summarize the discussion on the second of three issues - additional testimonies that were heard and evidence brought show that the plaintiff's claims against the surrogacy company are not unfounded
- The distress in which the defendant and her partner found themselves was not unique to her. Moreover , the criticism of Manor was the lot of other personalities and entities who came into contact with the company and had business relations with it. Thus, for example:
- As stated in section 10.2 above, we can see the harsh criticism leveled by Dr. Pavel Itzikson against Manor as well as on Mr. Ami Manor. The same Dr. Pavel Itzikson is Mr. Ami Manor's former partner in the company's business.
- As stated in section 10.3 above - one can see a series of statements and criticism against the Manor Surrogacy Company as well as against Mr. Ami Manor - in this regard it is possible to refer to publication in the Calcalist newspaper; It is also possible to refer to the claims of the CFO of Danel, which acquired the surrogacy company, allegations of corruption and irregularities regarding the acquisition of the surrogacy company; In addition, one can see another commentary in the economic press that refers to the failure of the surrogacy company, a failure that can be seen from the fact that within two years of its acquisition, almost all of its value was wiped out. It is also possible to refer to the plaintiff's own statements, from which he learns that he admits that the surrogacy company turned out to be a failed company that is close to a going concern for a going concern, but claimed that the fault lies not with him but with the Danel company that acquired the surrogacy company.
- As stated in clause 10.4 above - the criticism of the surrogacy company is not the domain of the defendant alone, as well as the criticism of Ami Manor, who is behind the surrogacy company. Criticism is also the domain of professionals or professional reporters - as mentioned above. The criticism of the surrogacy company is also the lot of the clients and those who were in contact with the surrogacy company - and in this regard the defendant testified four representative witnesses who related to the conduct of the surrogacy company as well as the plaintiff's conduct here.
- It is indeed possible that the entire long list of advertisers, witnesses and professionals cited above, arose for no reason against the surrogacy company, and some of them also against the plaintiff. It is indeed possible and the entire long line of evidence and testimonies brought above is a series of specific cases, all of which by chance were all drained into criticism of the surrogacy company and the plaintiff.
However, still, the multitude of evidence and the multitude of representative testimonies lay the basis for the fact that there was a public discourse regarding the conduct of the surrogacy company, and part of the public discourse referred directly to the conduct of the plaintiff himself.