Moreover, over time, Lahav began to raise harsh allegations against the decisive director. Thus, for example, Lahav stated that the decisive director: "He has long aligned himself with the company's attorney and Gutman and automatically adopts their position," and that "the final and complete appearance of [the decisive director] without masks, alongside Gutman now, stems from a real fear and a desire to cover himself up for his serious failures as chairman of the board of directors... which are liable to establish personal liability against him...(Response submitted by Lahav to the court on October 28, 2024 regarding the claim of widening the façade, section 31). In a similar vein, Lahav argued in response to the motion pending a decision here (section 20). Lahav's arguments even escalated, and in response to the position of the decisive director presented in this proceeding, Lahav claimed that the decisive director appointed by the court "became a puppet of the company's attorney," and worse still, that his position stemmed from his desire to "distance himself from the criminal acts committed in the company in which he served as chairman of the board of directors" (paragraphs 26-27 of Lahav's supplementary argument).
It seems, therefore, that the sharp confrontation between Gutman and Lahav did not remain delineated between them. Lahav began to turn his arrows at the decisive director whenever his positions did not match Lahav's, despite the fact that in my impression, the decisive director behaved fairly and even more so towards the parties. Lahav repeatedly presented similar conduct toward the company's legal counsel and the company's attorney, for being biased in favor of Gutman and serving as "the king's advisors" (as he put it). Whether the harsh accusations against the decisive director (and the other professionals) are intended to deter him from carrying out his duties, or whether they stem from Lahav's belief that he is right - the difficulty that has arisen and which is likely to worsen is clear.
- Lahav's conduct led the decisive director to take the unusual step and join the request to remove him from the board of directors. In the letter written by the director, he even pointed out that Lahav's conduct is failing the board of directors and harming the company, and I will quote this in detail:
"[Lahav] accuses [ Gutman] of the fact that the company, through consulting, technological tools, and operational support, took [actions that could deceive the end customers]. [Blade] He had never raised this claim before, neither before me nor before any other forum in the company.