In the decision given on October 18, 2022, I determined a number of rulings that should be mentioned for the purpose of deciding on the applications on the agenda - and it should be emphasized that these were prima facie determinations that were made for the purposes of the temporary relief:
(-) In the past, there was a personal relationship between Lahav and Gutman, which had an impact on the way the company was conducted, and it is clear that the company was conducted while not adhering to formal corporate procedures.
Although Gutman and Lahav founded the company, both served as directors of the company and took part in its management, each of them was assigned a different role and there is a striking difference in the type and volume of managerial tasks in which each of them held. The person who actually manages the company is Gutman, and therefore his managerial status far exceeds that of Lahav. At the beginning of 2020, Lahav was in crisis and transferred all or at least most of his managerial positions to Gutman; Later, Lahav had some involvement in managing the company's marketing system, but he did not return to carrying out orderly management activities in the company as he was before the beginning of 2020. This state of affairs lasted until the end of 2020 - the beginning of 2021. At the same time, disputes arose between the parties and they began to negotiate against the background of their desire to separate (these attempts and even mediation proceedings that took place between the parties before the filing of the lawsuit failed). At a certain point, which could be placed in early 2022, Lahav began to increase his presence in the company's offices and later sought to increase his involvement in the company's management.
(-) In the months prior to the filing of the lawsuit, a number of exceptional events occurred in which Lahav was involved. Among other things, we can mention the "Exorcism" incident in which Lahav brought a man with a wooden tool to the company's offices to carry out a "cleanup" in the company; the incident of the threat of dismissal of one of the employees that occurred after the employee applied for Gutman's approval before he would install a work station for Lahav in the company's offices; distribution of "Heish Gad" cards at the company's offices; Lahav contacted one of the banks without Gutman's knowledge to change the signing rights. Mention was also made of an incident in which Lahav presented a misleading representation to Gutman in order to persuade him to withdraw a significant dividend from the company, which, according to Lahav, caused Gutman to accuse him of being a "liar" (see details and his reference to these issues in paragraphs 65-68 of the decision).