Following this decision, the decisive director took action and succeeded in promoting a number of issues, foremost of which was the most pressing issue on the agenda at the time - the approval of the company's financial statements and the submission of reports to the tax authorities. It should be noted that the approval of the financial statements was delayed for a long period of time due to Lahav's refusal to approve the reports, which even threatened to harm the company (see the review in paragraphs 15, 19, and 20 of the decision of October 18, 2022; and see the company's announcement of August 4, 2023). In this decision (paragraph 67) I also noted that Lahav raised difficulties in the conduct of the company, which I will detail in detail below.
- The decision is dated September 18, 2023.
This decision discussed Gutman's request to allow him to participate and vote at the meeting of the board of directors at which the terms of his salary were discussed, as he was the de facto manager of the company. Lahav vehemently opposed approving Gutman's salary and even asked to remove Gutman from his position as CEO. Gutman's argument was that although he had a personal interest in the terms of his own salary, his personal interest was equivalent to Lahav's negative personal interest that arose due to the sharp dispute between them, which required his participation in the discussion. Gutman also requested that the approval of the transaction not be brought to the approval of the general meeting due to the existence of a dead end there (due to the equivalence in holding the shares).
In my decision, I determined that Lahav did indeed have a negative personal interest, and for this purpose I referred to the accumulation of data indicating this (paragraphs 30, 31 of the decision). Among other things, I noted that "it is clear that there is a very murky relationship between the two, the hostility between them exists and it is getting worse and taking on 'instinctive' expressions. A cursory examination of the pleadings submitted by the parties shows that the parties hurled mutual slanders at each other, which even spilled over into medical diagnoses in the field of psychiatry... The hostility between the parties is evident and the slide into personal lines is clear, despite the attempt to wrap the dispute in 'pertinent' reasons."