In the matter of Caspi, the judgment that created the debt was given before the company was closed and even then there was no one to repay. After the judgment was rendered, the creditor there opened a writ of execution file and managed to receive a very small portion of the debt. About six years later, the company began the voluntary liquidation process and an affidavit of solvency was signed. In these circumstances, in any event, the signing of the affidavit and the voluntary initiation of the proceeding did not cause damage to the creditor, since already six years earlier the company had no assets to repay and the affidavit did not change anything. In addition, in that case, the voluntary liquidation proceeding was cancelled and moved to liquidation by the court, and for this reason, too, the court emphasized that once the voluntary liquidation proceeding was cancelled and moved to liquidation by the court, it is highly doubtful whether it is possible to attribute to the affidavit of solvency, which was signed in the framework of it, the significance that should be attributed to it in a voluntary liquidation proceeding (paragraphs 29-30 of the aforementioned judgment).
The circumstances of the case in the case of an appraiser are similar to the circumstances in a financial matter. There, too, the voluntary liquidation process was not completed and was transferred to liquidation by the court, when the creditor did not file a debt claim as required.
On the other hand, in our case, as stated, the liquidation of the company was completed in a voluntary liquidation proceeding, so that the affidavit of solvency and the reliance on it is more significant, especially in light of the defendants' declaration in the framework of the hearing in the previous proceeding. Similarly, at the time of the declaration, there were no funds in the company's bank account, since a few months earlier, the defendants had withdrawn all the funds into their pockets.
- I have the impression that the defendants themselves are also of the opinion that their signature on the solvency affidavit means that they are personally responsible for the repayment of the company's debts.
Defendant 1 testified that even after the company's account was closed, there was activity for the company, and when asked what activity it was, he clarified: "There were sentences, what do you mean?" (Par. of November 25, 2024, p. 45, paras. 34-36, p. 46, s. 1). Even though the company's account was closed, the defendants made sure to inject money, and therefore they also declared in 2018 in the framework of the previous hearing (after signing the solvency affidavit and after a final report had already been submitted), that the company had always met its obligations, and the defendants were the ones who paid (Par. of November 25, 2024, p. 46, paras. 26-34) and clarified that the defendants and the company are not the same: "But if there is a debt that needs to be paid, And we, and the company is obligated by law, so who will finance it? Obviously, it's us, if it is determined even now, just for example, let's say and we lose, who will pay for it? The company does not exist" (Par. of November 25, 2024, p. 46, paras. 20-22). After all, the company has already lost and a final judgment has been issued against it, and therefore, according to the defendants, they must bear the amount of the judgment.