Moreover, in the framework of the aforementioned hearing, the defendants claimed that the company had always met its obligations and throughout the entire period the company's check was never returned. These things teave, according to the plaintiff, that had it not been for the liquidation and "liquidation" of the company, it would have been able to repay the amount of the judgment, and the defendants' action thwarted it intentionally or negligently.
- In the statement of defense , the defendants argued that the plaintiff was silenced from raising these claims against them, due to the act of the court and the estoppel of the cause, since in the summary of the previous proceeding, he raised a claim similar to the claim that is the subject of the lawsuit, and yet in the judgment in the previous proceeding, the claim against them was dismissed, and only the company was charged.
On the merits, the defendants claimed that the company had not been active since 2002 and that the plaintiff knew this. At the time of signing the solvency affidavit, the company had no assets, which was known to the plaintiff, and therefore even if the signing of the solvency affidavit was done negligently, as the plaintiff claims, it did not cause him any damage or worsen his situation, since in any case at the time of signing the affidavit, the company did not have assets from which the plaintiff could have repaid, and thus the plaintiff failed to prove the causal connection between the signing of the solvency affidavit and his damage.
It was further argued that the plaintiff was well aware that the company was in the process of voluntary liquidation on February 13, 2018 at the earliest, i.e., about a year and a half has passed since the "liquidation" of the company, and that his failure to take any step on his part constitutes an extreme delay that necessitates the dismissal of the claim in limine.
- In the reply , the plaintiff claimed that the company received significant receipts in 2014, and that the funds held in trust for it were released in December 2015, so that it had a lot of money in its possession, but the defendants withdrew it and emptied its coffers, and they cannot claim that the company did not have assets when they signed the solvency affidavit, while they were the ones who emptied the company of its assets and funds earlier. It was further argued that if the defendants had refrained from giving the false affidavit and had instead entered the company into liquidation proceedings by a court, the liquidator would have demanded from them the company's money that was withdrawn by them while emptying its coffers, in order to pay its creditors, including the plaintiff.
In addition, the plaintiff claimed that at the time of signing the solvency affidavit, the company was in possession of assets, which were pledged in favor of the defendants, and only on September 7, 2017, after the signing of the solvency affidavit, the liens were removed, hence that at the time of signing the affidavit, the company was in possession of assets, at least those that were encumbered.
- I will elaborate on these and other arguments in the body of the discussion below.
- Discussion and Decision
- In the hearing before me, the main testimonies of the parties and their cross-examinations were heard, and the parties submitted written summaries.
- After reading the pleadings and their appendices, the affidavits and the summaries of the parties, and after hearing the testimonies, and considering all the evidence that was brought before me, I came to the conclusion that the claim should be accepted in full.
We are dealing with a claim in a fast-track proceeding, and therefore the judgment will be reasoned in a concise manner, as required by Regulation 82(b) ofthe Civil Procedure Regulations, 5779 – 2018.