- In his appeal, Pinkowitz asks that the trial court's ruling that he breached his fiduciary duty to the company and the parents of the inmates be annulled, or that the hearing be returned to the trial court so that it can re-examine the disputed facts properly and in accordance with the rules of procedure.
Pinkowitz's main arguments in the appeal are directed, as stated, to the determination of the trial court that his various actions with the company's funds amounted to fraud and breach of trust. Among other things, it was claimed that all the investments in the subsidiary were with the full knowledge of the directors and shareholders, and that they were made after consultation with economic experts and accountants; that the funds invested are intended for the ongoing operation of the activities and welfare of the villagers; that the transfer of the shares to Pinkowitz and his family was also done with the approval of the board of directors, and did not cause any damage at all; that the bonuses he received from the company were received in accordance with an agreement from 1995, at a time when it was agreed that the village was managed impeccably; and that it has not been proven that Kfar Tikva in Switzerland was owned by Pinkovich or that it was established with the company's funds.
D.3. Appeal of CPA Shaporan - Civil Appeal 5970/13
- In his appeal, CPA Shaporan argued that the elements of the tort of negligence in his case had not been proven, including that it had not been proven that he was negligent, that damage was caused to the company, and that there was a causal connection between the alleged negligence and the alleged damage. It was also argued that to the extent that damage was caused to the company stemming from the actions of CPA Shaporan, it should also be attributed to Pinkovich and the directors, and in any event there was no basis for distinguishing between the conduct of CPA Shaporan and the conduct of CPA Milner.
- Discussion and Decision
- Before proceeding to a discussion of the issues that require a decision in their order, I will note that the trial judgment, which is about 115 pages, includes many factual determinations and findings of reliability, which, as a rule, I do not intend to intervene in. The trial court examined a series of expert opinions, heard many witnesses and was impressed directly by additional evidence, and I did not find that there was a flaw in its factual determinations based on this impression and which justifies the intervention of the appellate court. In this context, it should be noted that the various appellants (with the exception of Pinkowitz) also rarely or refrained from raising arguments directed at findings of fact, and focused mainly on the legal conclusions that underpin the trial judgment. Similarly, I will also focus on examining the legal issues raised by the parties in the various appeals, when as a rule, the factual basis for the hearing will be that determined by the trial court.
The discussion will be divided into four main parts - the first part will discuss the liability of the directors for the company's damages; In the second part, the insurance issue; The third part will be dedicated to the responsibility of the accountants; And in the last part, Pinkowitz's responsibility will be discussed. In each section, the main arguments of the parties in relation to the issue under discussion will be presented, after which the legal analysis and decision will be presented.