The plaintiffs argued against additional actions by Pinkovich that, according to them, led to the difficult situation in which the company found itself, including: the transfer of hundreds of thousands of shekels in favor of an institution established in Switzerland, "SLG Hope" (hereinafter: "Hope Switzerland"), which was privately owned by Pinkovich and others; signing a guarantee in the name of the company for the benefit of Pinkovich Switzerland; withdrawing funds through the subsidiary's credit card without evidence that these funds were used for the benefit of the company; transferring funds from the subsidiary's account to a company owned by Pinkovich and his wife; and employing members of Pinkowitz's family in managerial positions. Under improved conditions, even when they lacked proper training and education.
Pinkowitz claimed that the allegations against him were unfounded, and that during his tenure in the company, he worked for the village and its shelters, devoting all his energy and time to it. He also claimed that the village was properly managed, and that the company had only found itself in a transient crisis.
B.2. The parties' arguments regarding the actions of the other directors
- The plaintiffs claimed that the directors (hereinafter, insofar as I will refer to "directors" - I mean the defendant directors, with the exception of Pinkowitz) allowed Pinkowitz to act in the company as he saw fit in violation of the law and in contravention of the provisions of the company's articles of association, and that in their actions they acted in a manner that deviated from the conduct of a reasonable director. In the case of Horn and Gutwein, it was claimed that in practice they cut off contact with the company, did not take any part in the management of the company and did not supervise what was happening in it. In the case of Revas and Sharon, it was claimed that they had served as Pinkowitz's rubber stamp, did not understand or were not aware of his actions, were not familiar with the company's financial situation and were fed only by information given to them by Pinkovich himself, who sought to assuage their opinion that "everything is fine." In Rebas's case, it was also claimed that he signed the company's financial statements even though he did not examine the data and did not understand their contents.
Ravas and Sharon claimed that they did their best for the benefit of the village, voluntarily and out of a sense of mission. Rebas, who was over 90 years old at the time of the lawsuit, worked in the village for about 30 years as a social worker, and as part of his job, accompanied the families and the dependents. Rabas, it is claimed, had no knowledge of financial matters, including reading financial statements, and he consulted with the professionals and relied on them. It was argued that the fact that he was misled and did not know or did not understand some of the circumstances that led to the filing of the lawsuit does not stem from negligence or negligence. Sharon claimed that he had been confined to his home due to his serious health since October 2000, and since then he has effectively finished his work and job in the village, and has not been involved in what is happening there. It was further claimed that the directors trusted Pinkovich and the professional advisors, and were unaware of the difficult situation in which the subsidiary found itself, since the company's management was provided with baseless data, which did not reflect what was stated in the financial statements.