Within a period of time, and even if all the information had been available to the company, as I have determined above, I am not convinced that it is highly likely that the company would have cancelled the agreement.
Given the aforesaid, the company's claim at the head of this damage is dismissed.
Expenses incurred by the plaintiffs in promoting the project
- The company claimed that it was required to begin carrying out the planning tasks shortly after the signing of the agreement, in accordance with its obligation in clause 7.3 of the agreement, and even before the conditions were met. Therefore, upon the signing of the agreement, the company acted vigorously to promote the project, while investing considerable funds and resources amounting to approximately ILS 1.4 million (see clauses 17-18 of Wachter' s affidavit; and paragraph 7 of the affidavit of my sons David), all based on the signing of the agreement and the Municipality's presentations, and as a result of which it changed its situation for the worse.
It was claimed that, inter alia, the company contracted with various consultants, lawyers and planners, who had already begun their work, all in order for the company to be able to meet the timetables set out in the agreement, and to promote the project as required of it. Yes, the company invested a great deal of managerial time, amounting to hundreds of hours of work by its employees in handling the matter (see paragraph 22 of Wachter's affidavit, as well as an accountant's certificate (P/9) and cards (P/10) supporting the matter).
- Accordingly, CPA Sitton, on behalf of the company, examined the expenses incurred by the company for this purpose, and in paragraph 6 of his opinion summarized the findings that arose and wrote: "Indemnification for the expenses incurred by V Equity in respect of the project - the company paid expenses in the amount of ILS 1,425,868 to which it is entitled to a refund of the principal amount plus linkage differences and interest until the date of filing the claim. When the antitrust is ILS 1,602,308, the company is entitled to a refund, according to the following details:
- The Company supported this demand for payment in the opinion of CPA Sitton, who referred in his opinion to the Company's examination balances (see Appendix E to the opinion), which include details of all those expenses incurred by the Company, as well as Appendix D to the opinion of CPA Sitton, which includes calculations regarding the interest and linkage accrued in respect of these expenses.
- In this regard, I saw fit to accept the company's demand, which is supported by an expert opinion in part. First of all, it should be said that most of the required expenses were incurred in the advanced stages of the engagement, during the years 2019,9, 2021 and 2022, when the Municipality was supposed to inform the Company of the clear position of the Ministry of the Interior, which, if it was not sufficiently clear in the early stages of the engagement, received an unequivocal response regarding the Suprematist tender, in a letter sent to the Municipality by the Ministry of the Interior on November 20,2017. And certainly afterwards, when the Ministry of Interior's letter dated March 12,2020 was received, postponing the approval of the Amarta transaction, even though the plan that applies to the land that is the subject of the engagement was changed.
Given the fact that most of the significant expenses were incurred as of June 2021, when the Municipality was already aware of the firm position of the Ministry of the Interior on March 12,2020, and subsequently its position, which was submitted, on April 13,2021, in its response to the Omarta petition to the court, I saw fit to reject its request to recognize the demand for payment for printouts and appraisals issued in 2019. And to recognize the expenses incurred by the company during 2021 and onwards, expenses that most likely would not have been required if it had been confronted at that time with the firm position of the Ministry of Interior.