Another article on this subject by Hila Raz, which was published on March 21, 2011 in The Marker, which reviews the derivative claim filed by our firm against the Leviev Group for ILS 2.5 billion. In addition, the following are additional articles on this subject as published by Hila Raz on March 17, 2011, on The Marker website and on the Walla! In which it was claimed that the officers of the Leviev Group became, within two years, S.H.G. GOLDEN & SILVER LTD is worthless.
[Hebrew Only]
Leviev's lawyer: The 2.5 billion lawsuit against him is delusional and imaginary
According to the derivative claim: Officers in the Leviev Group turned S.H.G. GOLDEN & SILVER LTD worthless
Hila Raz Thursday, 17 March 2011, 17:17
"This is an absurd play. You can see that all the hallucinatory and imaginative directing that Synbati has built is built on false foundations," said attorney Ron Berkman, who opened the hearing regarding the approval of a NIS 2.5 billion derivative lawsuit filed about a year and a half ago by businessman Barty (Benny) Synbati. The Tel Aviv District v. Lev Leviev, Leviev Group Project Management and Officers in it.
A derivative claim is a claim filed by a shareholder in a company against the company in which he has shares. The lawsuit involves a special court approval process. Synbati and shg golden & silver ltd, in which he holds shares, claim that Leviev and his group's officers took advantage, with a sharp conflict of interest, of their position in the company to steal its assets until they emptied the company. Gold and precious gold and metal mining franchises in Kyrgyzstan. "On the day he transferred the management of the company to the defendants, a mysterious, rapid and unreasonable deterioration began."
Synbati makes another claim that the Leviev Group was negligent in running the company. Through attorneys Shlomi Turgeman and Gad Nashitz, he complains that the company's directors have failed to meet its $ 20,000 financial obligations, thereby causing its collapse and loss of billions of dollars worth of gold and precious metals.
Leviev claimed that the group did everything it could to prevent the theft of assets from it. She has acted and is acting in any way she has and has invested a lot of time and money to get the assets back. But it is a corrupt government in Kyrgyzstan, which fraudulently took its assets from the company and only now, after a coup in Kyrgyzstan that took place in 2010, the new prosecutor's office in the country began examining the conduct of the previous corrupt government and opened a criminal investigation against senior government officials. At the same time, Leviev submitted a request to delay the legal proceedings in the country until the criminal investigation in Kyrgyzstan is completed.
Judge Ruth Ronen rejected the request to delay the proceedings, saying that "the only controversial question is what happened to the lost gold mines. There can be all sorts of stories of action." The judge clarified to the parties that at this initial stage the proof of the legal allegations of robbery or negligence that arose against Leviev would be extremely complicated since these are acts committed in Kyrgyzstan, to which local law applies. "What a reasonable manager does in Kyrgyzstan is not a simple question. I am not in Kyrgyz law," she noted.
Berkman added that "all that interests the plaintiff is Leviev's deep pocket. A court in a derivative suit should consider the special interests of the company, including whether the clarification of the application at the present time could cause harm to the company. I think may cause harm to companies."
The judge asked Berkman: "What can happen to the company? Is it possible to return the old mines?". To this he replied: "The goal is for the company to be restored and its substantial assets to its previous state, or to receive from Kyrgyzstan something suitable alternative - that is the goal. In his estimation, only within 6-3 months will the Leviev Group be able to know whether its efforts in this direction have borne fruit.
Advocate Gad Naschitz, representing Synbati, objected to the rejection: "Synbati seeks a decision on the approval of a derivative claim," he said at the hearing. The judge ordered the proceedings to continue and set a date for another hearing. You gave me a very important lesson on how to operate mines. The only question is whether there was robbery or negligence. These are factual questions. "