44
Ruling: [Last time we saw that def violated the agreement with pl and that pl did not relinquish their rights.]
Pl definitely has the right to get their principal back. While no profits were set, there are two mechanisms to justify def paying for use of pl’s money: 1. How much pl, who borrowed money from a bank to invest, would have gotten from his investment money with a simple investment, after the two years when he could have gotten the money from escrow. 2. The estimate of how much def benefited from using that money for his projects (see Chavat Da’at 168:14). It is difficult to determine how much the above comes to but we will estimate it, based on compromise, at 9%, which comes out to 18,000 NIS.
Def2 refuses to assume the obligations of def based on the rules of corporations. While this is generally correct, our arbitration agreement states that when a representative of a corporation acted in an irresponsible manner, which deserves personal liability, we can obligate him. In this case, def2 clearly misappropriated and endangered pl’s funds and therefore has personal liability. Since he is the sole owner of def, he has the means to pay himself back from def should he want.
Because of the inappropriate and elusive way that def2 acted in this matter, which forced pl to purse legal recourse, we obligate def/def2 10,000 NIS for pl’s legal fees.

Knotty Situations II
Rabbi Yirmiyohu Kaganoff | 5771
When Adar Enters
Rabbi Berel Wein | 5771

How Does a Heter Iska Work?
Rabbi Yirmiyohu Kaganoff | 5770
