**[TRANSLATED        FROM THE ORIGINAL IN HEBREW]**

**Courts**

| **District                    Court of Tel-Aviv Jaffa** | **Bnk                    001424/056** |
|---------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------|
|                                                    | **In                    MCC 9248/05** |

| **Before                    :**       | **The                    Honorable Judge Varda Alshech**                                                |
|---------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                  |                                                                                                    |
| **Petitioners:**                      | **1.                    Bushido Capital Master Fund LP**                                                |
|                                  | **2.                    Bridges & Pipes LLC**                                                       |
|                                  | **3.                    DCOFI Master LDC**                                                              |
|                                  | **By                    their representatives Attorney Ziv Imberg and                    others**       |
|                                  |                                                                                                    |
| **-                    - versus - -** |                                                                                                    |
|                                  |                                                                                                    |
| **Respondent:**                       | **Technoprises                    Ltd**                                                                 |
|                                  | **By                    its representatives Attorney Zafrir Ostishinsky and                    others** |

**Decision**

| 1.   | The                petition for appointment of a permanent receiver was accompanied                by a                petition for appointment of a temporary receiver for the Company                within                MCC 9248/05, in my decision dated April 17, 2005. That decision stated                that I was not convinced of the justification of an *ex                parte*                appointment of a receiver, and the petition was handed over for the                Company's response, and the Petitioners' answers. Since the Petitioners'                answer was filed on May 30, 2005, I decided, on May 31, 2005, to                consolidate the hearing of the petition for appointment of temporary                receiver with the primary petition, in view of the upcoming date                of                hearing. |
|----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 2.   | According                to the Petitioners' claims, on August 24, 2005, the Company registered                a                first degree floating lien unlimited in amount, in their favor, over                all                Company assets, property and rights, and further registered a lien                on all                the rights currently held and/or held in the future by the Company.                This                lien was created against loans received by the Company; On July 23,                2004,                the Petitioners loaned the sum of USD 700,000 to the Company. The                loan                agreements conferred on the Petitioners the exclusive right to convert                the                loans into Company shares. The Petitioners assert that the Company                undertook to repay the loan no later than June 30, 2005. Furthermore,                during the course of 2004, the Petitioners loaned the Company a total                amount of USD 150,000. |
|----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----

| 3.   | The                Petitioners claim that the Company's state of business recently has                experienced a downturn. Furthermore, according to their claims, the                Company caused material breaches of the loan agreements, as defined                in the                term "material breach" in paragraph 7 of the loan agreement. Therefore,                in                view of paragraph 5 of the debenture, the Petitioners are entitled,                provided that the Company causes a material breach as defined in                paragraph                7, demand immediate repayment of the debt balance and/or a part thereof,                and they are therefore entitled to retain all means as they deem                fit to                exercise the debenture. The Petitioners claim that the balance of                the debt                in their favor, on the date of filing of the Petition, is an amount                exceeding USD 1,035,000, the amount including a principal of USD                850,000,                and interest of USD 135,000. |
|----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 4.   | The                Company claims, on the other hand, that the Petitioners' Petition                was                filed with lack of good faith, through abuse of court proceedings,                in a                disgraceful attempt to burden the Company, as well as an attempt                to                capture control of the Company by way of hostile takeover. The filing                of                the Petition caused great harm to the Company's reputation and adversely                affected the value of the Company's traded shares. |
|----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 5.   | The                Respondent asserts, in the Statement of Opposition filed on May 15,                2005,                that it intends to comply with its undertaking to satisfy the debt                by the                last date for its repayment, that is, June 30, 2005. According to                the                Respondent, [the debt] concerns only a debenture of a fixed amount                for one                year, and the Petitioners' insistence on the redemption of the debenture                in its tenth month testifies to a lack of good faith in filing the                Petition. Furthermore, the Company claims that its business is being                conducted in an ordinary manner, and the Petitioners' claims regarding                a                downturn in its situation have no substance. Moreover, the amount                of the                debt [owed] to the Petitioners is not as claimed, and the major part                thereof is payable in shares, both according to the terms of the                agreement, and according to the agreement between the parties in                their                meeting in New York in March 2005. Furthermore, the Company denied                the                Petitioners' claims of a material breach of the loan agreement on                the                Company's part. |
|----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----

| 6.   | The                Respondent added that it is able and willing to meet all its obligations,                to the extent that such exist pursuant to a duly signed agreement.                The                Company further claimed that it has set-off rights against the damages                incurred as a result of the petitions, and to the extent that duly                signed                agreements exist, the issue at bar is a disputed debt on the basis                of                which the debenture cannot be exercised. |
|----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 7.   | On                July 6, 2005, a hearing was held on the petition for receivership.                On July                5, 2005, an urgent petition on behalf of the Petitioners was filed                to add                an updated affidavit regarding the Company's debt balance. As aforesaid,                the last date for repayment of the debt pursuant to the loan agreement,                that is, June 30, 2005, elapsed and the debt was not repaid. On the                other                hand, the Company asserted that this constituted broadening of the                argument, and should not be discussed within the petition for appointment                of permanent receiver. This was not the end of the series of procedural                claims asserted by the Respondent. |
|----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| a.   | The                claim that the witness on behalf of the Petitioners, Mr. David Fuchs,                the                manager of one of the funds, failed to file a Power of Attorney for                Petitioners' counsel with the Court. |
|----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| b.   | The                Power of Attorney to Mr. Fuchs issued by the petitioning funds and                attached to the Urgent Petition dated July 5, 2005, are for June                6, 2005,                while the date of hearing was July 6, 2005. Furthermore, the Power                of                Attorney was not verified by a diplomatic or consular representative                as                required by article 30 of the Evidence Ordinance, and should not                be                accepted into evidence. |
|----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| c.   | Mr.                Fuchs failed to attach a document attesting to his status as an authorized                signatory of Petitioner no. 2. |
|----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| d.   | The                address of Petitioner no. 2, appearing on the loan documents, differs                from                its address as recorded on the Power of Attorney. Furthermore, it                also                emerges that the name of Petitioner no. 3 is different, and its new                identity or signatory rights therein have not been identified. |
|----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| e.   | The                Petitioners' summaries were not filed in one-and-a-half space format,                and                should therefore be rejected. |
|----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| f.   | According                to the Respondent's claim, Mr. Fuchs' affidavit attached to the main                petition, was not duly drafted and should be rejected, the reason                being                that it was drafted in New York and, contrary to Regulation 1 of                the Civil                Procedure Regulations, it was not signed before an Israeli diplomatic                or                consular representative, nor was it stamped by a notary public, apostil                or                certification pursuant to the Second Amendment, as required by the                Regulations for Implementing the Hague Convention (Cancellation of                verification of public foreign documents). Therefore, as the document                fails to constitute an affidavit, it is deemed as if not filed, the                facts                asserted therein are deemed of no value, the petition for receivership                is                not supported by evidence and  is                rendered null and void. On the other hand, the Petitioners claim                that Mr.                Fuchs signed his affidavit in New York, in the presence of an Israeli                attorney, and the geographical location of the signing is irrelevant                to                the extent that the affiant is cautioned by a duly authorized party                regarding the legal ramifications of the signing, and the signature                is                verified by the authorized party, an Israeli attorney, as noted in                paragraph 15 of the Evidence Ordinance. |
|----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----

| 8.   | This                was not the end of the series of procedural claims, however, they                are too                numerous to be noted in the present discussion. I wish to add that                it                would have been better for the Respondent had it not asserted the                majority                of these claims. For example, the claim that the Petitioners' summaries                should be rejected as they were not filed in a space-and-a-half format.                According to Regulation 526 of the Regulations of Civil Procedure,                the                failure to comply with the regulations does not disqualify any proceeding,                and the issue is handed over to the discretion of the court. In view                of                this regulation, it is clear that the failure to comply with my decision                regarding the manner of filing of the summaries, does not disqualify                their                acceptance, and this issue is in my discretion. Moreover, the Respondent                itself failed to comply with my instructions regarding the manner                of                filing of the summaries. In my decision, I demanded that the summaries                be                filed leaving margins of no less than 2 cms on each side. It is easily                verified that the Respondent failed to comply with this condition,                and                this is an understatement. I am left with the impression that the                assertion of such a large number of procedural arguments is nothing                more                than an attempt on part of the Respondent to delay the inevitable,                and                postpone the hearing of the Petition and the decision. |
|----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 9.   | Regarding                the claim regarding the invalidity of Mr. Fuch's affidavit, although,                in                the course of the hearing I decided, and such was noted in the record,                that as part of the general decision I would also decide in the matter                of                validity of the affidavit, and if justice lies with the Respondent,                Mr.                Fuch's testimony would be disqualified. However, after the                cross-examination of Mr. Prosper Avitbul, Chairman of the Board of                Directors and CEO of the Respondent, I discovered that **no                genuine dispute exists between the parties regarding the existence                of a                debt to the Petitioners**.                Moreover, Mr. Avitbul admitted that the Company failed to repay the                principal of the loan in the amount of USD 850,000, and would this                be                insufficient, he admitted that the **Company                had paid no interest on the loans on the date loans were                obtained**.                Consequently, there is no need to discuss the contention of a broadening                of the argument, in view of the elapsed final date of payment of                the debt.                The non-payment of the interest is sufficient to perfect the cause                underlying the petition for receivership, because non-payment of                interest                constitutes a material breach of the loan agreement. Nonetheless,                according to Mr. Avitbul, the non-payment of interest was performed                with                the Petitioners' consent, reached in a meeting conducted in March                2005, in                New York. Moreover: to the question posed by the Petitioners' counsel,                he                replied that the Company has no written agreement on this matter,                and the                agreement was oral. The Respondent claims that, under paragraph 7(j)                of                the loan agreement, the lender may agree, without a written instrument,                to                refrain from deeming failure to pay interest on its due date as a                breach.                On their part, the Petitioners claim that, pursuant to paragraph                13 of the                loan agreement, any amendment of the terms of the agreement and/or                the                debenture, requires a written instrument to be binding on the parties.                Moreover, they claim that on March 25, 2005, they notified the Company,                through Petitioner no. 1, that in view of the failure to effect interest                payment, contrary to the terms of the agreement, the Petitioner demands                immediate repayment of the debt balance pursuant to paragraph 5 of                the                debenture and paragraph 8 of the loan agreements. Consequently, it                is                clear that there is a dispute between the parties in the matter of                the                oral consent. To this I will add that I was not convinced, and                **this                is an understatement**,                by the credibility of Mr. Avitbul's testimony in the matter of the                said                alleged consent. His testimony was one-sided and biased, and nonetheless                he could not avoid admitting to the debt - either principal or interest.                Moreover, on an important question (Page 10 of the record, line 27),                his                memory suddenly failed him. I believe that the Respondent failed                to prove                that such consent existed. Would this be insufficient, after the                hearing                and up to the date of filing the summaries, when it was clear that                the                Petitioners insist on the payment of the interest debt, the Respondent                **did                not pay any amount against the interest debt**.                All that it did was note in its summaries that it would pay the interest                debt within 45 days. Again, I believe that this is merely the Respondent's                desire to postpone the inevitable, and I will not lend my hand to                that. |
|----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----

| 10.   | In                view of all the above, I found no need to discuss any additional                arguments                raised as part of this Petition. **The                clear conclusion is, even according to the Respondent's version:                A debt                exists, and it does not matter whether the debt is in respect of                the                principal or the non-payment of interest**.                Even if I focus exclusively on the matter of the interest payments                I was                not convinced that the non-payment of the interest on the due date                was                agreed by the parties, in the absence of a written agreement between                the                parties,. I believe that the Company is unable to repay the debt.                **Therefore,                the cause for receivership has been reinforced, and the Petition                should be                accepted**.                In parenthesis I note that on July 21, 2005, an Urgent Petition for                instructions was filed on behalf of the Petitioners, as part of MCC                16546/05. The Petition noted the resignation of the same Mr. Avitbul,                the                Company President, who led the legal battle against the appointment                of a                receiver, and who testified in the hearing. According to the Petitioners,                when the petition for appointment of receiver was filed, Mr. Avitbul                remained the single officer in the Company, and after his resignation,                the                Company is likened to a "ship without a captain." Moreover, according                to                the Petitioners, the Company is required to file its financial statements                for the year 2004 by July 31, 2005, or otherwise its shares will                be                delisted, an action with serious negative repercussions on the Company's                main asset, which is a structure of a publicly traded company. I                note that                even before said Urgent Petition had been filed, I believed that                the                Petition for receivership should be accepted, and it contained nothing                to                justify any deviation from my position to either side. The notice                of Mr.                Avitbul's resignation only reinforced my opinion of the need to appoint                a                receiver. |
|-----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----

| 11.   | In                its summaries, the Respondent opposed the appointment of Attorney                Adi                Braunstein as a receiver on behalf of the Petitioners, in view of                the                alleged breach of duty of good faith and fiduciary duty, imposed                on him as                an attorney and an officer of the court. I found no substance to                these                claims. Clearly, I cannot agree to appointment the Company's legal                representative for this position, as the Respondent suggested. |
|-----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 12.   | Therefore,                in view of the reasons noted above, I find that the petition for                receivership is accepted. |
|-----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|