Powermat disputes mediation, says Heins still in

Heins says he still has support from company's principal shareholders.

By NIV ELIS
Updated: MARCH 1, 2016 22:21
Powermat CEO Thorsten Heins (photo credit: REUTERS/JON BLACKER)
Powermat CEO Thorsten Heins
(photo credit: REUTERS/JON BLACKER)
In a dramatic turn of events, major investors in Powermat Technologies have come to the defense of CEO Thorsten Heins, saying they never agreed to his ouster.
On Sunday, three board members, including the company’s founder Ran Poliakine, who was Heins’s predecessor, filed a mediation claim at the Tel Aviv District Court that said all sides had reached an agreement following an October lawsuit. The lawsuit alleged that Heins, previously the CEO of Blackberry, had mismanaged the company.
The alleged agreement filed on Sunday stated that investors including Goldman Sachs and Hudson Clean Energy Partners agreed with the board members that Heins would step down and the board would be restructured.
On Tuesday, company management denied an agreement had been reached and that Poliakine had violated terms of good faith.
“Mr. Heins remains the CEO of Powermat, with our confidence in his ability to bring true shareholder value, despite the harassing litigation and other actions taken by Mr. Poliakine and his allies,” said Hudson CEO Neil Auerbach, also a board member. The embattled CEO continues to enjoy the support of a majority of the board, he added.
Heins said he still had support from the company’s principal shareholders.
As The Jerusalem Post reported, the outlines of the deal were not yet legally finalized, despite being filed in court.
Powermat said the “document was rendered ‘null and void’ because all parties did not sign it.”
Heins was appointed at the behest of investors following allegations that Poliakine was running the company for his own benefit.
Yoel Freilich, an attorney for Poliakine and other shareholders, insisted that all sides had signed the agreement.
He called on them to act responsibly.
“The agreement was signed by the parties, and in accordance with the provisions and explicit demand from the other shareholders, it was required to submit a motion to court,” Freilich said.
At stake was the continued functioning of the company, he said.
No harm or ill will was intended toward Heins, and they wished him success, Freilich said.