Committee Rejects Acting CEO Appointment for Cross Israel Due to Conflict of Interest
The Appointments Committee has disqualified Guy Leviyan from serving as the acting CEO of Cross Israel, citing a conflict of interest. Leviyan has been acting CEO since May, following the departure of former CEO Dan Shenbach, leaving the company without a permanent leader. The committee acknowledged Leviyan meets the qualifications for the role but found his simultaneous service as the company's legal counsel problematic. The committee's decision stated that the CEO's role is to execute business plans, while the legal counsel must ensure decisions comply with the law. Holding both positions creates a clear conflict of interest, as it is unclear who would be the senior legal authority in case of disputes or if Leviyan himself would be prevented from acting as legal counsel.
The committee noted that the company's board was aware of the issue and had planned to outsource some legal advisory functions. However, they found these measures insufficient to address the core conflict. The committee suggested considering one of the company's five other senior vice presidents for the acting CEO position.
Cross Israel was originally established to manage the construction of Highway 6. Since the project's completion, the government has assigned it new tasks related to the Bus Rapid Transit and light rail systems in northern Israel. The company is currently facing a potential merger with Israel Roads, a proposal that was discussed by management in July as part of a government approval process. However, the merger is unlikely to proceed before the upcoming elections.
In related news, the Israel Corporation Authority approved NIS 2.1 million in bonuses for senior executives at Cross Israel. Separately, the chairman of Ayalon Highways is reportedly under scrutiny, with the Israel Corporation Authority demanding an explanation for potentially inflated details in his resume by next week.
The same event, reported separately by each outlet. Open a few to compare what different newsrooms emphasize — and what they leave out.
Not the same event — other stories that share this one’s people, places, or theme: background, reactions, and follow-ups.