The witness, Mr. Oz: When he started working for the company, he received shares with a repurchase option for two years.
(p. 84 p.)
- By persuading the defendant to move to work for the plaintiff and work with the plaintiff's clients, it caused a breach of the employment agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant.
- The fact that the defendant agreed to provide legal defense in the event of a lawsuit indicates that she took into account that as a result of her actions, the defendant would sue:
The witness, Mr. Lankri: You had to share them, you would see where the conditions are.
Adv. Les-Gross: Your lawyer attached it.
The witness, Mr. Lankri: That's what they have.
Adv. Les-Gross: Do you have the agreement you signed with Coolid?
The witness, Mr. Lankri: Nope. I don't have a copy of the agreement. The agreement is in your hands. I mean, we signed it and it remained in the office, as I remember, on the day of the signing.
Adv. Les-Gross: Tell me, the conditions you describe in paragraph 23 of your affidavit, are these the conditions that were issued to you and to Raz and to Bustani?
The witness, Mr. Lankri: Yes.
(p. 20 p.)
Even if Lankri was the one who initially approached the defendant, Lior Boustani and another employee of the plaintiff to move to work for the defendant (p. 12 of P. 12), the breach of the agreement is still the responsibility of the defendant and the defendant who convinced him.
- The financing agreement for legal defense indicates that the defendants were aware of the defendant's breach of the agreement with the plaintiff.
- In practice, as stated, the defendant was given legal protection in this lawsuit.
- Without sufficient justification, the defendant did not give justification for her actions. The defendant's only justification is to make money at the plaintiff's expense and to act and enter the field of appellation as well as the field of gambling in England and Ireland - a field in which she had not previously dealt with it. The defendant acted in bad faith.
- Causal connection - a causal connection must be proven between the defendant's actions and the breach - that is, if it were not for the defendant's action, the contract would not have been breached. The defendant persuaded the defendant to move to work for her by providing shares. The agreement was breached because of the defendant and as a result of her actions.
- Has a causal connection been proven between the decrease in revenues from those customers that are claimed to have been taken by the defendant? No financial statements were attached in order to show a decrease in revenues, no customer statement was attached regarding a decrease in customer revenues, and it was not proven that any customer left the plaintiff, but a review of the details of receipts from the plaintiff's customers in the months of 12/21, 5/22 and 8/22, 1/23 (P/15 - P/19) shows that there was a decrease in the plaintiff's income from the following customers: Karamba Brands, Casino 888, Brands IVY, MRQ, , Dr.Bet Partners247.