Third, Prof. Seroussi also admitted in his interrogation that he was not interested in the question of which company exactly signed with him from the cluster of companies controlled by Mr. Ram. As far as he is concerned, this is the Mr. Ram Group in general (295, S. 4-1).
In addition, and contrary to the defendants' claim in their summaries (at paragraph 236), Ram Holdings did exist at the time of the assignment of rights to Ram Global. The defendants admitted in fact (at paragraph 239) that it was only in September 2021 that this company ceased to exist.
- The defendants further claimed that the plaintiffs did not prove that Ram Holdings controlled Global (wholly owned) at the time of the assignment - June 2019, and therefore the assignment was invalid. I did not find any substance in this argument either. In a real time correspondence (dated June 25, 2019) between Mr. Ram and the defendants' representative, it appears that there was a mistake in the name of the company, and it was agreed between the parties in writing that wherever it was written in the Holdings Agreement, Global would be written. It is therefore not a matter of assignment of a right, but rather of an amendment by consent of the agreement.
In addition, the defendants acted in accordance with this agreement, and changed the invoices so that they would be reproduced on the updated name (see the invoice Appendix A2 to the last statement of claim).
The defendants also did not prove that in real time they objected to the exchange of Holdings with Global. Prof. Seroussi also writes in a copy of this correspondence from the end of June 2019, which did not receive his response. In his interrogation as well, when asked about this correspondence, he confirmed that he did not object to it in real time, explaining that "I did not relate to it as something important, it was as if administrative matters that I am absolutely not involved in and are almost none of my business" (292, S. 17-12). He added in his interrogation that "when I spoke to the RAM Group, as far as I was concerned, it was [ ] RAM Group, that is what I always called them, I did not know all the nuances of some chain companies and everything, I never got into it, I was never interested" (295, Q. 4-1).
120. In any event, on May 12, 2022, Ram Global signed the agreement for the assignment of its rights in the agreement and in connection with the agreement with plaintiff 3 - Epitronic. On November 29, 2022, an additional assignment of the rights of plaintiff 3 to plaintiff 4 was made. These two checks were also made in accordance with what is permitted under paragraph 11.4 of the agreement, since the companies are owned by Mr. Ram, who also serves as their chairman of the board of directors (see: paragraph 5 of Mr. Ram's affidavit). The defendants' insinuation that these were shell companies intended for fraud was not proven by them, and the burden in this matter is as is well known (Civil Appeal 475/81 Zikri Yaakov v. Clal Insurance Company Ltd., IsrSC 40(1) 589, 605-606 (1986)).
There is no room to change this perception now, in order to try to evade clarification of the plaintiffs' arguments.