In paragraph 5 of Akamai's statement of defense, it was claimed that "it was agreed between the plaintiff and the nonim and the representatives of the rights holders of the nonim that if a certain suspension condition that was agreed between them (the date and manner of termination of his employment at Akamai) applies to the plaintiff, the plaintiff will be paid the full amount that was transferred to the trust." Thus, and in addition, in paragraph 46 of the statement of defense, it was claimed that the plaintiff "understood the full range of risks (as opposed to a possible profit) that he was taking by insisting on maintaining a mechanism that simulated the double trigger."
- Whether the defendants view the purpose of the provision as a protection against dismissal, i.e., employment stability only, or whether we go to the plaintiff's approach, according to which it is a defense against dismissal whose byproduct is the payment of the full amount transferred to the trust, the cornerstone in this regard is protection against dismissal that occurs during the 12 months. The plaintiff claimed that "the background to this trial is defense against dismissal After the purchase" (p. 7, s. 10).
- Rather, May. The provision mentioned in the matter Termination Event, which was obtained after negotiations in which the plaintiff was represented And it is presumed that before he signed the document, "he read and understood its contents. This is the case in general, and this is certainly the case where we are dealing with the signing of such an essential document." (Civil Appeal 9136/02 Mr. Money Israel in Tax Appeal v. Sarah Reyes, IsrSC 58(3) 934 (2004)), ostensibly gives the employer unlimited power (unless there is an exogenous event that is not under his control) to determine According to his absolute discretion, the Appointment the dismissal of the plaintiff, and as a result the Bone Effects The Plaintiff's Entitlement To the sum of the acceleration, without the plaintiff having any influence on this.
- Against the background of the aforesaid provision on the one hand, andThe 'players' on the field From it, the court sought to understand the meaning and logic of the instruction during the plaintiff's cross-examination (pp. 7, paras. 7-21), to say:
"The Honorable Judge: On the day you started working for the acquired company, did you know that Oz, ostensibly, has these percentages?