After the reply was submitted, on October 17, 2013, the Applicant submitted a supplementary notice to the Court in which he claimed that in accordance with reliable information that had come into his possession, he learned that the Respondent servedas a trustee of the team until June 2012 and not until February 2012, as claimed by him and within the framework of this product, the Respondent managed the team's account and paid salaries to employees and players in the team, and that from the records of the Football Association it appears that the Respondent served as a trustee of the team until the end of the season, which ended on May 31, 2012. In addition, on May 16, 2012, an article was published in the field of sports, in which the respondent confirmed thatS.H. was resigning from his position in the team. In another article published on May 18, 2012, it was reported that the respondent had announced his resignation and that he would no longer serve as a trustee of the group. According to the Applicant, this information is sufficient to testify to the fact that at the time of thepublications that are the subject of the lawsuit, the Respondent served as a position holder in the group.
The Respondent submitted a response on its behalf to the Applicant's notice and argued that the Applicant himself, as the owner of a group, is not included in the definition of "functionary" and that in none of his arguments did the Applicant claim that he is one of the "salaried recipients" in the group.
The Respondent further argues that the Applicant did not attach an affidavit to verify the facts on which he relied in the motion to dismiss the statement in limine, and for this reason as well, the motion should be rejected.
The Respondent also reiterated its claim that on February 13, 2012, the Nazareth District Court issued a decision to terminate the Respondent's position as a trustee in the stay of the group's proceedings, 21 days after the date of the decision.
The respondent further claims that after the termination of his position as trustee and on 22 March 2012, the respondent sent letters to all the relevant parties in the Football Association with a notice of hisposition. In paragraph 4 ofYam's letter , the Respondent clarified that: "Now that the 21 days that the District Court allotted in its aforementioned decision have now passed, the provisions of sections 2.1-2.3 above have come into effect, and the Association is embarking on its new path without a trustee to manage its affairs."