(p. 78 of the transcript of May 12, 2024, paras. 22-23).
- Yaakov stated in this regard that the transaction was never executed and in any case had no connection to the plaintiff (paragraph 26.12 of Yaakov's affidavit).
- No party was brought to testify on behalf of this company, and the defendants' claim that the transaction was not executed was not contradicted, and from this it was not proven that Zemach made a profit from the transaction with this company and therefore the plaintiff is not entitled to monetary compensation. At the same time, it is understood that the provision of comments to the agreement is a substantial commercial stage in the completion of a transaction, which shows that Avi did not serve as a bystander but rather as an active party promoting the sales of Iris Marketing, and thus added another layer to the totality of the evidence of the breach of the duty of good faith and loyalty, the conflict of interest in which it existed, all while violating its contractual obligations in a manner that justifies the award of compensation without proof of damage, which will be detailed later in the judgment.
Ski Business Solutions
- On December 12, 2020, a representative of the company sent a price quote for the purchase of surgical masks. A proposal was sent to my father as the plaintiff's representative: To the Honorable - Avi Matzliah A.T. Rehab Ltd. (Appendix 40, p. 274 of Tsafrir's affidavit). Later, on April 12, 2021, my father sent an email to a man named Frank Midlersky (hereinafter - Frank) and a letter to Yaakov. In this framework, Avi attaches the price quote to the gloves, and also forwarded, inter alia, the details of Iris Marketing's bank account (Appendix 40, p. 281 of Tsafrir's affidavit).
- Avi admitted that he was involved in this transaction while claiming administrative assistance here as well, and that it was an engagement with Iris Marketing that had no connection to the plaintiff, and to his knowledge did not take place at all (paragraphs 80-81 of my father's affidavit). Hence, Yaakov's claims in his affidavit that he has no idea about the matter, that he has no idea whether the transaction was executed or not, and that the matter is presumed to be a forgery (paragraph 26.12 of Yaakov's affidavit), do not raise or lower it. What's more, the claims of forgery have not been proven.
- According to Tsafrir, this was a transaction that reached the plaintiff in his capacity as an employee of the plaintiff, and he diverted it to Iris Marketing. The evidence clearly shows that Avi operated within the framework of Iris Marketing's business, without undertaking disclosure. It has not been proven that this transaction matured, but it appears that Avi actually promoted the sales of Iris Marketing, in breach of the duty of good faith and loyalty, while conflicting interests and violating his obligations in the employment contract, which justifies the award of compensation without proof of damage, which will be listed later in the judgment. Since Frank was not brought to testify, it was not proven that the transaction was executed and that in practice pecuniary damage was caused, therefore, the plaintiff's claim for monetary compensation is rejected.
Delightx Company
- Attached to Tsafrir's affidavit was an email correspondence dated December 16, 2020 (Appendix 20 to Tsafrir's affidavit) in which a man named David Avraham Zada addressed Yaakov and Avi with the following (emphasis added):
"Yaakov and my father are very good,