Finally, even in the last correspondence documenting the plaintiff's request, a request to receive the amount of the balance in her account and to withdraw it, the plaintiff is in contact with OFM and the email address from which she receives the information is: COFM@option.fm.
From all that has been said so far, it appears that throughout all stages of the plaintiff's investment - from the date on which it began its first engagement until the end of its investment - the plaintiff was presented with a representation that it is in contact with a single legal entity that is under the OFM branding. This is while the defendants do not deny that all the employees who actually worked with the plaintiff are global employees. From the aforesaid it follows that to the extent that the plaintiff proves the representations that were presented to the plaintiff by these employees, then even if in practice the plaintiff entered into an agreement with a company known as OFM (and as will be clarified below - I do not believe that this is the case) - in any case Global is liable for negligent (and in my approach even malicious) misrepresentations that were presented to the plaintiff by its employees.
- Without derogating from the aforesaid - who is that OFM ? - I am of the opinion that from the evidentiary basis presented in the proceeding here - we are talking about Global itself or a company connected to Global and Shabbat. In any case, I am of the opinion that this is information held by Global, as well as by Shabbat, which was deliberately concealed, and therefore, it is presumed that to the extent that evidence related to it was brought, it would have been sufficient to support the plaintiff's version and negate the defendants' version. In other words, it was sufficient to support the claim that it was Global itself or a company connected to it or to Shabbat.
As for this, first of all, according to the Global and Shabbat version, OFM is a company with which Global has contracted for the purpose of providing marketing services - that is, on the face of it, it is a company that is known to Global. Notwithstanding the aforesaid, they presented no less than three versions as to the identity of this company - thus, in the pre-trial hearing that took place in the proceeding on October 30, 2022, on page 1, lines 18-20, it was argued that: "There are no financial transactions from the plaintiff to the defendant or to any of the defendants, but rather to a Cypriot company, which is the one that operates the brand. The brand is hers, the money goes into it. The receipts that Ms. Travis drew also come from the Cypriot company." In other words, because the company with which the plaintiff contracted is a Cypriot company. In contrast, in affidavits in response to the questionnaires submitted by Global and Shabbat, it was claimed that the defendants did not know who the company with which the plaintiff contracted. Thus, in an affidavit in response to a questionnaire given by Shabbat, the plaintiff answered in response to a question about which company the plaintiff contracted: "The company was not able to find out which company the plaintiff contracted with for the purpose of trading binary options. However, the plaintiff certainly did not engage with defendant 1. It should be noted that Appendix 6 to the statement of claim contains indications of financial transactions in the plaintiff's alleged bank account with Nicosia, Cyprus.". Similarly, Shabbat stated, in paragraph 5 of his affidavit that: "The clients who wished to trade binary options did not engage with the company, but with other companies that are the relevant legal entities. The company (Global) was a service company that provided various companies with various services, including customer service services. I do not know which of the companies the plaintiff contracted with."