The witness, Mr. Shabbat Laurent: You usually wouldn't see it from the foundation. I mean, that's where customer retention starts to play a role."
Thus, Shabbat admits that customer retention (the same department in which Avisror worked) took over so that customers would not withdraw money from the money fund invested by them.
In these circumstances (together with my determinations regarding Global's interest as detailed above), I am of the opinion that the interest of Global's employees - as it emerges from the employment agreement of the other employee, supported (at least partially) by Avisror's testimony and supported by Shabbat's testimony - is that the customers will deposit more and more money, withdraw as little money as possible and trade in considerable volumes of trade. This is contrary to the interest of the customers, who will eventually lose money by trading in considerable volumes. These are conflicting interests that were not disclosed to the plaintiff, and moreover, which led to the plaintiff's recommendation to increase her investments in the company in a manner that puts her at high risk of losing her money. As regards this, as the plaintiff testified - and this testimony was not denied - Collins presented her with representations, inter alia, according to which Global is bound by agreements with leading companies, and that in order for it to be able to enjoy profits related to these agreements, or to be included in investments related to them, it must deposit substantial sums and reach a significant scope of activity. The defendants did not deny this claim of the plaintiff, and in general, the plaintiff was not questioned about these claims at all. Moreover, the defendants did not present any evidence indicating that these were genuine representations - that is, that Global did enter into such contracts. Moreover, as detailed, the plaintiff was presented with a representation that bonus money was being injected into her account that "protected" her money (however, it became clear that this representation was a misrepresentation). These misrepresentations, whose purpose is to increase the volume of the plaintiff's activity, show that in order to achieve the interest of Global (as well as of its employees) - false representations were made to the plaintiff, all when, as stated, such investments are inconsistent with the plaintiff's interests.
- the lack of confidence in Shabbat's testimony as supporting the plaintiff's version;
I found additional support for the plaintiff's version in my impression of the unreliability of Shabbat's testimony. Thus - and as will be detailed - I found Shabbat's testimony and version to be twisted, incoherent, and changing, in a way that casts doubt on its reliability. Moreover, on core issues in the proceeding, I found that Shabbat chose to conceal relevant data, which was ostensibly in his possession and which could have shed light on the facts in their entirety. In light of this, I found evidentiary support for the plaintiff's version in view of the lack of confidence in Shabbat's testimony.