Civil Case (Tel Aviv) 262-04-17 Toiga Online Ltd. v. Mizrahi Tefahot Bank Ltd. - part 5

The bank further points out that between the plaintiffs, Paragon EX and their clients - UFX, Realentco and MPF - there is an alleged triangle with the boundaries between the parties unclear and blurred.  Thus, he reiterates that UFX was founded by some of the founders of Paragon iX, and that the manner in which it was handed over to its owner - Dennis de Young - was not clarified.  He also claimed that UFX's activity was limited to non-existent relative to the plaintiffs' activity, and the manner and scope of the payment it made to the plaintiffs were not explained, puzzling and seemingly lacking in economic logic.  In this context, the bank refers to the fact that in some cases, UFX pays the plaintiffs for their activity a rate of 80% of the volume of activity of certain end clients.  Therefore, according to the bank, there is a suspicion that UFX is nothing more than a client.  In this context, the bank added and even referred to an invoice issued to UFX, to which a calculation was attached, indicating that the calculation of the amount in the invoice is by multiplying the number of calls made by $1.55, in contrast to the method of determining the consideration in agreements with the company, which is calculated as a percentage of the clients' volume of activity in accordance with their classification.  Moreover, the bank refers to alleged connections between the plaintiffs' customers, including the fact that two of the companies - UFX and Realtenco - are owned by the same shareholder - Mr. Dennis de Young - while the address of the third client company - MPF - is on the same street as Realentco's offices, five blocks away.  Moreover, the Bank points out that there is no dispute that all of the customers are customers of Paragon EX, as the three companies use the trading platform developed by Paragon EX.  Moreover, the Bank refers to the fact that all the customers signed two types of agreements with the plaintiffs - a service agreement ("support service and marketing") and a brokerage agreement ("inter media service"), but the agreements with all the customers are identical in substance and content - and in this regard, the plaintiffs did not have an explanation as to how all the agreements were identical and why two such agreements were required.