There may be two possible 'natural situations': 1. [Lahav] is right and the Company has initiated and promoted the provision of technological and operational services regarding systems whose purpose is to increase the volume of trading activity to the Company's customers by presenting false representations to the end customers. 2. [Lahav] is unjust, and this is a false libel.
In both cases, this is very serious and raises questions regarding Maor's commitment to the company and his role as a board of directors in it...
I see this matter as a continuation of [Lahav's] obedience activity. In my view, the issue of compliance is of paramount importance to the company's operations, and this is in fact the only issue that I raised as a topic for discussion in the board of directors, an issue that was not raised by either party. [Lahav] allegedly 'got on the wave' and flooded the document and in the meeting with me with various points, after which I had to involve [Lahav's] lawyers in order for him to agree to meet with Dr. Zvi Gabbay, an expert on the subject from the Barnea law firm, so that he would examine the matter.
The continuation of the matter is in the saga of scheduling board meetings on the matter of compliance, which in my opinion [Lahav] played a double game: on the one hand, he demanded to advance board meetings on the matter and complained about their non-existence, and on the other hand, he thwarted the attempts to hold them, so by not responding to my email requesting to hold the meetings during the month that the parties had allocated for negotiations between them, so by demanding a day or two before the date set for the meeting to receive the materials 7 days in advance, Thus, in the proposal/request not to hold the second meeting of the board of directors on the matter, but rather to hold meetings of the lawyers of the parties on the matter, thus a surprising demand to hold a meeting with [Lahav's] German lawyers with the company's German lawyers...