According to the plaintiff, the defendants burdened the project with extraordinary expenses unrelated to it, and in this sense they enriched themselves unjustly, and in view of the plaintiff's essential role in initiating the project, he is entitled to receive a percentage of the funds given by the fund for the purpose of the project.
- The defendants petition to dismiss the claim. First, the defendants claim that the claim against defendant 1 should be dismissed out of hand in the absence of rivalry, since the latter had no part in filing the application to the Bird Foundation, and no claim was raised against it in the framework of the lawsuit.
Second, and on the merits of the matter, the defendant claims that there was no agreement that the plaintiff would receive funds for the assistance he provided in preparing the plan and the application for the fund. Rather, the plaintiff is included in the plan as someone who will be employed as a subcontractor in the venture, in accordance with the budget and the stages of the plan, insofar as the venture is carried out, and this is a risk that the plaintiff assumed. Since the venture died out, and did not reach the point of carrying out the stages that were supposed to be carried out by the plaintiff according to the plan, he is not entitled to any funds from the defendant.
Thirdly, the defendant claims that it actually invested approximately ILS 2,000,000 in the project, while the grant received from the fund constitutes only partial funding, in a way that caused it a lack of money. The defendant categorically denied the plaintiff's claim that it had burdened the project with unrelated costs, and presented the costs it had actually incurred for the purpose of promoting the project. Therefore, the defendants claim that the claim should be dismissed.
The parties' evidence
- On behalf of the plaintiff, the testimonies of the plaintiff, Mr. Uri Attir (hereinafter: Atir), who is a business consultant hired by the defendant for the purpose of submitting the plan to the Bird Foundation, and Mr. Itamar Amsterdam (hereinafter: Amsterdam), who served as chairman of the defendant's board of directors at the relevant times of the suit, and as of the date of filing the original application, were presented. In order to establish the compensation, the plaintiffs attached an expert opinion on their behalf.
- The defense submitted affidavits on behalf of Mr. Oren Zevda (hereinafter: Zevda), the defendant's current CEO, and on behalf of Mr. Ohad Bluestein (hereinafter: Bluestein), who served as the defendant's CFO on the relevant dates for the submission of the updated application to the Bird Foundation.
Discussion and Decision
- Before we move forward, we must address the defendants' argument that there is no rivalry against defendant 1. After reviewing all the evidence that was brought before me, and even in light of the plaintiffs' position as presented by them (see paragraphs 34-35 of the statement of claim), I am convinced that there is no rivalry between the plaintiffs and defendant 1. Defendant 1 is not a signatory to any document related to the venture, the plaintiffs have no real claim against it, and it is clear that the fact that defendant 2 holds all of the shares of defendant 1 does not establish a rivalry between the plaintiffs against it. This is a separate legal personality and there is no need to elaborate further. Therefore, the claim against defendant 1 should be dismissed out of hand.
As for defendant 2, the plaintiffs have not been able to prove that they have a right of restitution from it on the basis of the cause of unlawful enrichment, and therefore I have found that the claim against it should be dismissed as well. The following are my reasons.