In other words, this is an argument that amounts to suppressed testimony, based on testimony from the rumor that originated from the words of the CEO of the Bird Foundation to the plaintiff. This, and only that. It is clear that it cannot be said that the plaintiff was able to prove this claim.
- On the other hand, the defendant presented a large number of documents proving the funds it spent for the purpose of promoting the venture, and these testify that there is no substance to the plaintiffs' claim regarding the burden of costs on the venture. Bluestein, who testified that he was responsible for preparing periodic progress reports submitted to the Fund (paragraph 4 of his affidavit), noted that the defendant submitted no less than 4 periodic reports for expenses incurred for the purpose of the venture in the period between April 1, 2016 and August 31, 2016 (paragraph 5 of the affidavit, attached as Appendices 1-4), and in total the defendant spent no less than $631,866 since the program began, and received a refund of only $253,000.
Bluestein noted that the expenses were mainly for the salaries of direct employees, equipment and materials, and travel, and he attached to the proof of this an Excel spreadsheet that he had prepared in real time (Appendices 5-7 to Bluestein's affidavit).
It should also be noted here that Bluestein explained that after applying to the Fund and approving the plan, the defendant began to invest funds in the development of the venture, but these were not reported to the Fund, and in any case the defendant did not receive any refund (Bluestein's affidavit, para. 10).
- Bluestein's claims regarding the actual costs incurred and the circumstances of the termination of the venture were backed up by documents, and were not contradicted in any way by the plaintiffs, whether in real time evidence or in an expert opinion on their behalf.
Bluestein also explained, and even supported his words with references, why the project ultimately failed, for reasons of lack of economic viability and the failure to find a suitable experimental site (ibid., para. 11, and see also Zebda's affidavit on this matter, para. 29 of the affidavit). Therefore, I also found that the plaintiffs' claim that the defendant acted deliberately to thwart the venture should also be rejected.