However, in view of the rest of the evidence that was brought before me, I cannot accept the plaintiff's claims that he was the living spirit behind the venture.
- First, it cannot be ignored that unlike the plaintiff, Uri Attir was hired by the defendant as a business development consultant for the purpose of preparing the plan and submitting it to the fund, and received a salary for his work (Zevda affidavit, paragraph 12 and Appendix 2 to this affidavit). A petition, which was brought on behalf of the plaintiff, described his own role in the following words: "In the period between 8/2014 and 6/2015, I was an independent paid consultant to Haogenplast Ltd., almost exclusively for the purpose of preparing and submitting the company's application for a conditional grant... The engagement of the Ogenplast with me was to accept full responsibility for the preparation and submission of the application document, in coordination and supervision of Mr. Itamar Amsterdam" (emphasis mine - L.H.R.). Hence, Shatir noted that the main role in preparing the plan was his. Attir referred to the fact that he was asked to work together with the plaintiff, who was intended to serve as a subcontractor, in the preparation of the grant application, and he also stated in paragraph 6 of his affidavit what the plaintiffs' share was supposed to be if the venture took shape, and what amount they were entitled to receive for it according to the plan that was submitted. He also noted in paragraph 7 his joint work with the plaintiff and the consultations he held with him in the preparation of the application, and the extent to which the plaintiff's experience and skills helped him.
Moreover, when Atir was asked in his interrogation about the scope of the assistance he received from the plaintiff, who he claimed did most of the work in preparing the plan and the application, he answered in the negative, even though he insisted that the plaintiff's role was quite significant.
- Zevda noted that the defendant paid the petitioner the sum of ILS 65,000 for the preparation and submission of the plan (Zevda affidavit, paragraph 12 and Appendix 2), andclarified that it was Atir who was solely responsible for the matter. Zebeda further stated that he had learned that the plaintiff had assisted the petitioner in preparing the plans in part of his expertise, "out of an understanding and expectation, as is customary when submitting plans... (ibid., 60:13). Amsterdam also claimed that the plaintiff's part in the preparation of the plan was not very large (par. of December 12, 2024, pp. 9, paras. 1-19, and see also Zebede's affidavit in this regard, para. 18).
It should be noted that Mr. Attir noted that for the preparation of the original plan, he received from the defendant a sum of only about ILS 14,000 (par. of November 14, 2024, pp. 27, paras. 1-17), while Zevda attached to his affidavit a card detailing the sums of ILS 65,000 that were paid to Mr. Atir for his work. One way or another, the two aforementioned sums are significantly lower than the sums claimed in this lawsuit.