(pp. 101-102 of the transcript).
- Later in his testimony, the plaintiff again contradicted himself, in a confrontational and puzzling manner, and continued to raise different versions regarding the identity of the companies included in the partnership:
Although there is no mention of this in the lawsuit or in the additional details in the pre-trial, the plaintiff testified that Uden Romania is part of the partnership (p. 80 of the transcript, paras. 26-29).
The plaintiff testified that A.T. is part of the partnership (p. 118 of the minutes, paras. 30-32), and later he said of this company, "I don't remember, I don't remember what anymore" (p. 119, s. 3).
Regarding Oden Properties, he again changed his version when asked if it was part of the lawsuit and replied, "Oden Properties is managed separately" (ibid., paras. 14-15).
Later in his testimony, he said that he wanted to be reckoned with "regarding . . Schneider and Etgar, Oden Properties" (p. 120, s. 26) as well as regarding Oden Hadar Yosef (ibid., s. 30).
Later, the plaintiff testifies that there is no need to account for C.A.Z. and Hasson Gesher (p. 121 of the transcript, paras. 9-10). When asked about this puzzling and incoherent version and how C.A.Z. Suddenly she is not part of the partnership, he answered, "If His Honor approves it, we will do C.A.Z." (ibid., para. 24). And later on - regarding C.A.Z. And Hasson Gesher - "Okay, then we will add them, we will add them" (p. 122, paras. 2-6).
Subsequently, the plaintiff testifies that the "solar roof" is also part of the partnership (p. 124 of the transcript, paras. 22-24), even though it is not mentioned in the statement of claim and in the additional details of the companies in the partnership in the pre-trial period.
- Moreover, if the thesis that the plaintiff is trying to prove is that the companies in which he and defendant 1 are shareholders are the ones that belong to the partnership, then this rule should apply to all companies of this type, and not only to manpower corporations. No basis, contractual or otherwise, was presented for this attempt at diagnosis by the plaintiff. This approach of his shows that that "partnership" is the product of the plaintiff's will and is rooted in his business interest and is not rooted in reality.
- And not only that: one might have expected that if the plaintiff had held an exhaustive list anchored in the evidence of the companies included in the partnership, it would have appeared in his summaries. This is not the case. In paragraph 34 of the summaries, the plaintiff claimed that a list of companies was provided in the minutes dated February 1, 2023, but did not refer to the appearance and for good reason. A perusal of this transcript reveals that the plaintiff's counsel referred to a number of companies in general and even added that "because of the nature of the disinformation, there could have been other companies that we would discover over time" (p. 11 of the transcript, para. 19).
In other words, contrary to the plaintiff's claim, until now, even though the proceeding has ended, the plaintiff has not provided the list of companies that he claims are included in the partnership, not even in his summaries.