Oshri claimed, among other things, that he did not delve into the email sent to him by Schiffer, which referred to the closing of the competition corner; that he did not attribute any importance to this since he knew that the other competitors le-khatḥila had no chance; Because there could not have been a party to a restrictive arrangement as claimed, nor was there a party to such a party.
Shohat claimed, among other claims, that he submitted a bid in order to compete for the project and that he wanted to win; because he did not receive the email sent to him by Shachar with the Matrix quote; that he did not agree with Shachar on the price he would submit, but would price the bid independently on the basis of the hand he received from IBM; and that in practice he submitted an offer significantly lower than the price sent by Shahar. It was argued that in these circumstances, at the very least, a reasonable doubt arose in his case.
Matrix, which was represented separately from Slaughter, raised mainly arguments that in the circumstances of the case there is no basis for imposing liability on the corporation, Matrix, due to the actions of Shohat, who is not an organ and that the conditions and purpose for applying the theory of organs are not met.
We will now deal with the various defense arguments.
Wei's win was not guaranteed, and in any case, the claim to the competition should be rejected for the sake of appearance
- The claims that Wee's win was assured – as stated above, Wei and Harel claimed in their summaries that Wee's win was assured and known in advance (e.g., para. 654 of Harel's summaries). In this context, various claims were raised, including that it was Wei who worked on the project and with the project's personnel; Because Wei acted against IBM and had a hand and priority from IBM; that Civil Appeal knew value was the preferred supplier working on the project; that Levi was advantageous in light of the requirement for ISI warranty , which it claimed was only it could provide at the time; and that Wei had already negotiated with the client (IAI) and had already reached an agreement with Shekanevsky that a discount of 53.2% would be given in the project at the same rate as the percentage of the discount used in the Bluray project (e.g., Oshri testimony, p. 4548, paras. 16-19; p. 4541, paras. 1-7, p. 4540, paras. 3-5; testimony of Shachar, 3439, paras. 6-9, regarding online pricing and the entire project; See also, inter alia, paras. 290, 292-293 for the Wee summaries; paras. 615-617, 632, 640 of Harel's summaries). In this context, Wei also referred to the demand of a civil appeal for immediate supply (N/266, Shahar, p. 3256, paras. 16-17).
- These arguments must be rejected. They are inconsistent with the evidence that has been brought, and in any event, they do not justify coordination or legitimize it.
Contrary to what is claimed, the evidence – including internal documents of a civil appeal from a real time – indicates that it was Harel, and not Wee, who acted with the project at the outset, and that it was Harel who was involved in formulating the solution and even provided equipment for the purposes of experimentation and feasibility studies. This is enough to drop the ground under the claim. In addition, no concrete evidence was presented of Wei's involvement prior to the date of the issuance of the UAV (see above, paragraphs 630-633 above). No foundation was laid for Vi to be involved with the people of the project or for her to work on the project. No basis was laid for her involvement in the characterization stage (and from real-time email correspondence, N/267, N/341, it appears that it was not the hook that characterized it). The evidence presented in relation to the actions taken by Wii vis-à-vis IBM and for the purpose of receiving it in hand for the Oranim project relates to the dates after the issuance of the CBM (see paragraph 639 above). In any event, other suppliers could also have turned to hand receipt (P/215, paras. 400-401). The claims that an agreement was reached between Wei and Schneevsky regarding the percentage discount for the project (at a rate of 53.2%) were raised in vain and were not supported by anything. Wei did not refer in her summaries to the fact that a claim regarding such a summary was presented to Skanevsky during his interrogation in court. Wee's offer to Balam Oranim was also based on a different discount rate (43%, see P/133) than the one ostensibly agreed upon (53.2%), in a manner that is not at all consistent with the claim of an agreement between Wei and IAI. Wei's claim that its win was guaranteed due to the requirement of ISI's liability in the project should also not be accepted (see the discussion in paragraph 185 above).