The plaintiff attached to the statement of claim Excel files for the months of July and August 2021, which, according to her, were sent to her by the "defendants" (attached as Appendix A to the statement of claim), as well as a copy of invoices she produced for the months of July and August 2021 (Appendix C to the statement of claim). These documents were not attached to Roy's affidavit, and more on that later.
- It further claims that it considers Uri, who served as the CEO of Luxury at the time the debt was created, to be personally responsible for the conduct of Prestige and the failure to make the payment of the consideration, and that about a month and twenty days before the termination of the engagement, when Roy approached Uri with a request to settle the payment, he responded with a "go back and forth" in order to "buy time", while Uri deceived the plaintiff into thinking that the payment would indeed be settled, but in the end the engagement was "completely terminated" without the debt being paid.
According to her, in retrospect, and at the time of conducting the proceedings in question, she found out that about two months after the termination of the engagement with her, Uri knew that he was "not continuing" the engagement with the landlord, but did not bother to notify her and receive financing for those two months and/or to reduce the services she provided to the luxury in order to minimize damages (paragraph 13 of Roy's affidavit).
- It also claims that Uri "acted in the manner of 'thin financing' by trying to create a representation in which he could (the mistake in the original-L.Y.) meet the payments that apply to him and the company, continued his normal conduct as usual, continued the relationship with the plaintiff since the contract is on a monthly basis, which allows them to terminate it every month, but he continued to conduct himself in a regular manner vis-à-vis the plaintiff in order to create a false representation under 'conducting business as usual' and not even announcing the termination of the engagement!" (Paragraph 20 of Roy's affidavit).
- According to the plaintiff, Uri concealed from her that "he" intended to sell the luxury "lentil stew" to David, who joined him in order to "confuse" her and "escape from debts" deliberately, and after she sent a letter of demand to the defendants, the name of Prestige was changed to Keinan "in order to hide the company from its creditors" (paragraph 12 of Roy's affidavit).
According to her, "in conversations held by David Ben Shalom" he "conveyed" that he "agreed to transfer the company in his name in exchange for a sum of ILS 5,000 (which at the end of the day was not paid to him) and was in fact a 'monkey' to whom all the shares and the board of directors were transferred, all in order to commit fraud and avoid payment and create the impression that he could meet the payments and manage a normal business system and drag the creditors" (paragraph 16 of Roy's affidavit).