As Mr. Goldian admitted in his interrogation, in practice this charge, which was imposed on the factory in Nesher, did not yield profits (p. 503, S. 5-1). He explained that the basis of the charge was erroneous, and therefore the activity in this area had failed. This is sufficient to reject what is stated in this component of the claim, and I am not required to argue that the Bonus Company did not present its contact details with the Water Corporation; In any event, the Weinberger Law Firm's argument that the service provided to the corporation was made possible following a ruling in 2016 (see paragraph 113 of the firm's summaries).
- the Jerusalem Municipality;
According to the Bonus Company, Mr. Koreish admitted in his testimony that Mr. Zaruk provided a service to the Jerusalem Municipality in respect of the collection of development levies. According to her, the law firm of Lieberman & Co. approached the tender published by the municipality and won it, while the Weinberger firm was prevented from participating in the tender. andsubsequently Mr. Zaruk was the one who actually provided the services, as a result of an improper agreement between the Weinberger firm and the Lieberman firm.
I cannot accept this argument when it is not substantiated.
Bonus did not fully present the agreement it had with the municipality. Weinberger's office denied the claim that it was prevented from submitting the tender. In any event, the tender held by the municipality was intended only for law firms, and therefore the request of the bonus company to participate in this tender was rejected out of hand. Even a petition she filed was to no avail (Administrative Petition 42452-11-16 A.R.A.B. Bonus Ltd. et al. v. Jerusalem Municipality; see the court's decision of December 6, 2016, Appendix 6 to Mr. Zaruk's affidavit in the counterclaim; and see also the judgment in the petition, ibid., in Appendix 7). While a bonus company could not provide these services, it could not prevent others from doing so.