In this framework, Mr. Zaruk worked in the field of proactive charges for local authorities, including in the field of development levies. And now, this activity was also carried out within the three years following his retirement. According to Mr. Zaruk, he was entitled to carry it out, and according to the company, he was not, in view of the non-compete and confidentiality provisions to which he was obligated.
Three employees who were case analysts in Mr. Zaruk's department at the company also left Bonus - Mr. Tomer Nissenbaum, Mr. Asael Kalfa and Mr. Shahar Koreish (hereinafter: the three employees). They joined him, and even provided services to the ministry. There is a dispute between the parties as to whether or not this departure was the result of improper solicitation by Mr. Zaruk, which was done with the knowledge and blessing of the Ministry.
- It should be noted that Adv. Bertenthal of Weinberger Law Firm examined the possibility of cooperation between the firm and Mr. Goldian, even before Mr. Zaruk's retirement from Bonus Company. He negotiated with Mr. Goldian, but this did not lead to an engagement between the parties.
- On May 26, 2016, Mr. Zaruk's attorneys sent a letter to Mr. Goldian and to the Bonus Company entitled "Termination of an Engagement with Mr. Doron Zaruk and Performing an Account - Notice Before Filing a Claim" (Appendix 6 to the Claim). It noted that the amount of the debt, which has not yet been paid to Mr. Zaruk, is estimated at at least ILS 7 million. The recipients were also required to provide a complete and complete breakdown of all closed and open files, and all the relevant data of each file, including its receipts and expenses. On the sidelines, a proposal was made to end the dispute through dialogue, in order to avoid legal proceedings.
On September 1, 2016, counsel for Bonus sent a letter of reply, after several meetings between the parties. In the letter, it was noted that all of Mr. Zaruk's claims were unfounded, and that not only does the bonus company owe nothing to Mr. Zaruk, but quite the opposite; This is when the amount of advances paid exceeds the considerations it is supposed to receive. In addition, it was argued that Mr. Zaruk must return funds to the Bonus Company due to the blatant and fundamental breaches of the agreement, including a breach of the non-competition clause. Mr. Zaruk is required to undertake to refrain from competing with the member, and to refrain from making use of the material or information he obtained during the engagement with it.
- A mediation process was conducted between the parties but was unsuccessful. And from here the path to appeal to the courts was short.
The Claim and the Litigation
- The litigation between the parties includes a claim and a counterclaim.
- Zaruk filed the main lawsuit against a bonus company and against Mr. Goldian, whom he sought to be held personally liable.
In his lawsuit, he petitioned for an audit between the parties, which would be done, if necessary, by an investigative accountant, in accordance with the documents and data provided to him; to issue an injunction in relation to the sums that have not yet been paid to a bonus company; to oblige the defendants, jointly and severally, to pay the balance of the debt, which was estimated by him in the sum of ILS 7, 000, 000 for the purposes of fees. He also petitioned for payment of ILS 150, 000 for the balance of the debt for the year 2013, plus linkage and interest differences.
- On February 14, 2019, Bonus filed the counterclaim, directed at Mr. Zaruk, Mei Ad and Weinberger. The compensation claimed was set at ILS 2, 000, 000 anda fee.
The statement of claim against him suffered from some ambiguity, with regard to the requested monetary compensation. It included a claim that Mr. Zarrouk had breached his obligations to protect the company's trade secrets and stole them; that he violated his duty of fiduciary duty and his duty of good faith to it by stealing its customers and employees, together with the Weinberger firm. It was argued that this was establishedand tort caused breach of contract and unlawful enrichment. Against this background, the counter-defendants were required to compensate, jointly and severally, the counter-plaintiff in the sum of ILS 2 million.