I determined that the information on the basis of which the amendment is requested was in the possession of a bonus company or should have been in its possession, and there is no detail in the application as to when it was discovered. It was also noted that the procedure is already at a relatively advanced stage, and that the requested amendment will lead to its cumbersomeness. An application for leave to appeal submitted to the Supreme Court was also rejected (Civil Appeal Authority 4287/21; The decision of the Honorable Judge, as he was then called, Sohlberg).
- After the evidence was submitted, arguments from Mr. Zaruk's affidavit were deleted, which related to data that was not approved to amend the counterclaim in their case. And even at the evidentiary stage, it was clarified that the issue of negligence that is the subject of the amendment is no longer on the agenda (p. 182, Q. 30 - 183, S. 18).
- In addition, in my decisions (of April 13, 2022, at p. 8, 11-23; and of August 5, 2022), it was determined that the witnesses of the main prosecution would hear in relation to the entire dispute in this lawsuit. On the other hand, with regard to the counterclaim, there will be a split, and the question of "liability" will first be clarified, i.e., whether the counter-defendants violated the law or their obligations vis-à-vis the counterclaimants. This decision was made in order to save considerable procedural resources involved in clarifying accounts with many authorities and corporations, which are required in order to quantify the compensation, to the extent that the claims of the bonus company, the counterclaimant, are accepted.
- Four evidentiary hearings were held in the case.
- On behalf of Mr. Zaruk and Mei-Ad, the plaintiff himself, the expert on his behalf, CPA Yitzhak Slobodiansky; Mrs. Tzipora Kadosh - his secretary and assistant; Mr. Yakir Zaken - who was the manager of the proactive billing department at the Jerusalem Water Corporation "Hagihon"; and Mr. Eran Friedler - who was Deputy Director of Revenue in the Building and Development Division of the Tel Aviv Municipality.
- Goldian himself testified on behalf of Bonus and Mr. Goldian; the expert on his behalf, CPA, who, as recalled, managed the accounting with Mr. Zaruk in real time; as well as a number of employees of a bonus company from Mr. Zaruk's department: Mr. Moshe Tutian; Mrs. Michal Buchbinder; Mrs. Hila Levy; Mr. Leon Siegewalker; Mr. Ram Sides; Adv. Yossi Shaked; Mr. Tomer Nissenbaum; Mr. Asael Kalfa; Mr. Shahar Koreish; Adv. Shimi Golan - Mr. Zaruk's replacement at Bonus Company; and attorney Shuki Chen, who also replaced.
- Attorney Bertenthal testified on behalf of Weinberger's office.
- The parties submitted summaries, and the time for a decision came.
The main arguments of the parties
- The arguments of the parties are many and branched. I will present the main points here. I will address additional issues at the discussion and decision stage. I didn't find any justification for deviating from the result I had reached.
The main arguments of Mr. Zaruk in the main prosecution
- According to the plaintiff, Mr. Goldian recognized well and quickly the potential inherent in him and his activity in the field, and therefore suggested that he join his business. The first two agreements were drafted by Mr. Goldian, and no terms were negotiated. These were in fact dictated to him, and the second agreement was formulated even before the parties were reckoned with.
When the audit was made in 2012 by CPA Schleper, on behalf of a bonus company, it was unacceptable to Mr. Zaruk. This is a biased and distorted calculation, which included inflated expenses, and which is not backed up by references. Therefore, the parties began negotiations on a new, third agreement, and for the first time began exchanging drafts with comments and amendments.