Although the third agreement was not signed in the end, there were two specific agreements that the parties reached, and acted accordingly in practice until their separation. These were also validated in an accounting conducted by CPA Schlefer after the separation, in March 2016.
- Zaruk expressed complaints about the accounting conducted by the Bonus Company, and Mr. Goldian, for his part, expressed complaints about the quality of his work and his absences from work. Against this background, Mr. Zaruk ultimately decided to retire from the company, as a result of Mr. Goldian's conduct towards him. In any event, the grievances raised in relation to his work were unfounded. His business activities have led to extraordinary results due to his work in the development levies department at Bonus Company. This generated a great deal of income thanks to him, andwhenthe time came to receive the consideration, the defendants tried to evade payment, as they did with other parties with whom they entered into a business relationship.
- The plaintiff presented the proper mechanism for calculating the balance of the debt owed by the bonus company to him. It must be determined that the opinion of the expert Schlefer on behalf of the defendants is inadmissible, since he was involved in the events that are the subject of the lawsuit over the years, and in light of the flaws that occurred in it. He is tainted by a serious and clear conflict of interest, and therefore cannot serve as an expert in the present proceeding. The parties agree that various expenses should be deducted from the consideration due to Mr. Zaruk, but the calculations made by CPA Schlper are flawed in distorting the facts and artificially inflating the expenses of the employees' wages, and of the payments of attorneys' fees, surveyors and vehicles, of the expenses of the employees who replaced Mr. Zaruk, and more.
- Contrary to what was claimed by the defendants, the plaintiff proved what was required of him regarding his work, which entitles him to payment. After the evidentiary stage, it became clear that the proven profit in the cases he handled amounted to ILS 16, 293, 261. From this amount, the percentage to which he is entitled should be derived in accordance with the binding agreements reached by the parties.
However, since the data for the purpose of the calculation is in a bonus company, and it has disclosed only some of it, Mr. Zaruk petitioned to make use of theaverage profit percentage rate, which CPA Schlefer stated in the accounting sheet he sent to the plaintiff in March 2016 - 21.6% plus VAT. The deductions for the indirect expenses and advance payments that have already been paid to Mr. Zaruk from 2014 onwards are also to be made.