To this, it should be added that contrary to Max's claim, Mr. Shitrit did not admit in the transcript that he was the CEO of Super Stock. Mr. Shitrit claimed in the transcript (ibid., at page 61, Q. 171-176) that he was a director and a shareholder by means of something (the passage is interrupted with "..."), but he did not confirm that he was the CEO of the chain, even though he was asked about it. It appears from the discourse that the investigator asked him both about the position of CEO and the position of director, and that he had recently received confirmation.
- Thus, the transcript itself cannot serve as a basis for the claim that someone admitted that Mr. Shimshon is the shareholder in the Superstock company.
- In any event, Mr. Shitrit testified in his affidavit and in his cross-examination that Mr. Shimshon had no connection to Super Stock, other than the family connection to his brother Michael (paragraphs 14-15 of his affidavit). In his interrogation, he denied that he had said in the conversation that Mr. Shimshon was the living spirit of the Super Stock Company (pp. 168, Q. 7-10). He explained that he might have bragged about his relationship with Mr. Shimshon, because of his good name; and since the investigator presented himself as a potential investor, it was important for him to impress him.
Max claimed in its summaries that Mr. Sheetrit's testimony was not reliable. Still, this is not the question at hand. The question is whether Max Stock collected enough to substantiate its serious claims. It did not do so, and this fact will not change even if it tries to cast aspersions on Mr. Sheetrit's testimony in court. In any event, the transcript as presented is not enough.
The evidentiary material substantiated Mr. Shimshon's assistance to his brother to purchase shares in a super-talk company
- In fact, from the very beginning, Mr. Shimshon admitted to the details that were subsequently presented in the evidence on his behalf. In the letter of reply to the notice of cancellation (dated February 8,2018; Appendix 6 to the counterclaim), he presented his version of events:
Our client [Mr. Shimshon] has no connection to the Super Stock chain, except for the fact that one of his brothers is one of the partners in the ownership of this chain, as a result of a transaction in which the spirit in which he lived, and led by him, was a third party who was not a member of the family. For this purpose, our client's brother requested, and at the time received a financial loan from our client, who is, as stated, his brother. Our client also assisted his brother, who entered into the transaction, in examining its economic, accounting and legal feasibility, so that his brother would not immediately lose his money. Our client's involvement in these activities, including only them, was done as a family-friendly matter, and because our client is an experienced and knowledgeable businessman, he is much more knowledgeable than his brother. Once this transaction was formulated, our client was very careful to refrain from any involvement or interest in the Superstock chain (ibid., in paragraph 7 [emphasis in original]).