Another argument of the appellants in this context is that the court ignored important evidence of the authenticity of the split - An e-mail sent by Mr. Bertelain, on behalf of the acquiring company, to Kahane, in which he stated that the agreement was intended to ensure that he would not compete with the acquiring company. In this context, the appellants complained that the court owed them the fact that Mr. Bertelain was not brought to testify, despite the explanation they provided according to which Mr. Bertelain was fired from the acquiring company and by virtue of an agreement with it he was prevented from providing information about it.
In addition, the appellants complained that the court gave weight to the documents attached by the respondent on behalf of senior executives of the Thermo-Fisher company (which, as noted above, acquired the acquiring company) and that it appears that the split of the consideration was done at Kahane's request. According to the appellants, these parties were not involved in the negotiations at all and have no personal knowledge of the matter, and therefore there was no room to give any weight to the documents that they had issued. In addition, according to the appellants, the respondent did not contact the people of the purchasing company at all, but rather the employees of the Thermo-Fisher company, who, as stated, have no personal knowledge, and the court did not attribute this to the respondent's duty, as in the opinion of the appellants it should have done. Moreover, according to the appellants, the court ignored the admission of these employees that they had no knowledge of the manner in which the consideration was determined and the purpose of the non-compete agreement with Kahane. Instead, the court received a letter and an email correspondence"of these employees without an affidavit and without testimony, and gave them weight in light of his assumption that they would not have produced an official document without checking its credibility. In doing so, according to the appellants, the court has overly flexible the rules of evidence.