Following mediation: the founder of Quick will receive only one third of the shares he claimed were taken from him - voila! Sentence

The legal process reveals the fascinating process of establishing Kwik (Photo: Yehats)

Moshe Maximov, the founder of the public food delivery company Quick and who previously served as its CEO, will receive only about a third (35%) of the shares that he claimed that his former partner tried to illegally take from him. This was recently determined in mediation (as part of a Tel Aviv District Court case 41371-07-21) which was conducted by retired judge Hila Gerstel and the judgment was validated. In the

lawsuit filed by Maximov, he claimed that Haniel Elmakis, another shareholder in Quick and who held a large number of shares in trust for Maximov, tried to transfer a significant portion of the shares to his name Contrary to the law. Following the mediation, Almakis will receive 65% of the disputed shares.

The legal process reveals the fascinating process of establishing Kwik. According to the lawsuit filed by Maximov at the Tel Aviv District Court, the Economic Department, he started already in 2017 Roll the idea into a startup that later became Kwik.The idea was based on identifying the need for neighborhood supermarkets to go online.

According to the lawsuit, Maximov realized that on the one hand, neighborhood supermarkets do not have the ability to develop an internet infrastructure for deliveries on their own, and on the other hand, they are harmed by the online activities of the large chains.

In the lawsuit, it was stated that Maximov "identified the vacuum" and came up with an idea under which a start-up would be established that would open a universal platform that would unite neighborhood supermarkets and allow them to market their products on the Internet, with a commitment that the delivery would arrive at the customer's home within a short period of time.

"It was about an idea that is no less than genius," claims the lawsuit filed by Maximov.

"Thus, on the one hand, the neighborhood supermarkets benefit from an increase in sales through Internet marketing, and on the other hand, the consumer benefits from a wide selection of products, a competitive price, and the availability of deliveries from moment to moment."

The lawsuit claims that in order to establish the start-up, Maximov began running around the country and recruiting neighborhood supermarkets for the potential supplier pool.

At the same time, he began to recruit officials for the company.

One of the most prominent among them was Haniel Almakis, a programmer born in Yeruham, whom Maksimov knew through his brother-in-law.

Soon the two became good friends, their families met and they went out together.

In the lawsuit, it was stated that based on the friendship and the bonds of trust forged between the two, Maximov asked Alemkis to join his startup as co-founder and VP of Technologies. According to the lawsuit, as part of the company's founders' agreement, it was determined that Maximov would receive 37.2% of the shares and Alemkis would receive only 9.4% of them However, Almkeys was not satisfied and demanded an increase in his share. As a result of this, it was stated in the lawsuit, Maximov agreed to sign an agreement in June 2017 in which it was determined that in practice the proportion of Almkeys' holdings would be 12.9%, with the difference of 3.5% being held in trust by Maximov

A few months passed, and the company began to raise funds as part of investment rounds.

In the first round, half a million shekels were raised from an investor who received 10% of the shares, and in the second round, Coca-Cola entered the company, investing 3.5 million dollars in the company for almost 25% of the shares.

The entry of Coca-Cola changed the balance of power.

In a short time, disputes emerged between her and Maksimov, claiming that the company's funds were in excess, claims that led the parties to negotiations on his retirement. As a result, Maksimov signed a waiver in July 2018 in which he waived all his claims against the company and the other founders and more than 22 One thousand shares. "The only vested interest that Maximov has left is the 5,532 shares in the company (before the issuance) that remain in his ownership," the lawsuit stated.

However, according to the lawsuit, in view of the lack of trust between Coca-Cola and Maximov, the company demanded that the remaining shares in his ownership be restricted and deposited In the hands of a fiduciary, only he will have the voting rights.

that he now had in his hands. Almakis had shares that he held in trust for Maksimov.

On the other hand, Maksimov had shares that he held in trust for Almkeys and was allegedly supposed to transfer to him, according to the agreement between them, immediately after the second round of investment in the company was made.

This is where the versions diverge.

While Maximov claims that Almkeys actually gave up the shares, and this can be learned because he did not initiate any contact with him even after several rounds of investment in the company, Almkeys claims that he did not give up the shares he was entitled to all along.

Since the company was issued on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange, all the shareholders transferred their shares to a trust company for the period stipulated by law.

According to the lawsuit, at some point Almkeys contacted the company that held Maximov's shares in trust and asked it to transfer his shares on his behalf, in order to receive what he was due according to the agreement with Maximov.

However, before acting, the company contacted Maximov to get his response to the request and to allow him to issue a legal order to prevent this.

From this, in fact, the Maximov claim was born.

Following this, Maksimov demanded that any change in the shares be stopped.

At the same time as the lawsuit Maksimov filed with the court, he also filed a request for a restraining order in which he demanded to prevent Almkeys from making any changes to the shares.

"Maksimov was forced to leave in shame"

in the response submitted by Almakais to the request for a restraining order, through

, he denied all of Maksimov's claims. According to him, the latter was forced to leave the company due to the alleged embezzlement of its funds and at the request of which he was forced to give up his shares.

"It's not for nothing that the 'raiser' (so according to the language of the response - ZM) gave up shares in the company and a considerable amount, and he certainly did not volunteer to do so," it was stated in the answer submitted to the court.

According to the answer, the alleged action was revealed when one of the partners, who was appointed temporary CEO of Kwik, went through the account books and "discovered to his astonishment that Maximov had transferred NIS 300,000 to his private account." Against the background of the alleged act, according to the response, Coca-Cola convened, that she is the main investor in the company, a meeting in which she demanded that Maximov leave all his positions in Quick immediately and no longer hold her shares.

In the period that followed, it is claimed, a tough negotiation took place between Maksimov and the company's management regarding the manner of his departure. In the end, an agreement was signed in which he agreed to resign from all his positions and transfer all his shares in trust to Almkeys. The parties also agreed that most of Maksimov's shares would be purchased on by the company as part of an expected investment round for NIS 2 million, "in addition to the money that Maksimov allegedly transferred to his private account".

As part of the response, Almakais claims through attorney Ben Artzi that at the beginning he was promised 15% of the company's shares for unpaid work during the establishment period, But when he came to sign the founders' agreement, he discovered to his surprise that less than 10% of the company's shares were registered in his name.

Against this background, Almkays claims, Maximov offered to transfer his own shares to him "to make up the shortfall", and later they signed the agreement under which 3.5% of the shares intended for Almkays would be held by Maximov and it was stipulated that their transfer would be carried out no later than the second round of investments that would enter the company.

According to Almakais, as part of Maximov's difficult departure procedure, he verbally agreed with him that the transfer of the missing shares to him would be carried out from the total number of shares remaining in his name in the company.

According to Almkeys, he never gave up the shares due to him and tried for a long time to settle the matter.

However, according to Almakais, after many attempts to implement the agreement with Maximov, and following the advice he received from Quick's lawyer, he instructed the company, which held the Maximov shares that he held in trust, to transfer them to his account.

"This action came when all the officers were exhausted," the response claimed, "its whole purpose was to protect against Maksimov's kidnapper."

As part of the mediation agreement that was signed between the parties recently and was validated by a ruling in the district court, the parties put their dispute behind them.

They agreed that Maksimov would own 35% of the disputed shares, while Almkeys would own the remaining 65% of the disputed shares.

firm's page on the legal website at

053-9380460. The

article is courtesy of Zap Legal

• Sentence

• additional subjects

Tags

• Shipments