Yesterday (Tuesday), the National Labor Court rejected the appeal filed by Moshe Hananel, former CEO of the Israeli branch of Interface Partners, against the decisionRegional Labor Court to postpone theclaim filed against the owners of the company, Sheldon Adelson, and against the company itself. This is demanding 12% of Adelson's rights in his businesses in Macau, an island off the southern coast of China.
The appeals they filed also Hananel On the other hand, Adelson and the company, on the issue of the rate of expenses and attorney's fees, which were ruled in favor of Adelson, were rejected.
The President of the National Court, Yigal Flitman, and Judges Leah Glicksman and Ilan Sofer ruled that Hananel Sab's appeal against the factual determinations of the Regional Labor Court, which wrote a comprehensive ruling, does not justify the intervention of the National Court.
Want more news, videos and stories? Join the Haredim 10 WhatsApp channel >>
The regional court ordered Hananel to pay Adelson's company (IPI), represented by attorneys Dori Klagsbald and Amir Shraga, legal expenses of 40,000 shekels, and attorney fees of 280,000 shekels, and Adelson legal expenses of 40,000 shekels. Hananel claimed that this was an unusual and extraordinary amount and a complete change in labor court policy that harms not only Hananel, but also fundamental principles, including the right of access to the courts.
""The right of access to the courts will be denied to salaried employees (such as Hananel. HM) who seek to sue wealthy employers in general and employers whose means at their disposal are not limited, such as Adelson, in particular," Hananel claimed. According to him, the district court ignored the enormous power imbalances between him and Adelson, who is one of the richest people in the world. Adelson's Las Vegas Sands company earned $671 million in the past quarter.
On the other hand, Adelson argued that the costs and attorney's fees awarded in their favor did not reflect their actual expenses in the proceedings against Hananel and that they came out of pocket worse off than him, even though his claim was rejected. The National Court agreed with Hananel that the fee rate awarded by the Regional Court was exceptional, but noted that in the circumstances of the case there was no reason to reduce it.
""The ruling on the exceptional amount of expenses is mainly based on the 'Macau claim' which is worth hundreds of millions of shekels by way of understatement and which required the comprehensive evidentiary tract and the bulk of the work in the case," wrote the judges of the National Court. According to them, although Hananel filed his claim as an "employee" of Adelson, it is a claim whose dominant characteristic is a business-commercial one of receiving consideration in return for a financial investment.
""This is not a claim under protective labor law or a clear claim of employee rights, as an employee is generally entitled to compensation for his work only and does not invest significant amounts of money in addition to his work. In light of the above, Hananel's claims regarding the meaning of the costs ruling and its implications for employees' right of access to courts must be rejected," it was determined.
In a lawsuit filed in 2001 and another lawsuit filed in 2003, Hananel claimed against Adelson that he had stolen his rights in the tourism and casino venture that Adelson had established in Macau. Hananel claimed that he was the one who revealed to Adelson the possibility of investing in Macau, and that the assistance he provided to Adelson led to his success in obtaining the concession from the Macau authorities to build the venture.
As stated, Regional Labor Court Judge Ilan Sofer dismissed the lawsuit, ruling that Hananel's claims that Adelson gave him an option for 12% from his businesses in Macau and that he was the one who brought about its success are "false claims.".
Regarding Hananel's claim that he explained to Adelson how he should act in Macau, the court ruled that it is difficult to see why Adelson would need Hananel to design the project, which, after Adelson's entry into the region, became the largest tourist complex in the world. In addition, the court also rejected all of Hananel's claims that Adelson denied him the rights to which he was entitled under labor law. The court ruled that Adelson had paid Hananel severance pay according to law, and rejected his claim for additional compensation.
Hananel's claim for a bonus for realizing Adelson's investment in Auto Depot was also rejected. Adelson will be represented by attorneys Dr. Dori Klagsbald and Amir Shraga; and Hananel - by attorneys David Peretz and Adi Figel.
• Opinion / Doron Avigad: Why does a small plaintiff have to pay Attorney Klagsbald's inflated fees?
