Mobile Market Dispute Heads to Arbitration Amid Data Theft Claims
Translated & summarized from Ice by baba
Partners in the mobile marketing company "All-In" have agreed to swift arbitration to resolve a dispute involving mutual accusations of broken agreements and unallocated funds totaling over NIS 3 million. "Simple," an 18% stakeholder, alleges halted distributions and improper executive appointments, while "Ronal" claims data was siphoned from company systems. The arbitration will also address asset ownership and potential separation.
The story in 5 lines · by baba
- Partners in "All-In" mobile marketing company agreed to fast-track arbitration over financial and operational disputes.
- One partner, "Simple," claims over NIS 3 million in distributions were halted for a year.
- "Ronal," another partner, accused "Simple" of siphoning data from "All-In" systems on October 18.
- "Simple" denies data theft, stating they merely redirected their own domain and systems.
- The arbitration will also cover ownership of assets, accounting, and the possibility of partner separation.
A significant dispute between partners in the "All-In" mobile marketing company has moved to arbitration, as ordered by the Central District Court. The court registered the parties' agreement for a swift arbitration process, setting a November 5 deadline for them to appoint an arbitrator ready to begin immediately. The conflict involves mutual accusations of broken agreements, unallocated funds, and the transfer of business operations.
"All-In Advanced Systems 22" operates behind the scenes of mobile package sales, coordinating marketing and operations between telecom companies and resellers who acquire customers. According to a demand letter from "Simple," one of the partners, the company joined the venture in August 2024 and holds an 18% stake. Other partner groups include "Ronal," associated with Emanuel Cohen, and groups linked to Moshiko Attias and Mendi Karsik.
"Simple" claims that the partnership agreement stipulated monthly distributions of NIS 260,000 to all shareholders based on their holdings, provided a minimum cash balance was maintained. The company alleges these distributions ceased for about a year, accumulating to over NIS 3 million. The letter also claims that executive salaries were stopped, financial reports were not provided, and Cohen began serving as CEO in January without a valid board resolution. An attempted resolution in June, which included retroactive approval of his interim role, reportedly failed as commitments were not met.
Conversely, "Ronal" reportedly approached the court with claims that on the night of October 18, data was siphoned from "All-In" systems, and operations were diverted to a separate system. "Simple" and its owners deny these allegations, stating they merely redirected their domain to their own system. They assert that the system, agent codes, and shop connections were in their possession before joining the venture and were never transferred to the joint company.
The dispute also concerns the revenue itself. "Simple" declares in its demand letter that funds received through its agent code are held in a separate, documented account and are unused. The company reserves the right to offset these funds against amounts it claims are owed to it and proposes transferring them to "All-In" pending an interim arrangement that includes submitting reports and settling signature authorities. The amount held separately is not specified. The parties now seek an external resolution through arbitration, with "Simple" demanding that the arbitration address ownership of assets and operations, accounting, and the possibility of separation.