Honorable Judge Schmidt:
We are confused and baffled by Isaac Oberlander’s demands and ultimatums. Firstly, let us set the record straight: Yoely Brach (“Yoely”) is the defendant and should not dictate the terms of any arbitration proceedings. The fact remains that Mr. Jacob Guttman, the owner of Court Street Office Supplies, Inc. (“Company”), employed Yoely – right out of Kollel with no formal or general education – out of kindheartedness and compassion to his son-in-law. As Yoely mistook his father-in-law’s unselfishness for weakness, he engaged in erratic behavior, breached his fiduciary duties to the Company, and embezzled the Company by hundreds of thousands of dollars. Furthermore, when the Company sought to implement internal controls and hire a controller – as would any company of this size, Yoely threatened to burn the house down.
Finally, after the situation became unbearable and once Yoely rerouted close to $100,000 of merchandise to Yoely’s National Craft, Inc. – a …show more content…
We do not believe, at this time, that Yoely or his representatives have the right to any computer records, despite him already retaining access to a user account with access to the records. If Yoely believes that he has a monetary claim against the Company, then let him provide documentation to substantiate any such claims, and only then should we discuss what limited access is necessary.
2) There was never any discussion amongst any partners to grant Yoely any interest in the company. There was talk with Yoely about 7% commission of the Amazon net profit – to which he never agreed to and not agreement was finalized. Accordingly, so long that Yoely doesn’t provide us with any reason to believe that he has rights to the Company’s proprietary information, we do not feel obliged to grant him access to the partners’ emails regarding the business
We are confused and baffled by Isaac Oberlander’s demands and ultimatums. Firstly, let us set the record straight: Yoely Brach (“Yoely”) is the defendant and should not dictate the terms of any arbitration proceedings. The fact remains that Mr. Jacob Guttman, the owner of Court Street Office Supplies, Inc. (“Company”), employed Yoely – right out of Kollel with no formal or general education – out of kindheartedness and compassion to his son-in-law. As Yoely mistook his father-in-law’s unselfishness for weakness, he engaged in erratic behavior, breached his fiduciary duties to the Company, and embezzled the Company by hundreds of thousands of dollars. Furthermore, when the Company sought to implement internal controls and hire a controller – as would any company of this size, Yoely threatened to burn the house down.
Finally, after the situation became unbearable and once Yoely rerouted close to $100,000 of merchandise to Yoely’s National Craft, Inc. – a …show more content…
We do not believe, at this time, that Yoely or his representatives have the right to any computer records, despite him already retaining access to a user account with access to the records. If Yoely believes that he has a monetary claim against the Company, then let him provide documentation to substantiate any such claims, and only then should we discuss what limited access is necessary.
2) There was never any discussion amongst any partners to grant Yoely any interest in the company. There was talk with Yoely about 7% commission of the Amazon net profit – to which he never agreed to and not agreement was finalized. Accordingly, so long that Yoely doesn’t provide us with any reason to believe that he has rights to the Company’s proprietary information, we do not feel obliged to grant him access to the partners’ emails regarding the business