The one who left on amicable terms may have been one of them but I can assure you that he would have only been partly to blame. In my view contracts are written the way they are for a reason. They are intentionally drafted using arcane and convoluted terms so that they cannot be easily read, let alone understood. Lawyers are masters of obfuscation. It's a common way of trying to put something past the other, with the hope that along the way they will at some point be either tripped up or so confused that they no longer know what is going on!

The "finance people" of the company should not be expected to fully understand all of the intricacies of such a complicated contract. The better question is what role did the Company's lawyers play, if any, in the drafting of the contract? Even better question, did the lawyer fully explain it and/or provide OWC with a sort of "cliffnotes" condensed version of the contract with timelines, etc., or perhaps even with a Hebrew translation of the contract. These, as you know, are some of the same reasons that set the stage for the ongoing malpractice lawsuit against Sichenza, Ross, et. al.... law firm. I hope that this is not another one in the making.