Rami Levy Files 2.3 Million NIS Lawsuit Against Super Cofix Franchisees
Rami Levy has filed a 2.3 million NIS lawsuit against two Super Cofix franchisees over un-deposited cash revenues and alleged contract breaches. The defense denies the claims, citing operational pressure and salary payments.
Rami Levy Hashikma Marketing has filed a 2.3 million NIS lawsuit in the Tel Aviv Magistrate's Court against two franchisees who operated three Super Cofix branches in Ra'anana, Givat Shmuel, and Allenby Street in Tel Aviv. According to the statement of claim, under the franchise agreements, the franchisees were required to transfer daily cash revenues from the cash registers to a monitored safe, enabling the company to track deposits and recorded register amounts.
According to the lawsuit, first reported by Calcalist, the company claims that between April and June 2024, the franchisees stopped making daily cash deposits into the safes, while simultaneously security cameras in the stores were disconnected or covered. During a meeting held with Cofix CEO Pini Shitrit, the un-deposited amount at one point reached 194,000 NIS. The lawsuit states that the franchisees explained they used the funds to pay a VAT debt, but the company argued this constituted a fundamental breach of the franchise agreement and demanded they vacate the branches.
The lawsuit alleges that even afterward, the franchisees continued operating the stores and failed to transfer all funds to the safes. When Shitrit arrived at the branches to conduct an inventory count, he was reportedly denied entry. At this point, the company claims, the un-deposited sum had already reached 290,000 NIS, prompting the filing of a police complaint against the franchisees.
In response, Adv. Shosh River, representing the franchisees, rejects the company's claims. She stated that the two individuals, who are around 60 years old, were signed to a franchise agreement and subsequently pressured to take on additional branches, including the Allenby branch which she claims accumulated losses. She further asserted that the franchisees used incoming cash revenues to pay salaries with Super Cofix's knowledge, and that subsequent offsets or post-dated checks were handled. According to her, they were ultimately forced to vacate the branches on short notice, and legal claims are currently underway between the parties.
