The Ottoman Settlement [Old Version] 1916
12-34-56-78 Chekhov v. State of Israel, P.D. 51 (2)5. Polybit and the respondents, even though they are represented by the same law firm, and even though they have the same interest, filed Due to their considerations Two separate replies, and not only did this give rise to the scope of a double argument, but the reply submitted on behalf of respondents 2-4 extends over 7 pages (two pages of concluding introduction to which 5 pages of "reasons for the reply" were added), in deviation from the scope set out in the Regulations.
- In the reply filed on behalf of Polybit, it was claimed that it is not a party to the agreements between its shareholders and Geffen, and in any case they do not impose any obligation on it, material or procedural, including litigation in arbitration, when there is only one agreement between it and Geffen, which is the loan agreement, which establishes, in clause 3.7, a unique jurisdiction clause for the court.
Polybit argues (and emphasizes that Geffen did not argue in the application for the appointment to apply any of the expansion circles) that it should not be regarded as falling under any of the three expansion circles recognized in case law in the context of joining a party to an arbitration proceeding, especially since the recent case law indicates that the arrangement in section 6 of the Companies Law, 5759-1999, can no longer be relied upon for the purpose of lifting the veil in order to bind in arbitration a person for whom the basis of consent to arbitration has not been proven.
- Respondents 2-4 do not deny their signing of the three agreements, which include an arbitration clause (they have no claim in the context of their father's testimony inThe course of the discussion in temporary remedies that took place before the Honorable Registrar, according to which he was the one who signed the agreements), They do not dispute the existence of a conflictBut We are strongly opposed to the request for the appointment regarding them as well. According to them, it became clear to them that this was a fraud; that the agreements were intended for an illegal purpose, similar to the course of action taken by Geffen in the agreements it entered into with other agencies; that the date stated on the agreements was intended to establish a false detail in the prospectus published by the parent company on the Australian Stock Exchange; that the agreements were canceled and abandoned back in 2023 following a cancellation notice sent to Gefen's dominant shareholders; that Geffen refrained from taking practical steps to enforce The Agreements prior to the conclusion of the deal with Ayalon; that the question of the validity of the agreements is not within the authority of the arbitrator appointed by virtue of him; that in light of the fraudulent allegations, there is a public interest in the public conduct of the litigation in court.
Copied from Nevo8. In her response to the reply, Geffen categorically dismisses the claim of fraud by the respondents, which is inconsistent, according to their position, with the evidence indicating the existence of "A significant technology developed by dozens of programmers"; that the Honorable Registrar, which heard its request for foreclosure, had already determined that the respondents had confirmed that they had also signed the documents intended for the Australian Stock Exchange, that "The Living Spirit" Polybit is the father of the respondents, who testified that he signed the agreements on their behalf, and that he usually delves into the representations and documents that are brought to him for review and/or signature.