Therefore, only from what has been brought before us is there room to lift the veil between the debts of defendants 1, 2 and 3 and Mr. Yona, and to obligate him, together with the other defendants, with the payment that was awarded. (Only as a stipulation that the mixing of funds also arises on page 23 of the arbitrator's ruling).
- There is no dispute that Victor Yona is bankrupt today. It is doubtful what is the significance of his personal obligation in this judgment. At the same time, in view of the mixing of funds between the other defendants and Mr. Yona - defendant 4 and his testimony on this matter and in the matter of his being the issuer and the person who brought it, we found that the "veil" was lifted between his own professional hats in view of his conduct. The burden was lifted by the plaintiffs regarding his direct involvement in the agreements, although this does not justify a deviation from what is written in them. Therefore, the payments that the defendants were charged in this proceeding will also be paid by him jointly and severally with the other defendants.
Delay
- We should not elaborate on the long delay in this claim, and we have already addressed this in the first chapter (see sections 13, 14 above, and more). However, it should be emphasized that Mr. Sassi's testimony showed that evidentiary damage had been caused and that the cause of action on the date of filing the claim was at least indirectly related to the changes of ownership in defendants 1, 2 and 3 in 2007. Mr. Sassi notes that when he took over the group, as he put it, in 2007, there was no lawsuit pending, whereas this change, according to him, led to the filing of the lawsuit in December 2007. (p. 55, s. 11 ff.). This delay joins other perplexities that we have detailed with respect to each plaintiff and the absence of any claim by him at a previous date. The circumstances of the delay in general and these in particular add up to the manner in which the claim itself was managed during it, and for this reason many decisions have been made that cannot be repeated. All of this is necessary for us when we come to consider an expense ruling.
Conclusion
- The only claim that was partially accepted was his claim for severance pay for Mr. Avrahami Eyal in the amount of ILS 5852.6. All defendants 1, 12, 3 and 4 will pay the severance pay jointly and severally in the total amount of ILS 5,852.6, within 30 days, together with linkage differences and interest from the date of filing the claim until the date of actual payment.
- The claims for severance pay of all the other plaintiffs were also rejected for each of its specific reasons.
- We found that in view of the plaintiffs' conduct and even though one of them won part of his claim, the defendants should not be charged with costs. On the contrary, we seriously considered the liability of the plaintiffs for the defendants' expenses. We considered, inter alia, in view of the decisions that related to the plaintiffs' conduct in the proceeding (for example, from October 14, 2009, January 21, 2010, 2/3/10, 6/7/10, etc.), including the failure to provide some of the material information in their affidavits on their behalf. In some of the decisions, we even allowed the consideration of expenses until the end of the proceeding. Therefore, the plaintiffs, with the exception of Mr. Avrahami, who is not obligated to pay expenses, i.e., Mr. Ronen Shweig, Mr. Motti Ohayon, Mr. Amir Gola and Mr. Dado Dahan, must each pay the defendants' attorneys' fees in the sum of ILS 1,875 and together a total of ILS 7,500 within 30 days.
Granted today, August 21, 2011, in the absence of the parties.