Caselaw

Civil Case (Tel Aviv) 45944-12-20 Helen Travis v. Global Guardianship Technologies (2010) Ltd. - part 47

June 23, 2025
Print

Before examining the facts in the present case, I find it necessary to detail the normative indications relevant to the two alternatives for imposing liability on the Sabbath - including the distinction between lifting the veil and imposing personal liability on officers and shareholders in the company.

As for this, the discussion of the basic assumption of corporate law and accordingly the company has a separate legal entity from the legal entity of its shareholders and officers.  A result of this basic assumption is that, as a rule, the actions of the company's organ or shareholder, which were carried out on behalf of the company, are not attributed to the organ itself.  Moreover, in a limited liability company (a limited liability company), the liability of the shareholders in the company is up to the value of their shares, and as a result, the company's debts cannot be attributed to the shareholders beyond their limited guarantee as aforesaid.

At the same time, in the framework of the law and case law, two tracks have been established in the framework of which it will be possible to attribute personal liability to the company's organs or shareholders for its debts - the first track - lifting the corporate veil and attributing the company's debts to its shareholders (and the opinion was also heard that even against its managers in the event of bad faith), in accordance with section 6 of the Companies Law, 5759-1999 (hereinafter: the "Companies Law").  The second track - attributing personal tort liability to a company organ based on section 54 of the Companies Law.

  1. On the relationship between lifting the veil and imposing personal responsibility -

Before examining the two tracks on their merits, I would like to preface a preliminary remark on the distinction between lifting the veil and imposing personal responsibility, a distinction that should be taken into account.  This, given that in the end - prima facie the result of taking one of the two tracks is identical - personal liability is imposed on an organ or a shareholder for the company's debts.

Previous part1...4647
48...66Next part