"Personal liability is a completely different normative phenomenon from lifting the corporate veil of a company. Personal responsibility means imposing liability on the organ itself, personally, for its actions. We are dealing with personal liability in tort law. In our case, it therefore means imposing personal liability on an organ for a tort that it committed. Lifting the veil is a cure. The essence of the drug is to ignore the legal personality of the company and create a direct legal relationship between a third party and the shareholders of the company...
From a theoretical point of view, it should be emphasized that personal liability fulfills the fundamental principle regarding the separate legal personality of the company. Lifting the curtain gnaws at the same principle by ignoring it. The advantage of personal liability lies in its success in 'expanding the circle of rivalries and contributing to the development of standards for personal liability of officers and controlling shareholders in the company, without eroding the generality of the principle of separate legal personality' (A. Haviv-Segal, "New Trends in Curtain-Raising Laws," Iyunei Mishpat 17 (1992-53) 197, 214)."
The Supreme Court was also required to distinguish between the two tracks in the Ben-Ma'ash judgment, and held as follows, in paragraph 42 of the judgment:
"It should be noted that the purpose of lifting the veil is to prevent the misuse of the separate legal personality of the company, in order to realize an impermissible purpose desirable to the shareholder (see S. Ottolenghi, "Lifting the Veil of One of the Reasons for It," Hapraklit 25, at p. 465). Such a lifting of the veil is directed against the shareholders, who sought to exploit the separate legal personality doctrine of the corporation for an improper purpose, such as deriving benefits for themselves by fraudulent means, when they seek to hide behind the separation veil and be saved by the claim of the injured parties or the "tribe of wrath" of the law (see Civil Appeal 4606/90 Moverman et al. v. Tel Mer Ltd., IsrSC 46 (5) 353).