In other words, in order to attribute a duty of the company to the shareholder by way of lifting the veil, it is indeed not possible to skip the evidentiary clarification and the need to lay "a proper factual basis and meet the required burden of proof" in order to prove the act of fraud or deprivation of creditors or to expose the company to an unreasonable risk. Such evidentiary clarification of the merits of the dispute is supposed to be made in the arbitration proceeding.
At the same time, for the purpose of lifting the veil only for the limited purpose of whether the arbitration clause signed by the company can also be attributed to its shareholder, who serves as its long arm, the same evidentiary infrastructure is not required for attributing the company's debt to the shareholder, and the requirement will be more lenient, when it is sufficient that the applicant for the combination will show that "in the circumstances of the case, it is just and proper to do so"
I found support for my above position in the judgment given in the Jerusalem District Court (the Honorable Judge Miriam Ilani) in Civil Case 65669-06-21 Rahat v. Amrani, [Nevo], which ordered a stay of proceedings in a lawsuit filed with the court due to the existence of an arbitration clause, while lifting the curtain between the shareholder who signed the arbitration clause and the companies under his control.
It was held:
"A typical case in which it is requested to add a party close to an arbitration proceeding is a case such as the case before us, in which "it is requested that persons who are closely related to one of the parties who are signatories to the arbitration agreement, but the principle of separate legal personality separates them... [This is actually the third circle, Y.S.] There is no dispute that 'sometimes it will be justified to order a lifting of the veil when it is necessary to prevent circumvention of an arbitration agreement while taking advantage of the company's separate personality'... In this regard, it should be emphasized that this is not a regular lifting of the veil that concerns the attribution of a company's debt to its shareholder, in which case this will be done in exceptional cases and within the framework of the closed list of cases detailed in section 6(a) of the Companies Law, 5759 - 1999 ...Rather, it is a case of lifting the veil that is referred to in the legal literature as 'mock lifting of the veil' (see Yosef Gross, Companies Law, Vol. 1 (Fifth Edition, 2016, 242), which is anchored in section 6(b) of the Companies Law, according to which 'the court may attribute an attribute, right or obligation of a shareholder to a company or a right of a company to a shareholder thereof, if it finds that in the circumstances of the matter it is just and proper to do so, taking into account the intention of the law or the agreement that applies to the matter before it'. And even if I assume that a simulated lifting of the veil will also be done in exceptional cases (although this is not explicitly stated in section 6(b) and see Civil Appeal 7957/13 from Derech Oz in Tax Appeal v. Tel Aviv Tax Assessor, paragraph 79 [Nevo] (November 1, 2018)), a closed list of cases in which the veil is lifted and this is possible in any case in which 'in the circumstances of the matter it is just and correct to do so, taking into account the intention of the law or the agreement that applies to the matter'" (paragraph 13).