The burden required to lift the legal curtain separating the company from its shareholder only for the purpose of attributing the arbitration clause to both of them, even though only one of them signed it, is lower than that required by lifting the curtain for the purpose of attributing the company's debt to the shareholder, and it is sufficient, for example, to show that "in the circumstances of the case, it is right and right to do so".
More than necessary, it should be noted that the aforesaid should not prevent a plaintiff from relying his claim against the shareholder or the company's organizer on other grounds.
- Let us therefore return to our matter, and examine the circumstances of the case, whether they are sufficient to lift the curtain on the issue of attributing the arbitration clause to Lifshitz as well, when the arguments on their merits will be arbitrated in arbitration.
Lifshitz is the sole shareholder of Thai, Lifshitz is also the sole director of Thai, Lifshitz is the sole shareholder of Cuba; Lifshitz is the publisher and the importer of the Tai and he is the one who participated in the meetings with the applicants and served as the long and only arm of Tai in all matters relating to the issue of our case. Lifshitz confirmed in his interrogation that he was the one who handled the whole thing: "I, of course, was deeply involved in this project" (page 23 of the transcript according to the upper numbering). Lifshitz tried to qualify his only involvement in the project when he stated that "I, together with my team, are leading the matter" (ibid.), but when the applicants' counsel did not let go and demanded to receive the names of other parties in the cell that were involved in the transaction, Lifshitz was unable to mention a single name of another party in the cell that dealt with the project in question.
Lifshitz was the one who decided that the remaining rights in the land would be purchased by Cuba and not by Thai, as he said in his interrogation: "Q. I mean, you, Gal, as the manager of Thai, decided to transfer the option to Cuba and Tatterhead. That's the question. Right? A. I guess you can say it that way" (p. 33 of the transcript transcripted according to the top numbering). Needless to say, the difference is emphasized. If Thai had purchased the land, a 100% result would have been achieved anyway, since Thai has already signed the sharing agreement. When the rights were purchased in Cuba's name, the new partnership was able to refuse to sign the sharing agreement.