However, in June 2021, it became clear to the Applicants that "behind their backs", Tasawir's rights were purchased, first by Thai in a transaction that was canceled, and then by the Cuban company, of which Lifshitz is the sole shareholder, in cooperation with Michael Speer and the Tetrahead company under his control, creating a new group that refused to sign the sharing agreement.
The dream of the applicants and the other rights holders to act together on behalf of 100% of the rights holders has been lost. The Applicants, according to them, in a step of reducing damages, sold their rights, even though they claim that they were at a considerable loss.
The Applicants and the Chambers filed huge lawsuits against each other, even though the Applicants' main complaint is directed against Lifshitz personally, for whom it was stated in the statement of claim submitted to the arbitrator that he was "...He simply betrayed his partners and joined a new partnership... so that he will have a foothold in the middle compound as well," and therefore they petition to add him to the arbitration proceeding against Tai.
- The question that needs to be decided is whether the claim that the Applicants intend to file against Lifshitz personally and against Cuba under his control - who are not signatories to the arbitration clause - will be conducted in court in a separate lawsuit, or whether these two will be added to the existing arbitration proceeding.
- When we are dealing with In the demand that Lifshitz and Kuba be included in the arbitration proceeding despite their failure to sign the arbitration clause, and since the arbitration litigation draws its vitality from the element of agreement, and routinely relies on a written agreement between all the litigants, which is not the case in our case, but it is natural that the arguments of counsel for both sides focus on the rulings of the Honorable Justice (Ret.) Yoram Danziger in a judgment Ronen v. Cohen And in the Halach "Expansion Circles" which was determined therein with regard to the obligation of a person who is not a party to the agreement establishing the arbitration to take part in it.
Since the above rule has been quoted in many rulings, I will not elaborate, and it is sufficient to note that: