The Honorable Justice Vago ordered the requested combination and supported his decision with his factual finding that "the companies' consent to arbitration was made by the issuer and the importer on their behalf, the effective controlling shareholder (even if the shares of one of the companies are registered in the name of the spouse), and substantively - the person who placed confidence in the arbitration process, as a way of resolving disputes, in general, and in the specific arbitration..." If the third party was required, he was also of the opinion that given those circumstances, "there is therefore no sense of impropriety, or of a 'procedural injustice' and a detraction from his rights."
- In my opinion, the solution is found On the scale The level of proof, and the time of the alleged liability is based on lifting the veil - in the alternatives of Section 6 of the Companies Law, 5759-1999, according to:
- (a) (1) A court may attribute a debt of a company to a shareholder therein, if it finds that in the circumstances of the case it is just and correct to do so, in the exceptional cases in which the use of the separate legal personality is made in one of the following:
(a) in a manner that may defraud a person or deprive a creditor of the company;
(b) in a manner that harms the purpose of the company and while taking an unreasonable risk as to its ability to repay its debts, provided that the shareholder was aware of such use, and taking into account his holdings and the fulfillment of his obligations to the company under sections 192 and 193 and taking into account the company's ability to repay its debts...
...
(b) A court may attribute an attribute, right or obligation of a shareholder to a company or a right of the company to a shareholder thereof, if it finds that in the circumstances of the case, it is just and correct to do so in view of the intention of the law or agreement that applies to the matter before it...
Whereas in order to obligate a shareholder to a "debt of the company" it is necessary to find a finding regarding "fraud" or "deprivation of a creditor" or "taking an unreasonable risk" in the notice [section (a)(1)], for the purpose of attributing a "feature, right or obligation", as distinct from the debt itself, it is only necessary to find that "in the circumstances of the case, it is just and correct to do so in view of the intention of the law or agreement applicable to the matter before it" [section (b)].