In view of all of the above, the defendants claim that the Israeli forum is not the proper forum.
Moreover, according to the defendants, it is not possible to apply to foreign companies the applicable Israeli law regarding lifting the veil, in the absence of any consent to this on the part of the defendants, who are foreign companies.
In addition, they claim that conducting the proceeding in Israel will cause the defendants unnecessary costs - for example, efforts to sign affidavits outside the boundaries, the need to come to Israel, the need to hold evidentiary hearings at great costs, the flight of witnesses from abroad, etc.
- In their response, the plaintiffs object to the request. First, since the application was filed two years after a statement of defense was filed in the case (January 1, 2023), this is contrary to the provisions of Regulation 168 of the Civil Procedure Regulations, 5779-2018 (hereinafter: the "Regulations"), according to which a violation of the court's authority will be filed on the date of filing the statement of defense. With regard to this, it was argued that the application was even filed with delay and after two years the defendants' counsel acted on behalf of the defendants and without any denial of authority being raised by him. It was further argued - in response to the defendants' claim that they were required to disclose documents in order to raise the forum's proper argument - that the claim is baseless and logical beyond the facts that allegedly establish the claim by the defendants. Thus, already in the framework of the reply it was claimed that the defendant had an exclusive right to sign in the defendants' companies; that the defendant had exclusive access to the defendants' bank accounts; that the defendant was the one who actually managed the defendants and outlined their course of action; Because the defendant was the one who controlled the defendants' servers exclusively. Moreover, it was argued that in any case the defendants did not have to wait until the discovery stage of the documents in order to determine anything regarding the connection to Israel, since in any case all the documents are under their control and hands. Moreover, even if the defendants' erroneous claim is accepted, the affidavit of discovery of documents on behalf of the plaintiffs was given to the defendants as early as February 16, 2023 - about two years ago. In addition, it was argued that the application was filed without a supporting affidavit despite the facts alleged in it, and even for this reason it should be rejected out of hand.
Without derogating from the aforesaid and the substance of the matter, the plaintiffs argue, the correct forum to hear the claim is the Israeli court - since most of the connections are to Israel and the defendants did not meet the burden of showing that this is not the case. Not only that, but the defendants did not even point to any other forum that was more appropriate to discuss the claim. In more detail - according to the plaintiffs, the court in Israel is authorized to hear the claim by virtue of the sections of Regulation 166 of the Regulations. This is because, in accordance with Regulation 166(4) of the Regulations, this is a claim in connection with an oral contract, to which the parties are Israelis; whereas, in accordance with Regulation 166(5) of the Regulations, this is a claim based on damage caused to the plaintiffs in Israel as a result of the defendants' conduct, which the defendants could have expected to cause damage in Israel, since the plaintiffs are Israelis, as aforesaid, and carried out all their activity in the project from Israel; and since in accordance with Regulation 166(9) According to the regulations, defendant 1 managed the defendants exclusively. The defendants are the ones in possession of all the relevant and necessary information, and the defendant is the one who made those decisions as a result of which the plaintiffs suffered damages, and therefore defendant 1 is a necessary and correct party both with regard to the claim filed against him and with regard to the claim filed against defendants 2-3.