The witness, Adv. Paran: At no point during those 10 years of my handling of these companies was I required to go into the depth of the question of whether they were partners because they were registered, or whether they were partners because they worked together, whether there were third partners, it was not an issue at all, there were issues,
The Honorable Judge Shaked: Nice, so if that's the case and it seems, the answer seems very logical, very logical and authentic to me, so how exactly now in section 4 you write to us ...... Without many, at least many reasons, that you are actually going to Situation A and not to Situation B, when you yourself say that you have not been required to do so all these years?
The witness, Adv. Paran: Because my impressions during all those years, both of the meetings that were held in my office, of the meetings that were held with them, of the requests, messages, letters, emails received on a daily basis, of them, of their employees,
The Honorable Judge Shaked: Which are they?
The witness, Adv. Paran: And also what-so called Partners, that this is a comprehensive system of economic activity that is managed by Adi and Tovi and each time it has a different name for a specific business, a property company, a company that buys a real estate property and a company or companies that conduct business in the field of foreign workers, so I saw it and I didn't see the need to get into anything else.
(p. 53 of the transcript).
- There is in fact no evidence and not even a claim by Adv. Paran of a real indication of the existence of a partnership. Paran explained that he had seen a sharing of interests over the years, consistent with the existing corporate structure and for the parties to be shareholders in the companies. There is no support in his testimony for the exceptional situation in which the veil of incorporation is lifted for the purpose of determining that it is in fact a partnership. Needless to say, Adv. Paran did not see a document constituting a partnership agreement between the parties (p. 48 of the transcript, s. 13).
- Harush's testimony: This witness said in paragraph 6 of the affidavit that "I know that Toby and Adi are equal partners in all the companies they operated and managed together", based on her many years of acquaintance with the plaintiff and her work for him (paragraphs 2-3, 5 of the affidavit). In her interrogation, Harush detailed the reasons that led her to the impression that they were partners:
Adv. Weiner: How did you know, by the way, what was his, what they had in common? Is it according to the companies?