The aforesaid is reinforced, taking into account the testimony of Roy, who explained in his own words what lifting the veil is, but the aforesaid side did not know how to explain why the plaintiff ignored the fact that Weisbord Holdings was the shareholder of luxury at the relevant times, and clarified that the plaintiff's counsel was handling the matter:
"Q: Wait. Let me finish the question. You didn't sue Uri Weisbord Ltd., because you didn't know that Uri Weisbord Ltd. owns Luxury? Is that your answer?
A: Nope. That's not my answer.
Q: So why didn't you sue Uri Weisbord Ltd.?
A: Because first of all, they are suing the company, its prestige. This is the person who stands behind me, who later discovers that there is a lifting of the veil and that a person did things deliberately. And after all my dealings with him on WhatsApp and phone calls. Then, afterwards, they come and turn to the person himself. Why is there a limited liability company? There is first and foremost a screen, between society and a person. That's the first thing, as soon as you see these and other things, you start thinking about suing the person. You ask technical questions. Ask" (p. 28, lines 28-35 of the transcript and p. 29, lines 1-2 of the transcript).
And later on:
"Adv. Brook: I mean, you just explained to us that you understand what the corporate veil means and what it means to lift the veil, and you didn't explain to us why you didn't sue Uri Weisbord Ltd. I'm giving you one more chance and I'll move on. I won't bother you too much about it. Unless, you want to explain to the court and us why you didn't sue Uri Weisbord Ltd. When I make it clear to you, according to what you described of screen lifting, in order to get to Uri Weisbord you have to go through Uri Weisbord Ltd. Please answer.
The witness, Mr. Edri: I have a lawyer who handles it" (p. 29, lines 11-18 of the transcript).
- It seems that while she was aware of the aforesaid difficulty, the plaintiff noted in her summaries that "even as defendant 2 said that the ownership and directorship were of defendant 2 under the guise of Uri Weisbord Holdings Ltd." - beyond the fact that this claim constitutes an expansion of a prohibited front, it goes without saying that Uri's mere ownership of the shares of Weisbord Holdings and his tenure as a director of luxury do not alone establish a cause of action for lifting the veil directly between Prestige and Uri.
Moreover, the plaintiff claimed for the first time in her summaries that Weisbord Holdings is in insolvency, that Uri hid the aforesaid from this court, and that this information is capable of "digging a hole in the faulty conduct of deception and sand-throwing that leads to the lifting of the veil" (paragraph 37 of the plaintiff's summaries). This argument constitutes an expansion of a prohibited front, since it was not made before, and the aforesaid is sufficient to reject it. Beyond the necessity, I will add that in the letter of the Ministry of Justice, which was quoted in the plaintiff's summaries, it was noted that on August 5, 2024, a "notice of an order to open proceedings" was recorded - that is, the notice was given after the submission of Uri's affidavit, and years after the events relevant to the lawsuit, and it seems that it is not for good reason, that the plaintiff did not bother to detail how the aforesaid could "lead" to the lifting of the veil.