She further adds that after the sale of luxury to David, the latter contacted the plaintiff's attorney and informed her that he was "acting only as an extras for the purpose of imposing liability", and that Uri was "hiding behind him" (paragraph 19 of Roy's affidavit).
- The plaintiff claims that in accordance with the agreement for the sale of shares to David, in any case funds that were to be received by Prestige from the Ministry of Health were intended for Uri's pocket, through Whisboard Holdings (paragraph 5 of the plaintiff's summaries).
According to her, even after the suspension of the operation of the nursing home by Luxury, funds were received in Souka's bank account, including from the Ministry of Health, and Uri continued to serve as a director after signing the agreement to sell the shares to David, with the aim of "continuing to withdraw funds and transfer them to him and to control the company's funds behind the scenes, including vis-à-vis the Ministry of Health..."
- She further claims that "despite the fact that he could have transferred payments to her", Uri chose to pay into his pocket directly and/or through third parties", and concealed the existence of another bank account at Discount Bank while "expending" hundreds of thousands of shekels "with one instruction at a time" so that it would not be possible to track where the funds were transferred (paragraphs 7 and 18 of the plaintiff's summaries).
For the sake of good order, I will clarify that although this claim was first made in the plaintiff's summaries, I did not see fit to address it in the future, given that details of current account transactions in the bank account of Luxury Bank Hapoalim, between the months 1/2021-1/2022, as well as documents from the Ministry of Health regarding funds that will be received by Prestige, were submitted to the court file on June 9, 2024 - that is, after the submission of the parties' affidavits was submitted.
- According to the plaintiff, Uri, as a manager and owner "in the company", was its "driving force", and when he abused its separate legal personality, while pocketing money and acting in bad faith and creating fraud, the corporate veil should be lifted against him, and he should be held personally responsible
"for all the bad conduct, including thinly financed activity and/or actions that amount to lifting the corporate veil" (paragraph 14 of Roy's affidavit), and to oblige him to pay it the amount claimed.