In the plaintiff's summaries it was argued that alternatively, Uri should be held personally liable "by virtue of the Companies Law, according to which a shareholder and a manager will bear personal liability if fraud is proven and/or personal fault for the acts and/or omissions he committed on behalf of the company" (paragraph 17 of the plaintiff's summaries).
Uri's Claims
Uri supported his claims in his affidavit.
- Uri argues that he has no rivalry with the plaintiff, that the claim against him is baseless and does not reveal a personal cause of action against him, and should be dismissed.
According to him, the lawsuit against him has no factual and legal basis, and its entire purpose is to exert improper pressure on him, which constitutes an abuse of legal proceedings, since all of his limited action vis-à-vis the plaintiff in relation to the services she provided to Prestige, was present in the past (in a thread) of luxury or being an organ in luxury, and he never intended to take upon himself, and did not take upon himself, personal obligations to anyone in connection with prestige or at all. and there is no contractual and/or personal obligation by him and/or his personal guarantee for the payment of luxury debts to the plaintiff.
He also argues that the plaintiff is trying to create a false representation and "confuse" between the defendants as if they are a single legal person, and this is not the case, since he did not hold luxury shares, but rather Weisboard Holdings, which was not sued in this lawsuit at all, and when it was not claimed by the plaintiff that a two-stage veil should be lifted - i.e., a corporate veil should be lifted between Luxury and Weisboard Holdings, and between Weisboard Holdings and him. In any case, the plaintiff's argument regarding the lifting of the corporate veil should be rejected.
In this context, Uri emphasizes that not only does the plaintiff not claim a double lifting in the statement of claim, but she also did not file a reply to the statement of defense that he submitted, and thus refrained from dealing with the claim of lack of rivalry raised in the statement of defense.
- He also argues that the plaintiff's claims regarding fraud and bad faith conduct should be rejected, while clarifying that he conducted himself "in an orderly and continuous manner", without blemish.
Uri details in his pleadings that the plaintiff's engagement with Prestige was made even before the purchase of Prestige shares by Weisbord Holdings, and that the ongoing relationship between the plaintiff and Prestige was conducted, almost entirely, by the administrative advisor of Prestige.