Caselaw

Civil Case (Rishon LeZion) 42165-05-22 Buildings Management, Cleaning and Maintenance Ltd. v. Keinan Services Ltd. - part 9

July 7, 2026
Print

Uri claims that David was not a "monkey", and was proficient in financial terms, while examining various data and demanding that additional data be transferred to him, and did so with the help of a person who presented himself as his advisor in the field of finance, and that in any case David's activity in luxury lasted only about two months, and that the aforesaid undermines the plaintiff's claims regarding cooperation between him and David in order to help Prestige evade paying the debt.  He also claims that the agreement for the sale of shares to David was duly reported to the tax authorities, and that appropriate notices were submitted to the Registrar of Companies regarding the change of shareholders and directors in prestige (reports to the tax authorities and the Registrar of Companies were attached as Appendices 3 and 4 to Uri's affidavit).

  1. Uri claims that, as of a few days after the sale of luxury shares to David, he had no connection to luxury with all that it entailed, including the lack of knowledge about its income, receipts, payments made by it, and its business conduct, and in any case he did not know that luxury would remain owed to the plaintiff any amount, and he should not be obligated to pay any amount to the plaintiff.

Uri adds that the funds received in Prestige's account were paid to third parties, as is evident from the details of the current account transactions in Yukra's bank account, and with regard to the funds received in its bank account after its shares were sold to David, the question of "where are the funds" should be addressed to David "or to the person to whom David sold the shares" (paragraph 69 of the summaries on behalf of Uri).

  1. He also argues that the lawsuit in all its parts should be dismissed, since the entire claim revolves around an engagement between two companies, and the plaintiff did not present any relevant factual basis that would establish a cause of action or lift the veil against him, doubly so when extremely unusual acts are required on the part of an organ in the company in order to attribute personal liability to him.

Decision

Previous part1...89
10...32Next part
Skip to content