Second, this is an expert accountant, whose conclusions are at the heart of his field of expertise.
Third, the expert's conclusions are well founded in his findings in the body of the opinion.
Fourth, Boaz Barzili's testimony on behalf of the escorts also showed the small degree of separation that exists between various entities connected to the Barzili family. Thus, for example, Barzili's statement raised the possibility that he himself declared that he was a controlling shareholder in the contractor, even though he was a subsidiary of a company owned by the brother Gilad (page 40 of the transcript of the hearing of September 10, 2025, lines 8-33); From his remarks, it emerged that the defendants themselves do not dispute the lack of separation between the various entities connected to the Barzili family, and which are engaged in the field of financing (page 42 of the same transcript, lines 26-30, and p. 43, lines 20-24); and the absence of such separation also arises from Barzali's formulation of the manner in which decisions regarding an engagement with My friends The group is in the form of "we", "we did not want to" (page 41 of the aforementioned transcript, lines 35-38).
Fifth:, the plaintiffs referred to a judgment in another proceeding, in which it was noted that Boaz Barzili serves as the contractor's manager. Not only that, but contrary to Barzili's claim, Because the contractor is engaged in the field of construction, and that its activity is separate from other family-related entities that deal with financing (page 42 of the aforementioned transcript, lines 14-24), the judgment revealed that the contractor, together with another family-related company, lent large sums to others (Civil Case (Jerusalem District) 67390-08-21, Exhibit A/3). Barzili's attempt to provide explanations on the matter did not alleviate the difficulty (see page 44 of the transcript).
Sixth, even in the conduct of the proceeding before me, it was evident that there was a close relationship between the contractor and the lenders; The only affidavit originally submitted was an affidavit by Boaz Barzili; and it seemed that he was also proficient in matters related to the contractor, such as the later agreements between her and the members of the class (see, for example, his testimony on page 55 of the transcript).
- In their summaries, the defendants did not raise significant arguments against the expert's conclusions on the substantive level, and most of their arguments were on the procedural level. Thus, the defendants argued that the expert's conclusions were an "extension of the front" in relation to the claims raised by the plaintiffs in the statement of claim, and that they were not given the opportunity to present their position regarding them (see pages 38-41 of the transcript of the hearing of September 18, 2025). These arguments should not be accepted.
As to the first claim, in the statement of claim the plaintiffs explicitly claimed that the defendants should be regarded as a single unit for the purpose of engaging with them, and they reasoned for this on various grounds. Naturally, at that stage, the plaintiffs had only partial information regarding the manner in which the defendants conducted themselves among themselves, but this information, together with an expert opinion submitted by the plaintiffs and documents submitted by the defendants themselves, was sufficient to raise questions and lead to the appointment of an expert on behalf of the court, In order to examine this question as well (see the decision of July 3, 2024, paragraphs 8-9; Regarding the fact that no detailed details of a claim in a written pleadings are required, and it is sufficient to assume the substantive dispute, see Civil Appeal Authority 58220-09-25 Korin-Arad (Agriculture) in Tax Appeal v. Israel Land Authority, paragraph 14 (18.12.2025); Regarding the initial level of evidence that must be presented for the purpose of clarifying a claim of "lifting the veil", see, for example, Civil Case (Shalom Jerusalem) 6116/01 Mercantile Discount Bank in a Tax Appeal v. Pundak (29.12.2005); Civil Appeal Authority 2262/13 Zoz Infrastructure and Development in a Tax Appeal v. Northern Development and Gardening 2001 Ltd., paragraphs 3 and 8 (April 22, 2013) that did not reflect a reservation about a similar position expressed in the judgment on the same matter; Civil Case (Jerusalem District) 3114/01 Hamdia Doors in Tax Appeal v. Etz Ben Abu Ltd., paragraph 31 (September 20, 2002)).