As for the second claim, the defendants were given a number of opportunities to present their position to the expert. This is the case when preparing the opinion; This is after the expert formulated a draft of the opinion, and at the request of the defendants, forwarded it to the parties' comments; This is the case during the expert's interrogation. The defendants did take advantage of these opportunities, and yet they did not bring about a change in the expert's position.
- The conclusion, therefore, is that for the purpose of the relationship with the plaintiffs, the defendants can be viewed as "a single economic-business entity", and in these circumstances it is possible to "attribute to one company the debts of another company" (Civil Appeal 8263/16 Or City Real Estate of the Inbal Or Group in Tax Appeal v. Adv. Erez, paragraph 73 (March 19, 2018)). In any event, it is possible to raise claims against the lenders related to the contractor's conduct and the pace of construction progress, including claims of offset due to compensation for late delivery, or claims regarding non-charging of interest for the period of delay.
E(3)(2) Status of the Waiver of Claims
- As noted in the paragraph 12 Above, on May 2, 2019, the members of the group committee and the contractor signed a waiver of claims. In this document It was stated, inter alia, that "since the project took longer than expected, and the sea arose from both parties controlled by the [Receiver] and by reasons controlled by the Group, the Board hereby decides that the engagement will be terminated without mutual claims."
- The plaintiffs claim that the waiver is not binding on them, since the board was not authorized to sign it on behalf of the class members. The defendants claim that the board acted in accordance with its authority, and that in any event, the waiver is binding on the plaintiffs.
- I am of the opinion that in this matter the defendants' position should be accepted: it is not impossible thatthe board was authorized to sign a waiver of claims on behalf of the class members, and in any event, the plaintiffs should be regarded as having approved the signature on their behalf, even if retroactively.
- From a factual point of view, the starting point is clause 9.2.2 of the partnership agreement (Appendix 4 to the statement of claim). This section denies the Board's authority to "bind [the members of the class] to any legal obligation, unless expressly authorized to do so by resolution of the General Meeting" (see also Section 9.3 there).
However, the plaintiffs themselves admitted that the general meeting convened physically only twice: the first time at the initial stage of the process, and the second time prior to the engagement with the defendants (see the testimony of plaintiff 1 on page 8 of the transcript of the hearing of September 10, 2025, line 36 to page 9, line 2; testimony of plaintiff 2 on page 17 of the same transcript, lines 7-12; plaintiff's testimony on page 23 of the transcript of lines 19-22 and on page 24, line 37 to page 25, line 3).