With regard to the removal of the lien by virtue of the first agreement, in my opinion the defendants should have removed it unconditionally. According to the first agreement, a lien to secure the debt by virtue of it was not supposed to be registered at all (paragraph 6 above). Admittedly, the lien was registered according to a deed signed by the trustee of the class members in their name, by virtue of an irrevocable power of attorney that they gave him (see Appendix 10 to the affidavit of Boaz Barzili on behalf of the lenders), but it was not clarified how this was consistent with the provisions of the first agreement, and in any case it was not proven that the registration was lawful (see the trustee's testimony on page 2 of the transcript of the hearing of September 10, 2025, lines 32-36 and page 38, lines 1-31). This defect, if it exists, also lies at the door of the defendants, since the lending company was the other party to the agreement. Therefore, the defendants should not have conditioned the removal of the lien on the payment of the debt by virtue of the first agreement. In any event, even if the defendants were entitled to do so, the amount of the debt by virtue of this agreement should have been calculated in accordance with the provisions of the Fair Credit Law.
- Thus, according to the agreements, the lien on the rights of each group member was supposed to be erased upon payment of the amount attributed to him in the card, and in respect of the debt by virtue of the second agreement only. This is without derogating from the claims of liability jointly and severally on the substantive level in relation to the total debt by virtue of the two agreements, and subject to the provisions of the Fair Credit Law.
- In practice, the evidence shows that the defendants did not act in this matter in accordance with the provisions of the agreements and the law:
First, the defendants also demanded as a condition for the removal of the lien the repayment of the Full The debt by virtue of the first agreement (and see also the testimony of Boaz Barzili on behalf of the lenders, page 49 of the transcript of the hearing of September 10, 2025, lines 24-27). Admittedly, the debt in the invoice also included a division of the debt by virtue of the first agreement, but this fact did not grant the defendants the right to act in deviation from the provisions of the agreements, and they were not entitled to demand even the payment The Relative Part in this debt as a condition for the removal of the lien. On the contrary, it was expected that the defendants would draw the attention of the board to the fact that the debt should be divided by virtue of the second agreement only, so that they could act in accordance with the provisions of the agreements. All the more so that the defendants were not entitled to condition the removal of the lien on payment Full The debt of the class members by virtue of the first agreement, which was not included in the.