[4] The aforementioned ambiguity was one of the main factors that led to the disputes and the filing of the lawsuit, and it seems that it could have been avoided if the defendants had documented the financial conduct in a more orderly manner. In this regard, I will address at the end of the judgment, when discussing the question of costs.
[5] It should be noted that I do not express a position on the question of the compatibility of this conduct with the provisions of the Bar Association Rules (Professional Ethics), 5746-1986 (see decision of September 10, 2025).
[6] See also Clauses 3.4-3.3 of the First Agreement, which relate to the registration of warning notes on the rights of each Member, as well as Clauses 4.2 and 7.3 of the Second Agreement, which give the Companion the opportunity to take action against a violating class member alone, while preserving its right to act against all members at its discretion.
[7] The plaintiffs claimed that Mr. Rachmin was an interested party in the outcome of the proceeding, and indeed it emerged that this was the case (see page 66 of the transcript of the hearing of September 10, 2025), but I did not get the impression that this fact justifies not giving weight to the factual information he provided. It should be noted that Mr. Rachmin did not refrain from saying things that acted in favor of the plaintiffs (see, for example, p. 60, lines 29-30), or of the defendants' duty (see his admission that the performance accounts may not fully accurately reflect the actual state of the works, ibid., pp. 67-68 and page 69, lines 9-13).
[8] It should be noted that the assumption that the choice of the second interpretation is in favor of the plaintiffs is not self-evident, since it embodies a rejection of their argument regarding the transformation of mutual liability into a separate liability. Notwithstanding the aforesaid, I am of the opinion that this choice is preferable from the plaintiffs' point of view, especially in the absence of arguments on their part in this matter. First, the plaintiffs' arguments focused mainly on errors regarding the amount of the debt determined in the invoice, so that it is reasonable to assume that they are interested in disagreeing with it; Second, it was stated that most of the plaintiffs are related to each other by family ties, and that the gap between their balance of debt and the total balance of the class members is not so large, so it is not clear how important the claim regarding liability is to them; and thirdly, even if the argument that the clause had changed the liability regime by virtue of the second agreement, the claim that it also changed the liability regime in the first agreement would have been more far-reaching. And it is possible that this liability would have remained in any case together and separately.