[9]Adv. Barzili claimed in his testimony that he did not remember who drafted the agreement (pp. 45-46 of the transcript of the hearing of September 10, 2025), but it is reasonable to assume that it was the defendants who drafted it, or at least that they had priority in formulating its terms. This is because the defendants were the lenders; and so because there was no dispute that at that time the class members needed funding in order to "get the cart out of the mud", in the words of Adv. Barzili himself. Therefore, their bargaining power was limited (page 12 of the transcript of the hearing of September 18, 2025, line 14; and see also the testimony of committee member Mr. David on page 73 of the transcript of the hearing of September 10, 2025); This is because the group trustee testified that he did not draft the overall agreement, and was involved only with regard to the collateral clauses and the registration of the apartments, and that he was not aware of the involvement of another lawyer on behalf of the class members in the drafting of the agreement (pages 2-3 and 34 of the transcript of the hearing of September 10, 2025). The defendants' arguments in paragraphs 19-20 of their reference of September 28, 2025, regarding the scope of the trustee's work, as well as the WhatsApp message of April 6, 2020 at 16:55 (to which the defendants did not relate) do not lead to a different conclusion regarding the lack of involvement of an attorney on behalf of the class members in the drafting of the agreement. The same is true of the testimony of Mr. David, who clearly did not remember the details of the matter (page 80 of the transcript of the hearing of September 10, 2025, line 35 to page 81, line 11).
[10] In view of my conclusion, I am not required to ask the question of the extent of each plaintiff's personal debt. In this regard, I will note, for the sake of caution, that both parties were of the opinion that if it was determined that the liability of the class members was separately, each plaintiff's share of the total amount of the debt was in accordance with his relative share of the debt according to the invoice (pages 5-6 of the minutes of July 3, 2024). Admittedly, in the framework of the summaries, the defendants raised arguments regarding additions that should be added to the debt of plaintiff No. 2, based on the letters that were submitted as Exhibit N/1 (para. 24 above), but without addressing these arguments on their merits, it seems that they deviate from the convention formulated at an earlier stage.