Fine presented Corey with the terms of the loan. He suggested that he come to her and said that he would bring his CEO with him (notice dated June 17, 2018, ibid.). Corey claims that by doing so, he made a representation to Fine that he was an integral part of the company. This matter is not of great importance, and it seems that in any case it is only a matter of expression. Fine went on to write that it is important to him that investors meet with the person to whom they are supposed to entrust their money (announcement dated June 17, 2018, at 17:27). Corey suggested that the meeting be held at her home (message dated June 17, 2018, at 18:43). The meeting took place the next day, at the Corrie family home (correspondence dated June 18, 2018; p. 22 of the transcript, lines 17-18).
- This factual occurrence is sufficient to bring the ground under the lawsuit against Fine. This is for a number of reasons: First, this meeting presents Fine's role as a broker whose role is to create a relationship between the investors and the company's owner. A realtor is not obligated to investigate and demand all the intricacies of the company offered by him. As has also been held in relation to lawyers, whose duty of care is immeasurably broader than that of a realtor or "consultant", such a professional is not obligated to act as a "detective or private investigator" (Civil Appeal 7485/10 Penthouse Rahmani Properties (1997) inTax Appeal v. Pfeffer, dated February 27, 2012, at paragraph 11 of the judgment; Civil Appeal 2599/13 Herman v. Eldor, dated September 3, 2015, at paragraph 34 of the judgment; Civil Appeal 7440/19 Emblaze in Tax Appeal v. Double U Trading Fund Inc., dated April 27, 2021, at paragraph 20 of the judgment). Second, since Payne was well aware that there would be a direct connection between Corey and Debreth, he could have assumed that all relevant details would be provided by Debreth. In such a case, the rule applies, by virtue of the law according to which the tort of negligent misrepresentation does not apply when the creator of the representation is aware that an additional examination will be conducted by his interlocutor. It emerges from the case law that this reasoning concerns the element of the legal causal connection. The third is the absence of negligence. Even if Fine's role was not only that of an intermediary between potential investors and a company owner, from the moment he made a direct connection between the two, there is room to determine that the duty to clarify him is not the same as that which would have been imposed on him if he had created the exclusive representation. A person who advises on an investment issue can fulfill his obligation by presenting the person who has the most extensive knowledge of the investment - the company's CEO himself. Since Fine himself did not suspect at any point that Debret was acting to conceal information, presenting the CEO to investors is an action that negates a claim of negligence.
- Beyond what is required, I will note that in Corrie's case, it does not appear that it was Fine's actions that led her to invest in Shop's economic venture. Its investment was made only after it made independent and external inquiries regarding investments in Debret's projects. On Fine's advice, she contacted an investor named Hannah, who replied in an email message dated February 4, 2019, that the investment had paid off well and that she had received her money with interest (Appendix E to Cory's affidavit). This announcement indicates that Debret also worked with other external investment brokers (Hannah referred to Debret and another person, who is not Fine). In Corey's cross-examination, it became clear that she had also contacted another person to inquire about loans for Debrett's projects (p. 24 of the transcript, lines 20-24). Thus, Corey did not rely on Payne's advice alone, but made her own inquiries.
- The conclusion from all of this is that Corey v. Payne's lawsuit should be dismissed. This is for reasons related to his status as a mediator between Corey and Debreth; are due to the exclusion of his actions from the scope of negligent misrepresentation, when he actually knew about her consultation with another person who has all the relevant knowledge; They are because there is no basis for determining that the advice he gave was negligent in the circumstances of the case; Both because Corey herself made inquiries and was persuaded to invest only as a result of these inquiries; They are in view of the general determination that even an additional inquiry that Fine edited would not have led him to discover facts that attest to a risk in the economic venture that is the subject of the suit.
- Giot Claim
- At the outset, it was clarified that the acquaintance between Guyut and Pine was created in 2014, during a bicycle trip in Israel. As a result, Fine introduced Debret to Guyot. This has interested Gyut in a number of projects over the years. Gyuot's testimony indicates that the representations were oral (paragraphs 4-9). In his affidavit, he claimed, for the first time, that most of the representations revolved around the collateral. According to him, in 2019, the two interested him in the permanent project and presented him with a representation that the investment in it was guaranteed against the rights to the new apartments that would be built and against the property itself (paragraph 16 of the affidavit). No evidence was attached to support this claim.
- Guyot's affidavit indicates that the representations were made jointly by Fine and Debrett. During his interrogation, he said that Debret "helped me understand some of the connections that relate to TAMA. He provided me with additional details and clarifications, and he also gave me information about other investment options" (p. 32 of the transcript, lines 4-6). According to him, Fine presented him with the project that is the subject of the lawsuit (p. 35 of the transcript, lines 9-10), but he met with Debret "perhaps three times personally" (ibid., lines 17-18).
Guyut did not attach to his affidavit the email correspondence regarding the investment options presented to him by Debert and Payne. The appendices to Fine's affidavit indicate that Guyut corresponded directly with Debret on this matter. The correspondence indicates that as early as 2014, the two exchanged emails regarding the possibility of investing in a TAMA 38 project (pp. 156-158 of the appendices to Fine's affidavit). Additional correspondence dealing with similar projects took place in March 2018 (most of the correspondence is on pages 138-152 of the appendices to Fine's affidavit); and the investment agreement that is the subject of the lawsuit, which Gyut signed in September 2019, was sent to him by Debret (p. 143 of the appendices to Fine's affidavit).
- The picture that emerges is that when it came to Guyot's investment, his role was more marginal than that attributed to him by Corey, and Debreth's role in the negotiations was even more central. In any case, his claim should be dismissed for the reasons detailed above in Cory's case: both because of his status as an intermediary only between Guyot and Debreth; Both because his actions were excluded from the scope of negligent misrepresentation, when there was consultation with another person who has the relevant and full knowledge; They are because there is no basis for determining that the advice he gave was negligent in the circumstances of the case; They are in view of the general determination that even an additional inquiry that Fine edited would not have led him to discover facts that attest to a risk in the economic venture that is the subject of the suit.
- The Ancona Suit
- The circumstances that led to Ancona's engagement in the investment were different from those of Corey and Guyot. Ancona did not know any of the defendants prior to the events that are the subject of the lawsuit, and he was not in direct contact with Debrett. The totality, which will be described below, indicates that Payne had a more significant duty of clarification vis-à-vis Ancona. However, this does not exclude from the above determinations that Fine was not able to disclose suspicious facts regarding the status of the projects by further investigation; Later on, it will be clarified that there is no substance to the argument relating to the representation in the matter of the collateral.
- In his affidavit, Ancona claimed that the first contact between him and Fine was made when he received a message from Fine via LinkedIn on December 22, 2019 (paragraph 7 of the affidavit). This statement is inaccurate. The lawsuit alleges that Ancona contacted Fine after he saw on LinkedIn that Fine was presenting himself as "an expert in marketing investments in Israel to American citizens" (paragraph 69 of the lawsuit). Ancona confirmed that this is how things happened (p. 27 of the transcript, lines 24-25).
There is no dispute that Ancona has extensive knowledge of real estate investments in the United States, and this is his area of practice (paragraph 20 of his affidavit; p. 27 of the transcript, line 29 - p. 28 of the transcript, line 1). Prior to the events that are the subject of the lawsuit, he did not invest in real estate in Israel (ibid.). The real estate investments are carried out by Ancona together with his sister, plaintiff 3. There is also no dispute that Ancona exclusively conducted the negotiations regarding the investment that is the subject of the lawsuit. Ancona's sister received the information from her brother, and was not in contact with any of the defendants.
- Following the request on LinkedIn, Fine sent an email to Ancona on December 26, 2019 (Appendix A to Ancona's affidavit). This announcement includes two statements that allegedly indicate that Fine presented himself as an officer of the corporation, and therefore it will be quoted in full below:
[Between the private email address below Payne's name and the two lines that seal the message, Payne's phone numbers appear. They have been omitted to prevent invasion of privacy.]