Later on, it will be clarified that the duty imposed on Payne is in any case very limited in terms of the relationship between him and Corey and Guyot, since they met with Debret and spoke directly with him regarding investments. This negates Payne's liability, both because he was well aware that conversations were held and held with Debreth - who has all the relevant information - and therefore one of the elements of the tort of negligent misrepresentation does not exist; and because in such a situation it is not possible to attribute negligence to an "investment advisor" by not conducting a thorough investigation regarding the company that he brokered between it and potential investors. when he brings them together with the person who holds all the information in his hands; They are because it is highly doubtful whether it is possible to determine in this situation that there was a factual causal connection between what he said to Corey and Guyot and their decision to invest in the projects initiated by Debrett.
As for Ancona, it appears that he was presented with an impression that he should have an understanding and expertise in the field of real estate investments in Israel. This presentation resulted in Ancona approaching Payne in the first place. It was amplified by the webinar and vlog that Fine conducted. To this must be added the fact that Ancona did not meet with Debreth, and hence the source of his information regarding the projects was only Fine himself.
- Was Payne actually aware of the state of the business venture?
- In order to focus the discussion on the question of whether Payne should be held liable in the tort of a negligent wrongful party, the claim that he was actually aware of the difficulties encountered in the projects must be removed from the way. This argument should be rejected for two reasons:
First and foremost is the fact that Fine also persuaded his parents to lend money to invest in the projects that are the subject of the lawsuit. His parents invested in the projects by way of a loan of ILS 175,000 in October 2019, while promising them a return of 12% per year. About a year later, in October 2020, they chose to reinvest the fund in the amount of ILS 175,000 under similar terms (paragraphs 10-11 of Fine's affidavit; paragraphs 1-6 of the affidavit of Fine's mother, and Appendix 3 to the affidavit, which attests to the dates of the investments and the conditions that accompanied them). The date on which the parents returned and lent money to the economic venture is later than the date on which all the plaintiffs lent their money to the venture. Prosecutors chose not to question Fine in this matter and gave up on questioning his mother. Under these circumstances, it would have been expected that the plaintiffs would not respond in their summaries to the claim that Fine was actually aware of the status of the projects. Nevertheless, the plaintiffs chose to raise in their summaries various scenarios that, according to them, explain how it is possible to attribute information to Payne about the precarious state of the projects, and to reconcile this with the fact that he persuaded his parents to invest in projects in a way that led to their money going down the drain. What all of these proposed explanations have in common is that they are speculative and perhaps even imaginary; deprived of a grasp of the facts; And they were not supported even at the beginning of the vision. The weight that can be attributed to such speculations is extremely low, and it is diminished in light of the fact that the plaintiffs have refrained from interrogating Fine and his mother on this issue.