The second reason lies in the fact that no evidence was presented of Fine's knowledge of the status of the projects that are the subject of the lawsuit or the status of the companies owned by Debret. The plaintiffs believe that it is possible to learn about every message included in the WhatsApp correspondence between Fine and Debreth (the correspondence was submitted on April 6, 2025). In a statement dated January 21, 2020, Debret responded to Fine's question regarding the renewal of the loans, saying that due to the difficulty in cash flow, he would only be able to pay investors after a few months, in May or June 2020. However, this does not indicate a problem that the projects that are the subject of the action have encountered. A temporary difficulty in cash flow on the part of Debret, which includes a promise to pay the borrowers after a few months, and accompanied by an agreement to pay the interest in the meantime (a notice from that day, following which the interest on the first loan was paid to Corey), does not necessitate a conclusion that the future of the projects is uncertain. It is not superfluous to note that at the time, Debret managed many TAMA 38 ventures, with various entrepreneurs (as it emerged from both the WhatsApp correspondence and from all the brochures that were sent). His statement that he needs several months to pay the loan money for their fruits does not necessarily indicate a problem with the project that is the subject of the lawsuit. It does not raise a "red flag" for Payne, who has been involved in many of Debrett's projects over the years. It certainly does not attest to his actual knowledge of the guaranteed failure of or of the great risk involved in the project. It seems that the fact that the extensive correspondence between the two does not say anything about the difficulty in which the projects encountered leads to the opposite conclusion regarding Fine's actual knowledge.
- Hence the conclusion that it was not proven that Fine actually knew about the status of the projects that are the subject of the lawsuit when he spoke with the plaintiffs regarding the possibility of investing in them.
As a result of this conclusion, the question of the nature of the duty of clarification imposed upon him must be discussed. The decision on this question requires a factual and legal examination. On the factual level, the plaintiffs have to prove that Fine, who served as an external consultant who matched the corporation with potential investors, could have been exposed to all the internal agreements that were made between Debrett, Kestenbaum and Shoup and Schopenhauer and Or; for all the raw documents that dealt with the profit and loss estimates of the projects (including correspondence with the developer and the management company); and would have received a true answer from Debret and Kestenbaum on questions relating to the projects, including the question of whether the documents truly represent the situation (especially in light of the fact that the appraiser's report indicated a profitability of ILS 4.2 million, but the two were aware of sunken costs that did not appear in it). On the legal level, the imposition of liability involves determining that Payne should have carried out such in-depth examinations in every project in which it is of interest to potential investors; in determining that he was obligated to do so when he knew that the plaintiffs were talking directly to Debret and receiving answers from him; and in the discussion of the question of whether and how the answer to these questions varies according to the nature in which each of the plaintiffs saw Fine's role in relation to the venture.