Further support for the fact that Fine also raised funds for Debrett's projects at the same time comes from the WhatsApp correspondence between Payne and Debreth. The correspondence dealing with the temporary difficulty in cash flow was mentioned above. In the same correspondence, Debret also referred to other investors by name. These have invested in other Debret projects (they are not included in Shop's list of lenders in the trustee's report in the liquidation file). The correspondence clearly shows that Fine raised funds for them as well. Since Fine was involved in raising funds for various projects promoted by Debret at the same time, there is nothing wrong with the fact that he did not see as puzzling Debrett's request to continue raising funds for the projects.
- The conclusion from all of this is that it appears from the balance of probabilities that even if Fine had approached Debreth with a request to receive all the documents and information relating to the projects, and not suffice only with the information that Debret had given him on his own initiative or at his request, the information provided to him would not have been sufficient to bring him to the conclusion that the projects were exposed to risk or difficulties. In fact, this determination is sufficient to bring the ground under the lawsuit. It is capable of negating the factual causal connection between the omissions attributed to Fine and the result. After all, even if Fine had acted to conduct a more comprehensive - and perhaps even more comprehensive - inquiry in a manner that meets the strictest standard of caution, he would have come to the conclusion that there are no risks in the economic venture as a whole.
- All of this is sufficient to bring about the dismissal of Corey and Guyot's claim and the rejection of Ancona's claims insofar as they are based on the false representation regarding the chances and risks inherent in investing in projects.
As for Ancona's claim that he was presented with false representations regarding the provision of collateral for loans, which led to his investment in projects, this will be discussed in the framework of the individual hearing of his claim. I will preface the beginning and clarify that the argument regarding the collateral was raised at a later stage in a manner that makes it difficult to accept; It is inconsistent with the correspondence between the parties; It seems that Fine could not clarify this issue, and in any event, he was not obligated to do so. These matters will be discussed in their place.
- The Corrie Suit
- At the outset, it was clarified that the Corrie couple and the Fine couple had a close friendship (paragraph 6 of the Corrie affidavit). Corey consulted with Fine regarding the possibility of investing a sum of money that came to her (the WhatsApp correspondence indicates that the discussion between the two began in early May 2018, p. 20 of Corrie's appendices). The correspondence indicates that Corrie wanted to invest in a Hagshama fund, and Payne pointed out the difference in terms of taxation between a Hagshama fund and an investment in TAMA 38 (notice dated May 22, 2018, p. 21 of Cory's appendices).
In a parenthetical article, Shin Bet Fine claimed, ostensibly rightly, that if Corey had invested her money in the Hagshama fund as she had planned to do, the amount of the investment would have gone down the drain with the collapse of the fund. If it could be proven that this is what Corey intended to do, then for this reason as well, there was no causal connection between the attribution to Payne and the damage.