Additional Conditions for Certifying the Class Action
- We therefore found that in the circumstances of the present case, the appellants proved that they have a personal cause of action that raises substantive questions of fact or law that are common to all the members of the group they wish to represent, and that there is a reasonable possibility that the questions will be decided in the action in favor of the class (i.e., that the appellants met the condition Sections 4(a)(1) and8(a)(1) 30Class Actions Law). We will examine whether the claim and the appellants meet the other substantive conditions for the certification of the class action, which are fixed In section 8 to the law. In other words, if a class action is the efficient and fair way to resolve the dispute in the circumstances of the case (sub-Section 8(2) to the law); If there is a reasonable basis to assume that the interest of all the members of the class will be represented and managed in an appropriate manner (sub-Section 8(3) to the law); and if there is a reasonable basis to assume that the matter of all the members of the class will be represented and managed in good faith (sub-Section 8(4) to the law).
A class action is the efficient and fair way to resolve disputes
- The trial court noted in its judgment that there is great doubt as to whether the class action is the most efficient and fair way to resolve the dispute in the circumstances of the case. However, this conclusion stemmed mainly from the fact that the appellants formulated the claim in a manner that included a large number of events "while attributing a large mix of causes for each event" (paragraph 49 of his decision). After we have limited the grounds that will be clarified in the class proceeding and placed them on two main arguments, this conclusion is in any case omitted. In our case, this is indeed a complex proceeding that raises difficult and complicated questions, but the complexity of the proceeding will not be less if it is conducted by way of a personal lawsuit. As my colleague, the President Grunis In relation to the claim at handCivil Appeal Authority 9030/04 Europe Israel (MMS) BTax Appeal v. Gadish Compensation Funds ([Published in Nevo], June 26, 2007), in paragraph 8 of its judgment: "Before the trial court a series of proceedings are placed, all of which are based on the same factual foundation, and therefore it appears that the same evidentiary basis is also based. Hence, it would seem that the most effective way to conduct the proceedings is to locate the common questions that arise in them and clarify them together. This will prevent duplication of the hearing and the waste of the resources of the court and the litigants."
Moreover, even in light of the trend of Class Actions Law To allow the "minor injured party" to exercise his rights, the appellants' case is appropriate for clarification as a class action. A clear area for the application of a class action is securities law, in which the large number of plaintiffs and the relatively small amount of damage caused to each of them prevent the filing of independent and individual lawsuits and justify the use of the class action mechanism (see, the President's judgment Lightning In Parashat Tetz, at p. 786). Bringing the interests of all the class members before the court through the class action is the fairest, most efficient and most appropriate way in our case, in light of the large dispersion of the shareholders. Moreover, it is possible that many of the members of the class are not even aware of the very existence and scope of the violation of their rights, and for this reason as well, it should not be assumed that they will turn to the court.