Binding separate affairs into a single claim
- As stated, Section 8(a) of the Class Actions Law establishes the conditions for the approval of a class action, including the condition that the claim "raises substantive questions of fact or law that are common to all members of the class", as well as a condition according to which the class action is "the efficient and fair way to resolve the dispute in the circumstances of the case".
- According to respondents 3-5, these conditions are not met, where the claim was filed with an artificial binding of a number of affairs, each of which is based on a different set of facts, different circumstances, different corporations and different periods. According to them, binding the cases into a single action is intended to harm the procedural efficiency, burden them and force them to litigate in a complex and complex proceeding, unnecessarily.
- I did not find it necessary to adopt this argument of the respondents.
- An examination of the indictment, as well as the arguments of the parties, shows that although the indictment relates to a number of different incidents, vis-à-vis a number of different chains, the basis of all the events that are the subject of the lawsuit are similar arrangements and coordination between the chains, the ostensible or alleged purpose of which is the same - to raise the prices of products.
- It should be emphasized that in contrast to cases of violations of the provisions of the law by various respondents, in which the violation of the provisions of the law by any person does not affect the interests of other parties (for example, when it comes to the lack of a designated area for the sale of supervised products, which was discussed in class action 38134-12-17 Hani Hanna v. Cohen Market Warehouses in a Tax Appeal [Nevo] (June 15, 2021) or the failure to publish accessibility adjustments, which was discussed in
29488-02-20 Rioti v. Ofir Tours B.M. [Nevo] (June 7, 2020) - to which respondents 3-5 referred), given the characteristics of the retail market, when it comes to restrictive arrangements between large retail chains, which relate to price coordination, they usually have implications for the entire market, and it is not impossible that they will even create a kind of rolling snowball, which ultimately leads to an overall increase in prices. - This fact arises, inter alia , from a review of the indictment, and it can be seen that even in the events in respect of which it was alleged that Yochananoff was not a direct party to the coordination or the restrictive arrangement (for example, with respect to Dr. Fischer's products - indictment 4), there was an argument regarding the implications of that arrangement for the prices charged by it, as well as on other chains.
It should be emphasized once again that my above reference does not constitute a determination of rivets or an expression of a position with respect to a proceeding that is not before me, but rather that it is possible and not necessarily possible to relate to a price increase of each product or group of products separately and distinctly, but rather that it will also be necessary to look at a trend, and the various arrangements that are the subject of the lawsuit can be viewed as a series of arrangements that are intended to bring about an increase in prices; especially since the Victory chain was a party to all of them.
- Given all of the above, it is also not possible to determine that these are different groups of victims, but rather that all consumers in the market should be viewed as potential victims and those with an affinity to the matter at hand, even if they were not part of the specific group that was actually harmed.
- In these circumstances, and to the extent that the Applicants' arguments would have been summarized in this way, it is doubtful whether there was room to order the dismissal of the proceeding in limine.
Underpayment of fees
- Given my conclusions above regarding the binding of the various issues into a single claim, in any case the need to discuss a claim that concerns the payment of a fee is also superfluous.
Conclusion