First, the defendants' solvency declaration was given at a time when the plaintiff's claims against the company were known to them and a claim had already been filed by him in the previous proceeding, and therefore the plaintiff was entitled to assume that when signing the solvency agreement, the defendants also took into account his claim. In these circumstances, even if the plaintiff had the ability to apply to the court to demand a halt to the liquidation proceeding, he had no obligation to do so (see and compare the Angel case, paragraphs 57-58 of the judgment).
Second, in the framework of the pre-trial meeting in the previous proceeding on February 13, 2018, defendant 1, who also represented defendants 2 and 3, announced: "We have filed an affidavit and we stand behind the lawsuit. The plaintiff is familiar with the company and its financial situation and will also know about the liquidation process at the time. Throughout the period, the check was never returned and the company always fulfilled its obligations" (Appendix 9 to the claim).
Defendant 1 confirmed in his testimony before me that the affidavit he was referring to, when he said these things, was an affidavit of solvency (par. of November 25, 2024, pp. 31, paras. 6-9, 17).
I am convinced that these words, which were made by defendant 1 in the framework of the same pre-trial meeting in the previous proceeding, also created a reliance on the plaintiff that he should not be bothered by the liquidation proceeding, since the defendants, as the signatories of the solvency affidavit, are aware of the claim and will pay him, to the extent that he determines that the company must pay him (par. of October 30, 2024, p. 10, paras. 28-36, p. 11, paras. 1-6).
Defendant 1's claim that the claim he was referring to was the notice to the third party that was filed in that proceeding, and not the claim filed by the plaintiff against the company, and the proof of this, according to him, is the fact that in that pre-trial meeting the third party's request for a guarantee deposit in light of the company's situation was discussed (par. of November 25, 2024, pp. 31, 12-13, pp. 32, 9-11), is not in my opinion convincing.