In any event, 100% contributory fault should be attributed to those defendants, when the agreement in this matter was clear and did not require payment on the time it was required. A short agreement of several pages was discussed, and an examination of it would have revealed that Ms. Or's demand for payment was misplaced. In any event, no causal connection was proven between the defendants' conduct and the payment, since Adv. Nof referred them to examine the agreement and this referral was supposed to prevent the payments that were paid.
- The component of the lawsuit, which concerns compensation for the sale of housing units to the six late purchasers, should be rejected. The plaintiffs made a legal mistake when they agreed to compromise, as part of the liquidation case, with these purchasers, since they purchased their rights in a manner that was not in accordance with the mechanism set out in the agreement. This sale was made, in real time, against the defendants' consent, and they acted to cancel it. The amount of sums that the plaintiffs agreed to give to the six late purchasers is also incorrect. This is because they agreed to give most of them a sum similar to that received by most of the group members, which is legally unreasonable.
No one approached the defendants prior to formulating the settlement, and if such a request had been made, the defendants would have insisted on denying those purchasers the right to share the compensation. The erroneous settlement agreement severs the causal connection between the acts attributed to the defendants and the alleged damage.
Against this background , the plaintiffs' arguments regarding the registration of the warning note in respect of the mortgage in favor of Mizrahi Bank, which is intended to ensure the rights of those additional purchasers, should also be rejected. The plaintiffs left this claim in the amended statement of claim only in order to discredit the defendants. At this point, they were aware that the bank had waived its right to distribute the money in exchange for the sale of the lot. The defendants worked vigorously to remove the comment, and even drafted an opening motion for this purpose, which was not ultimately filed due to the objection of Group 102. They did all this free of charge, but the plaintiffs, in their ingratitude for their kindness, only defamed them in the framework of their claim.
- With regard to the distribution of the proceeds in the receivership proceeding from the consolidated sale, the plaintiffs cannot settle a settlement in this matter with the defendants, since the distribution that transferred 20% of the consideration to the members of class 102 was made in accordance with the position of the appraisers on behalf of the group itself.
- There is no basis for the plaintiffs' claims regarding their negligence in handling the purchase tax payments. The defendants acted in a matter-of-fact and dedicated manner, which led to the cancellation of the fines and interest. As for the foreclosures, their imposition stemmed from a mistake on the part of the Tax Authority, and every member of the group who contacted Adv. Shemesh, who handled the matter, regarding the foreclosure, received a response that solved the problem.
- As for the component of collective expenses, it does not refer to it in the plaintiffs' summaries, and hence the issue has been neglected. On the merits, their arguments in this regard are inconsistent, and they must be rejected.
There is also no reason to order the return of the fees paid to the defendants. The payment paid is only half of the contractual fees for the entire project. The considerable work invested by them should also be taken into account for actions that are not included in the fee agreement. However, the defendants provided this additional service beyond the letter of the law without additional consideration. In any event, a proceeding of cancellation and restitution should not be taken against them, since the transaction was executed with Ms. Or and not withM.
- The various claim amounts suffer from many failures and defects. In any event, the plaintiffs are 100% responsible for contributory fault for causing the damage, and there is no causal connection between the acts attributed to the defendants and the alleged damage; This is in light of the collapse of the Or Group, due to the planning changes throughout the project, and in particular the change in the policy of the Ramat Gan Municipality in the framework of the Reg/53 plan.
- Finally, it was argued that the plaintiffs should be charged with real expenses, in accordance with the case law and the circumstances of the case's conduct; to the serious accusations attributed to the defendants by the plaintiffs, and to its considerable scope. They attached documents for the payment of the fees, which amounted to approximately ILS 530,000 (including VAT).
The parties' response summaries
- Both the plaintiffs and the defendants submitted reply summaries. These sharpened certain issues from the many controversial issues between them. Thus, the plaintiffs claimed that they had not expanded the façade and the defendants insisted that it existed. The plaintiffs claimed that there was also a rivalry with defendants 43-44, and the defendants insisted that it was not.
- So far the corridor and from here to the lounge.
Discussion and Decision
- Our case deals with purchasing groups, and focuses our attention on the responsibility of the lawyers who accompany their activities.
First, I will dedicate a brief reference to the issue of purchasing groups andtheir characteristics. I recently discussed this in Civil Case (Tel Aviv District) 492-02-17 Yitzhaki v. Paz Economics and Engineering 1996 in a Tax Appeal (published in Databases [Nevo]; 2026) and for the sake of convenience I will repeat it here.