In any event, Adv. Mansour advised Mr. Oved on October 27, 2012 not to enter into the transaction. She wrote to him that "in the current state of affairs you must understand that there is a problem to sign, as far as I am concerned, I would not sign unless you are aware of all things, understand and accept them," and she asked him to contact her the next morning to clarify the matter (ibid., in Appendix 15; at p. 50 of the appendices to his affidavit). Mr. Oved nevertheless signed the sale agreement later, on November 4, 2012.
- Yitzhak Kamar (plaintiff 17) admitted in his affidavit that he had reviewed the documents and consulted with his lawyer regarding them. It told him that "the agreements are peppery and complicated and that it is for my own considerations." According to him, he went down with his lawyer for details (p. 409, S. 9, S. 12) He also noted that his lawyer had told him that the timetables in the contract were not clear (ibid., Q. 17).
- This evidence significantly weakens the plaintiffs' claim. After all, according to them, there was a planned and systematic policy led by the defendants, to confuse those who joined the group, and to give the impression that they were representing them. It turns out that they respected the desire of those interested in this to negotiate through lawyers on their behalf. It was clear to those plaintiffs, in fact, that the defendants did not represent them, as is also explicitly evident from the contractual framework. And what these plaintiffs concluded could have been deduced by their friends as well.
It is not surprising that there has been a development in this matter in the plaintiffs' argument. In the original statement of claim (in paragraph 10.5) they claimed that "it is not a coincidence that none of the plaintiffs was assisted by the services of legal counsel hired by an attorney who hired [emphasis added]." This argument is patently incorrect, as we have seen.
On the other hand, a significant amendment has already been inserted in the amended statement of claim. It states that "the majority of the plaintiffs were not assisted by the services of legal counsel they hired. The plaintiffs placed unreserved trust in the defendants and relied on them to represent them faithfully, which unfortunately did not happen. (A small portion of the plaintiffs They consulted with an attorney on their behalf, but no attorney gave any real representation [emphasis added] to any of the plaintiffs during the transaction itself."