During his cross-examination, Mr. Geva was confronted with an e-mail from Adv. Aharonson dated September 15, 2012 (Appendix 187 to the defendants' affidavits), which explicitly indicates that an amendment had been received that he requested to include in the sale agreement, the day before it was signed (see the signed sale agreement - Appendix 186 to the defendants' affidavits).
In the affidavit of answers to the questionnaire provided by Mr. Geva, he confirmed that he had received the partnership agreement and the representation agreement "about a week or two before the signing date. early September 2012" (see: Answer in paragraph 4.a.2. on page 3632 of the appendices to the defendants' affidavits, and the question in the questionnaire there, at p. 3647). On the other hand, in his cross-examination (p. 90, S. 1 - 91, S. 4) He tried to change his version, and presented three different dates on which he received the sharing agreement before signing it: the day before the date of the signing (p. 90, Q. 16-17), "with June on the day of the signing" (ibid., S. 28), and three days before the signing date (p. 91, Q. 4).
In this regard, the version provided in response to the questionnaire is preferable, according to which the documents were received for a sufficient period of time prior to signing, and an amendment was also received at the request of these plaintiffs.
- This body of evidence negates the existence of a method that prevents the applicants to join the purchasing group from reviewing the material documents before they sign them. When several plaintiffs testified that they could have reviewed and studied them, it can be concluded that there was no impediment to others doing so. It is possible that some plaintiffs felt pressure to move forward with the transaction in light of the aggressive marketing of the company, and in light of their fear that they would miss the opportunity to own housing units in a central area of Ramat Gan, but this still did not prevent the applicants from reviewing doing so.
This combination also undermines the plaintiffs' claim that it was not possible to make changes to the agreements, or that they were told (as stated in paragraph 13.2 of the statement of claim) that there is no point in consulting with another lawyer since negotiations on the terms of the transaction are out of the question. This is while several plaintiffs testified that they asked to make a number of changes, and their request was granted. All of this is subject to the difficulty of making changes to the sharing agreement, as stated, due to the fact that all the members of the group are supposed to sign it.