Indeed, throughout the period, outline plans were advanced to take advantage of the full range of rights in both lots. The scenario did not occur whereby Group 104 was unwilling to help promote the maximization of rights that members of Group 102 could also enjoy.
The various planners acted on behalf of both groups. The law firm of Cassuto-Nof provided legal services to both of them; The general meetings of the members of the groups were coordinated. And even when the difficulties arose, the members of Group 104 did not act to remove the members of Group 102. Instead, the professionals continued to make efforts on behalf of the two groups to promote the joint plan in practice (see above in paragraphs 15 onwards).
- The plaintiffs further claim that they were harmed during the dissolution of Ms. Or's companies, when their interests were not adequately protected, in view of the defendants' negligence. It was claimed that the liquidator, Adv. Eitan Erez, did not recognize the rights of Group 102 in the proprietary rights belonging to Lot 104. Thisis why he did not direct funds in the amount of approximately ILS 3.3 million to the benefit of the group members, but rather directed them to be distributed among all of Ms. Or's creditors.
In addition, it was argued that the members of Group 102 reached the stage of distributing the receipts in respect of the sale of the lots from a position of disadvantage, in view of the fact that there was no legal source that obligated the members of Group 104 to allocate their rights in favor of the members of the Group 102. Therefore, it was ultimately agreed that they would receive 20% of the sale money, while they were supposed to receive more, because the total consideration was supposed to be divided equally among all the members of the two groups.
- I can't accept this argument either.
As a starting point, it should be noted that it is clear that the sale of the rights in the two lots together led to a much higher return than the members of both teams could have enjoyed.