In any event, when he toldAdv. Cassuto about it, he turned to Ms. Or and demanded clarification regarding the warning notes that were recorded in connection with the engagement with these purchasers. The matter was not fully addressed, considering that at a later stage, Cassuto-Nof stopped providing legal representation to the group.
- Against this background, I do not believe that liability in torts should be imposed on the defendants for the aforementioned element of the claim. They were not partners in the conclusion of these transactions, and protested against them in real time after the details regarding them became clear.
- Indeed, at the end of the day, the group committee decided to compromise with the aforementioned purchasers so that they would receive some of the refunds received by the other members of the group. However, the defendants were not involved in this settlement, and it appears that they could have raised weighty claims against the said payment, taking into account that the proper procedure was not taken in accordance with the agreement, which greatly weakened the claim of those purchasers to the proper reliance on compensation.
In this regard, no complaints should be made against the members of the group's committee, which decided to compromise with those additional purchasers. The committee sought to expedite the procedures for receiving the funds, which dozens of members of the group were waiting for as a breath of fresh air. Adv. Erez testified that he was the one who proposed to compromise with the other purchasers in order to prevent unnecessary awkwardness (p. 549, Q.17 onwards). It was decided to adopt the compromise despite the fact that the group's lawyer at the time, Adv. Palmer, also expressed the position that the claims of these purchasers were not strong (see the statement in P/6). The defendants raised arguments against Adv. Palmer in this matter, which I do not see fit to be addressed for the purposes of the present proceeding.