Thus, the group committee decided to compromise for pragmatic reasons, but it seems that there was a real chance of repelling the claims of those purchasers if it had insisted, and if the defendants had been involved. Hence, the causal connection between the alleged damage and the attribution of liability to the defendants was severed.
- Reinforcement for the severance of the causal connection is found in the results of Adv. Nof's handling of the cautionary notes that were recorded in favor of Mizrahi Tefahot Bank. Here, too, when Adv. Nof learned of it, he contacted Ms. Or and demanded that the comments be removed, and the matter was also discussed in a meeting that took place with the committees of groups 104 and 102 (the summary of the meeting of January 12, 2015 was attached as Appendix 58 to the defendants' affidavits). As soon as the matter was not addressed, Adv. Nof also contacted the bank in February 2016, and even prepared an opening motion to lead to the deletion of the comments. In any event, the bank waived its claim to entitlement to some of the payments received by the group members, in view of the recognition that the notes were not recorded in accordance with the appropriate procedure in the sharing agreement.
- Since I have rejected this element of the claim on its merits, there is no need to rule on the claim of limitation that was raised against him.
The Component of the Claim for Compensation Due to the Defendants' Negligence in Handling the Purchase Tax Payment
- The plaintiffs petitioned in their summaries (paragraphs 569 and 586(f)) for compensation by way of estimate for the defendants' alleged negligence in handling the payment of the purchase tax, which caused the foreclosures imposed on their accounts
- The lawsuit should be dismissed in respect of this component.
- First, this head was not claimed in the statement of claim (see, for example, chapter 22 of the amended statement of claim entitled "The damage caused to the plaintiffs", in paragraphs 27.1-27.6, which does not include a reference to the issue). The original statement of claim also does not appear in the component. The plaintiffs even explicitly stated in their claim (in paragraph 27.6 of the amended statement of claim) that they are claiming for the direct damage and collective expenses only, and even clarified (ibid., in paragraph 27.3) that by "direct damage" they mean the amount of the investment, including the purchase tax if paid, minus the amount of the refund they have received so far.
Although in paragraph 27.1 of the amended statement of claim, the plaintiffs mentioned that they also paid interest in respect of the purchase tax due to the delay in paying it, they further stated (ibid., in paragraph 19.8.2) that the fines and interest for the late payment were returned to them in 2020.