12-34-56-78 Chekhov v. State of Israel, P.D. 51 (2)
- On the side of the petition: the application for an interim injunction, and a temporary injunction first, in relation to which I have made this decision. The chances of the petition are sufficiently high, certainly at the threshold required for the granting of the temporary injunction and the interim injunction, according to the Petitioner-Applicant's assessment, and she relies on what is stated in the petition. As for the balance of convenience, if the orders are not granted, she believes that irreparable damage will occur: Sunday - Difficulty in raising capital, economic and property damage to the shareholders, halt of real business activity while the Petitioner is in advanced negotiations, and due diligence in relation to a significant strategic investment. Damage Monday - Classifying it as a shell company is liable to cause a shock in the market and damage the confidence of shareholders, institutional bodies, business partners, and customers. Damage Tuesday - Entering the preservation list is practically irreversible, since in order to return to the main list, the company will in practice be forced to meet the conditions of a company requesting that its shares be traded for the first time. On the other hand, the Petitioner argues that the damage caused by the issuance of the order is limited, while it does not prejudice the authority's powers, the postponement is temporary until the petition is clarified, and if the petition is rejected, the Authority will be able to re-examine its position.
- After Examination: The Law of the Application for an Interim Order (and in Any Event - for a temporary injunction) to dismiss out of hand, as my authority In Regulation 9(b) Courts Regulations For Administrative Matters (Procedures), 5761-2000. I'll clarify relatively briefly, again. - In the time constraints when the application was submitted today in the evening, and when the publication of the immediate report is scheduled to take place tomorrow, January 16, 2026, at 09:30, as demanded by the Authority.
- First, As to the chances of the petitionWith the necessary caution, it should be said briefly, and even before the Authority's response, that these are not foreseen from the improved, everything is only ostensible. The courts have long insisted on the professionalism of the ISA, and therefore the court is not inclined to interfere too much in the ISA's administrative discretion (see, for example: Civil Appeal 5320/90 A.Z. Branovich Properties and Rentals in BaranavitzTax Appeal v. Israel Securities AuthorityIsrSC 46(2) 818 (1992); High Court of Justice 8338/21 The Lesser Group Limited v. Israel Securities Authority (4.4.2023). This is certainly the case in matters that are within her clear area of expertise, when her decision was made at the end of a proper administrative proceeding, in which the Petitioner was given full right of argument, and at the end of it in a reasoned and detailed decision. It is doubtful that such an intervention will come here. The Authority's detailed and reasoned decision is certainly not seen at this stage as lacking in infrastructure or lacking in the task of gathering facts or exercising discretion. The examination of whether the Petitioner meets the definition of a shell company has been carried out for a full year. The Authority further thoroughly examined the data of the reports for the first half of 2025 - Those that the Petitioner defines as those that do not reflect the company's situation, without emphasizing that only now (January 1, 2026 and a supplementary report dated January 13, 2026) have been published. Moreover, the Authority is certainly aware of all of the Petitioner's reports and publications, the latest of which - One day before the decision was made. Even arguments regarding the significant weight that should be given to a non-binding letter of intent are doubtful whether they indicate a value to the company, which the authority must attribute to it in order to determine that it has been rescued from the alternative of activity. Without elaborating, it is highly doubtful what the chances of the petition are, and again, it should be emphasized, everything was said only prima facie, and at this early stage of the proceeding.
Copied from Nevo9. Main, The Balance of Comfort: In terms of the damages that may be caused to the Petitioner according to her claim, there is no convincing explanation in her arguments as to how the granting of a temporary order will be in order to truly prevent the damages that she fears.