Thus, to the first alleged damage – 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: whether the ISA defined the Petitioner as a "shell company" and the TASE CEO transferred its shares to the preservation list, or whether the ISA defined the Petitioner as a "shell company" and only an interim order prevented the transfer of its shares to the preservation list, The effect seems to be the same. It is not a temporary impediment to formal entry into the conservation list that will enable capital raising; It is not that it will affect the ownership of the shareholders; Anyone who conducts negotiations with the Petitioner or conducts due diligence will certainly be aware that trading on the Main List is 'conditional', until the petition is decided, and what if the order prevents the formal transfer to the Conservation List in the meantime.
It should be noted here: contrary to the Petitioner's claim, this is not a decision that has not yet come into effect, and the court is asked to delay its entry into force. The position of the Authority's staff that this is a shell company was accepted yesterday, and it itself is a possible act (even if, within the framework of the petition, the Petitioner will be allowed the right to persuade that the decision should be revoked). The present request calls only for the postponement of the date on which the shares will be included in the preservation list and for an immediate report to be published stating that this has happened (when a report that the ISA has decided that it has decided will be published in any case). However, the decision itself, with all its implications, has long since fallen, and it is not an interim order that will change this, as opposed to a decision on the petition.
The same applies to the second damage alleged – that the classification of the Petitioner as a shell company is liable to cause a shock in the market and harm the confidence of shareholders, institutional entities, business partners and customers. Again, it is difficult to identify a material difference between a situation in which the ISA defined the Petitioner as a "shell company" and the TASE CEO transferred its shares to the preservation list, and one in which this was prevented only by a short-term court order. An immediate report will need to be published one way or the other; The shareholders will be aware that this is a company that the ISA has defined as a shell company; Trading will be done knowing that it may be restricted within a short time; Institutional investors are certainly liable to shy away from new investments, as are business partners and customers.