[1] The rate at which the plaintiff's share (C) was reduced is the additional equity that the plaintiff did not provide in the amount of NIS 100,000 (A) divided by the total equity made available up to that date of NIS 6,802,000 (B), which is 1.47%. When this rate is subtracted from the 5% that the plaintiff had on the eve of the first dilution, the result is that the plaintiff is left with 3.53% (D).
[2] The rate at which the plaintiff's share (C) was reduced is the additional equity that the plaintiff did not provide in the amount of NIS 70,600 (A) divided by the total equity made available up to that date of NIS 8,802,000 (B), which is 0.8%. When this rate is subtracted from the 3.53% that the plaintiff had on the eve of the second dilution, the result is that the plaintiff is left with 2.73% (D).
[3] For the Ministry of Health updates to which defendants 2-3 referred, see "Corona Updates for the Dates 10-16/2/2020" Ministry of Health (February 16, 2020) https://www.gov.il/he/pages/10022020_2; For updates that include reference to the first confirmed patient, see "Corona Updates for the Dates 25-27/2/2020" Ministry of Health (February 27, 2020) https://www.gov.il/he/pages/25022020_2.
[4] It should be noted that in the concluding table in paragraph 7 of the expert's opinion, there was a clerical error originating from the fact that the expert erroneously stated a net financial debt of NIS 5,710,000 instead of NIS 6,085,000, and therefore the value of the equity, including owners' loans, was erroneously stated as NIS 21,858,000 instead of NIS 21,483,000 (see the expert's testimony on the subject – minutes of the hearing, p. 216, s. 32 – p. 218, s. 5).
[5] It should be noted that although the proceedings in question began before the entry into force of the Interest and Linkage Rulings Law (Amendment No. 9), 5784-2023 (S.H. 3117, p. 142; hereinafter: "Amendment No. 9"), the provisions of Amendment No. 9 apply, in accordance with section 117(c) of the amendment, which states that it also applies to "a proceeding that was pending on the eve of the commencement date" (see, for example: CA 543/79 Lazar v. Peterchester Ltd., IsrSC 36(1) 475, 479-480 (1982); CA 672/81 Jerusalem Hotel Fellows v. Take, IsrSC 40(3) 169, 215-220 (1986)). This is more than necessary, since even according to the Interest Ruling Law prior to Amendment No. 9, it was possible, in appropriate cases, to rule only linkage differentials without interest, as stated in section 3a(a) of the Interest Ruling Law as drafted on the eve of Amendment No. 9, although as a rule there was room to rule linkage and interest differentials (see, for example: CA 419/80 Hollander Ltd. v. Hod Goose Ltd., IsrSC 36(4) 433, 435 (1982)).