| The Economic Department of the Tel Aviv-Jaffa District Court |
| Civil Case 66846-06-20 Asher v. Oil and Gas Resources in Tax Appeal et al. |
| Before | The Honorable Judge Michal Rosen Ozer | |
| Plaintiff | Shimon Asher
Through his attorneys , Adv. Yogev Halfon and Adv. Batya Halfon |
|
| Against | ||
| Defendants | 1.Oil Oil & Gas Resources Ltd.
2. Gabi Ashkenazi 3. Yossi Levy Through their attorneys , Adv. Dror Savransky and Esther Benaim Agmon Office with Tulchinsky |
|
| Judgment
|
Introduction
- The plaintiff, Mr. Shimon Asher (hereinafter: The Plaintiff), purchased shares of defendant 1, Oil Oil and Gas Resources in a tax appeal (hereinafter: Oil or The Company), It was established with the aim of engaging in oil and gas exploration in Israel. At the relevant times of the claim before me, Shemen was a public company and it held approximately 77.7% of the rights in the license that granted the right to carry out oil exploration in the deep sea located west of the coastal strip between Palmahim and Ashkelon (hereinafter: The License). By virtue of the license, Shemen carried out the "Yam 3" drilling, which is at the center of the lawsuit.
Defendant 2, Gabi Ashkenazi (hereinafter: Ashkenazi) served as Chairman of the Company's Board of Directors on the relevant dates, Defendant 3, Yossi Levy (hereinafter: Levy) served as the Company's General Manager.
In summary, it should be said that the prosecution's claim is that the defendants published false reports according to which significant signs of oil were found in the "Yam 3" well. This is despite the fact that prior to the publication of the reports, the defendants already had up-to-date findings on the reservoir rock data, which indicated serious problems in drilling that had a dramatic impact on the prospects for economic oil production. It was argued that these figures showed that there were no significant oil marks and there was no room to continue to carry out production tests in the drilling. The defendants hid this data from the public in order to encourage investors to invest in the company's securities. The plaintiff claims that he purchased the company's shares based on a false and fraudulent report by the company dated September 8, 2013, which he read about in newspaper articles, and would not have done so if the report had not been published. After the production tests, it was reported that the drilling was a "dry pit" and that the plaintiff's investment went down the drain.