As for the claim that experts hired Shemen also considered the pore figure and decided to proceed with the production tests, it was argued that this claim contradicts the position of Delek Energy, which decided, after receiving all the data, not to acquire the rights. According to the plaintiff, the data that was known to the defendants, after the electrical logs tests, i.e., on September 7, 2013, were such that they did not justify going to production tests in advance. In this context, he further argued that the defendants did not prove that they took all measures to ensure that there was no misleading detail in the prospectus, as required by the provisions of the Securities Law.
- As to the defendants' claim that the operating committee decided that it was appropriate to continue with the production tests, the plaintiff replied that the operating committee was not told that Shemen planned to receive their full funding from the public. With regard to the defendants' claims regarding the decision to go for production tests, it was argued that this was an unreasonable decision in view of the problems that were discovered in the pores, and that it was made for extraneous motives. It was further claimed that the pore figure was not taken into account among the data that led the experts to recommend a transition to the production tests. The plaintiff also finds support for his claim that the production tests were completed quickly since there was no oil flowing in the pit. Therefore, the plaintiff's conclusion is that the purpose of the decision to go to production tests was to raise money from the public without informing it of the problematic nature of the drilling. In the summaries of the reply, an argument was added that a prominent example of manipulation on the part of the defendants was that they used the terms "light oil" and "high-quality oil" in the reports as if they were two identical terms. It was further argued that the evidence shows that the defendants pressured the board of directors to approve the execution of the production tests, and the decision was made only because the board of directors believed that Levy would raise the money from the exercise of the options, and thus the funds would be raised from the public only and not from their own money (in this regard, the plaintiff refers to the minutes of the board meeting of September 16, 2013). The defendants also ignored the board's demand to bring in an expert to examine the type of stone. It was argued that Levy's extensive knowledge in the field only strengthens the conclusion that in our case an act of deception was committed against the public.
As for the warnings included in the company's reports, the plaintiff claims that "these are intended for the purpose of claiming an object in popular parlance," and of course they do not exempt the company from its duty to provide the investing public with reliable information.