With regard to the defendants' claim that they were not responsible for the reports included in the newspaper's articles, it was claimed that both the media and analysts relied on the information published by Shemen, and from them the serious problems discovered in the drilling were also hidden. It was further argued that Securities Law prohibits fraudulent or manipulative activities, and that this is a behavioral offense and there is no need to prove actual deception of investors. Securities law emphasizes the principle of due diligence, the purpose of which is to deter those in power in a company from manipulative behavior, and to ensure an efficient capital market. It was claimed that the plaintiff relied on predictions published in the media and based on the defendants' publications.
The plaintiff also refers to the defendants' claims regarding the ISA's position and claims that the ISA's staff did not examine the level of porosity and that the defendants are misleading in presenting the ISA's position that was given before the minutes of the board meetings were discovered.
As to the claim regarding the summoning of witnesses, it was argued that the defendants did not file an application for leave to appeal the decision to allow the summoning of witnesses and cannot complain about it. Therefore, the plaintiff reiterated his argument that refraining from bringing Adv. Ahdut to testify on behalf of the defendants is in accordance with their obligation. According to the plaintiff, with regard to the non-exercise of the option by Levy and Ashkenazi, the claim regarding the application to the Authority is a "Kafkaeschi" story, and in fact it did not take place at all. According to him, Levy and Ashkenazi gambled on investors' money, even though they knew that there was a low chance of finding oil. It was claimed that Levy and Ashkenazi had a variety of personal interests that led them to gamble on investors' money. Thus, while they make sure to protect their money and not invest in exercising the option.