Discussion and Decision
- As detailed above, the plaintiff's claim is that the defendants concealed the findings obtained from the electrical logs tests in relation to the data of the reservoir rock. This, while they knew that the data showed "serious problems" in the "Yam 3" drilling, which dramatically reduce the chances of economic oil production, and in light of the report About Discovery Significant oil marks were false, and the decision to conduct production tests was unreasonable. The company's reports were made with fraudulent intent in order to motivate the public to purchase oil shares, and the plaintiff who relied on these false and fraudulent reports is entitled to a full refund of the full amount of his investment.
- The course of the hearing of the parties' arguments will be as follows:
I will first discuss two arguments raised by the parties that have implications for the hearing as a whole. The first is the plaintiff's request to be based on the determinations of the panels that approved the motions for class actions in the matter at hand. The second is the defendants' position that the plaintiff's testimony revealed his "true" claim, which is not the one that arises from the pleadings.
Later on, I will discuss the causes of action claimed by the plaintiff, first and foremost the cause of action under the Securities Law for false and fraudulent reporting. In this framework, I will first examine the nature of the data that was clarified in the electrical log tests. Later on, I will examine whether it is possible to determine from the evidence presented to me the serious significance alleged by the plaintiff derives from these figures. On the basis of the conclusions arising from the hearing, I will examine whether Shemen's reports contained a misleading detail, whether fraudulent acts were proven, and whether the plaintiff proved the damage alleged by him and the causal connection between him and the misleading individual.
I will then examine whether the cause of negligence has been proven, and in addition, I will examine whether the plaintiff is entitled to compensation for infringement of autonomy, pain and suffering.
- As will be explained below, my conclusions are that the plaintiff did not prove that the findings obtained in the electrical logs tests indicated the serious significance that he claimed. In this regard, the plaintiff did not prove, to the extent required by law, the claim that these findings indicated that there were no significant oil marks, that the prospects for oil production were dramatically impaired, and that the decision to carry out the production tests was unreasonable.
At the same time, even though the serious significance that the plaintiff attributes to the findings of the electrical log tests was not proven, the defendants should have included in Shemen's report the current pore rate.