In my opinion, the important fact is that Levy and Ashkenazi acted on the advice of the lawyer given to them. Insofar as the motives for their action are concerned, there is no significance to the correctness of the legal basis of the lawyer's advice, and whether it was based on the position of representatives of the Israel Securities Authority. Since Shalvi and Ashkenazi acted on the advice of their lawyers, the basis for the claim that they refrained from exercising the options because they wanted to protect their personal interests in light of their knowledge of the results of the electrical logs tests. After all, when they contacted the lawyer, they did not know what his advice would be. It should be emphasized that the plaintiff did not dispute that Adv. Meiri said these things to Levy and Ashkenazi, but only that he did so on the basis of the position of the Israel Securities Authority. However, as stated, in the context at hand there is no significance to the question of what the ISA's position was in this case. Of course, given that Shalvi and Ashkenazi did not know what the advice of their lawyers would be, there is also no reason why they contacted him about three weeks after the trustee contacted them.
Under these circumstances, there was no point on the part of the defendants to ask for a summons to testify by Adv. Ahdut, who, according to Adv. Meiri's testimony, was the one who spoke with the Israel Securities Authority regarding the exercise of the options. In fact, the only reason that could have justified summoning her to testify was if the plaintiff sought to damage the credibility of Adv. Meiri. But as much as he wished to do so, he should have asked for her summons, which he did not do.
In a parenthetical article, it should be noted that the plaintiff did not dispute that the trustee noted that in the absence of an instruction, the options would be sold on the market. It would seem that if the plaintiff had really understood the intentions that the plaintiff attributes to Levy and Ashkenazi, that is, it was clear to them that there was no point in drilling, they should have left the trustee's request unanswered. After all, according to the plaintiff, on September 12, 2013, prior to the execution of the production tests, the share price reflected the positive value of the report dated September 8, 2013. Ashkenazi made the remarks as part of his testimony in Halfon's request (page 92, paras. 19-22):