"The board meeting was convened to receive a report on production tests that we recommend, not only me, but also other partners in order to go to production tests, and it is my duty to come to the board of directors before making such a decision. I bring to the board a version of a resolution with which there is an immediate report, with which I also consult with the chairman of the board of directors, is there anything wrong with that?" (p. 24, paras. 22-25)
Ashkenazi testified that Levy spoke with him before the board meeting, after he returned from a meeting of the operations committee in which a recommendation was formulated by all the partners in the drilling to go to production tests. Levy told him what his recommendation was, and that he had prepared a text for immediate reporting (page 27, paras. 5-16). A review of the minutes of the meeting held by the Shemen Board of Directors on September 7, 2013 shows that after a discussion was held between the members of the Board of Directors, one of the directors asked, "What will the company report to the public," and in response, Ashkenazi said, "We will report in accordance with the approval of the Board of Directors, Yossi, please read the text" (page 3). Later, Levy read the text he had prepared, and the board members even raised questions about it. I have not found any basis for the conclusion that the preparation of a draft resolution prior to the hearing shows that the prepared version was improper, stemmed from improper motives, or was forced upon the members of the Board of Directors.
- As for the words of Levy and Ashkenazi regarding maintaining confidentiality. I will note that with regard to Levy's remarks, a review of the minutes of the hearing of September 7, 2013 shows that he requested that "all information be kept in great secrecy" after a statement by another director who requested that the members of the board of directors not "make noises" of seeking investors before reviewing the budget (page 3). In these circumstances, the plaintiff's claim is as if Levy said, "I ask that all the information be kept in great secrecy." Bad things come up about drilling" (paragraph 38 of the plaintiff's summaries emphases in the original, M.R.) is an incorrect representation, to say the least, of Levy's words. This is because at no stage in the course of the hearing did Levy say the words in the manner in which they are presented by the plaintiff.
The plaintiff sought to learn about the deliberate concealment of the results of the electrical log tests on Ashkenazi's part as well. This is in light of his statement: "It is important to note that we are in a critical period and it is very important to maintain confidentiality. Do not distribute or make use of the information to which you have been exposed" (page 4 of the minutes of the Board of Directors' meeting). I cannot accept the plaintiff's position as if the statements speak for themselves and indicate conspiratorial concealment. This is if only for the reason that from their language and location in the minutes of the hearing, it is not possible to understand what they were said and what was the basis for them, and as noted, the reference to confidentiality in the aspect of investor search was mentioned earlier.
- The plaintiff further argues that the fact that Delek Energy, to which Levy provided all the data obtained from the electrical log tests, chose not to invest in oil, indicates the serious problems in drilling and the unlikelihood of conducting production tests. Levy confirmed in his testimony as part of Halfon's request that he had given all the data to representatives of Delek Energy, and a day or two later they replied that they were not entering into the investment (Levy's testimony in Halfon's motion, page 70, lines 14-25, page 75, paras. 12-29). I did not find room to elaborate on this matter because it is clear that the fact that after all the data was transferred to Delek Energy, it decided not to invest in oil, it cannot be learned that it did so because it believed that there were "serious problems" in drilling or that there was no room for performance tests. The plaintiff did not summon representatives of Delek Energy to testify and did not present an evidentiary basis for his claim in this matter. In these circumstances, there is also no basis for the plaintiff's claim that Shemen should have included this figure in her reports.
- Further proof of the plaintiff's claims is that the production tests, which were planned for 30 days, ended after less than five days. From this the plaintiff learned that the defendants had dispossessed the balance of the funds instead of returning them to the public. But even with regard to this serious allegation that the defendants took money into their own pockets, the plaintiff made do with raising suspicions and did not bring evidence to substantiate it.
The plaintiff further claims that Levy and Ashkenazi pressured to approve the decision on the production tests due to their personal interests (see in this regard, Levy's testimony in Halfon's motion, page 79, s. 13 to p. 80, s. 1). The plaintiff's arguments in this regard are based on the fact that Levy and Ashkenazi were signatories to personal contracts, and were entitled to bonuses and grants. But even assuming that this is the case, I cannot accept the argument that this figure, in and of itself, shows that their decisions stemmed from a desire to enrich their pockets at the expense of the company and the investors. It should be noted more than necessary that Ashkenazi even claimed that he had waived the bonuses to which he was entitled even before the drilling (Ashkenazi's testimony in the Halfon application, p. 92, paras. 28-31).
- From the plaintiff's arguments, it appears that in addition to the aforesaid, there are, in his view, additional indications that the significance of the pore figure was dramatic:
The first is that the rate of decrease in pore data was much greater than claimed by the defendants. This is because Shemen referred to the "Yam 2" drilling as a basis for comparison, and therefore it is necessary to take into account the porosity data that existed in the "Yam 2" drilling, which was 12%-13%.