Hence, Shemen is obligated to report the current pore figure, and in fact the obligation by virtue of Regulation 37A2 is sufficient to reach this conclusion.
It is well known that deception under the Securities Law can also be expressed by way of omission, i.e., by refraining from providing relevant data, and not only by providing incorrect details (Section 1 of the Securities Law; Criminal Appeal 3506/13 Habi v. State of Israel, paragraphs 515-528 [Nevo] (January 12, 2016); Criminal Appeal Authority 4827/95 H.G. Pollak in Tax Appeal v. State of Israel, IsrSC 55(2) 97, para. 12 (1997); Horowitz, paragraph 34; Administrative Petition (Tel Aviv District) 37447-10-13 Africa Israel Industries in Tax Appeal v. Israel Securities Authority, para. 116 [Nevo] (January 28, 2015); Tzipora Cohen Shareholders in the Company - Claim Rights and Remedies (Second Edition, Volume 3 24 (Second Edition) (2010) (hereinafter: Tzipora Cohen)). Hence, in the absence of an update on the pore figure in the report of September 8, 2013, the report was misleading.
- Although my determination above is sufficient, I will also briefly address the arguments of the parties regarding the obligation to include the pore figure by virtue of the Eleventh Addendum or Regulation 36(a) to the Reporting Regulations.
- As to the eleventh addendum, the defendants claim that there was no reason to mention the pores in the report, since it is not among the data that should be included in the report of "significant oil marks" according to Section 6 To the eleventh addition, which is as follows:
(a) Experience drilling in a specific target layer has been completed and validation tests have been performed in the layer (such as: Open-Hole Logging; Logging while Drilling; Drill Stem Test), on the basis of which the corporation reached a well-founded conclusion that there are significant petroleum marks in the said layer, the report shall include the following details:
(1) the name of the drill;
(2) the date of finding the traces of petroleum;