(3) Initial depth;
(4) net layer thickness;
(5) the type of tests (type of logs) conducted to establish information regarding the existence of significant petroleum marks;
(6) types of petroleum;
(7) the findings that led the corporation to put its mind at ease and accept the reliability of the signs;
(8) If the drilling has not yet reached its final depth, this fact is indicated;
(9) Warning in this language: "It is clarified that production tests have not yet been carried out in the drilling; Signs of gas or oil do not indicate the existence of a find (Discovery) as defined in the rules of thePRMS or on a discovery, as defined by Petroleum Law, 5712-1952 ....".
- Indeed, in the instructions Section 6 No requirement to detail pore data was included. At the same time, it can be argued that Shemen should have included this figure in the framework of the Section 6(a)(7) In which she was asked to elaborate on "the findings that led the corporation to put its mind at ease and accept the reliability of the marks." In our case, all that was stated by Shemen in this framework was that the results of the tests carried out by the operator attesting to the possibility of the presence of oil, and their analysis, were communicated to the partners and satisfied them with their opinion regarding the existence of significant oil marks. A "circular" statement that does not add significant information beyond the possibility of the presence of oil. Indeed, the language of the clause is not unequivocal, but it can be held that within the framework of the details of the findings and the manner in which the corporation's opinion was given as to their reliability, it was appropriate to detail the findings that were before the board of directors, including the rate of pores. It should be noted that the plaintiff claims that such a duty also arose by virtue of the Section 7 to the Eleventh Addendum which deals with the reporting of a "material event" or "material development" in the drilling. In any event, in view of my conclusion above that the duty to report arises by virtue of the Regulation 37A2, I am not required to plant rivets Regarding the obligation by virtue of these sections of the Eleventh Addendum.
- As stated above, the obligation to report in accordance with the Eleventh Addendum does not negate the general obligation established In Regulation 36(a) to the Reporting Regulations. I note that from Shemen's documents, the minutes and the reports, it appears that the company's board of directors has reached its decision to continue with production tests on the basis of a set of data. The data set contained "good" information, and "bad" information, which included the pore data. The current pore rate has risen and is discussed by the board, but in the report The Immediate Only the "good" data which are the thickness of the layer and the type of petroleum were included. Indeed, this data appears in the list of mentioned data In section 6 to the Eleventh Addendum as to be reported. However, the result is that the information that was brought to the investing public, which is considering the purchase or sale of a security, reflected part (and only the good part) of the totality of the data on the basis of which the decision to conduct production tests was made.
- The defendants claim that from the perspective of the investing public, the totality of the data is meaningless, and the only data that is important to a reasonable investor is the company's decision to proceed with production tests. According to them, only where the change in the pores figure would have led the company not to undergo production tests should it have been reported. Indeed, the decision to go out for production tests is one of the events that a company is required to report on in accordance with the Eleventh Addendum (section 10), and reason gives that it is of a positive nature. It is also true that as is the way of decisions, it can be reasonably made even when not all of the data are "good." However, this does not lead to the conclusion that reporting to the public must reflect only a binary result - a continuation of production tests or the cessation of drilling. After all, a decision on production tests when the "verifying" tests did indeed "verify" the company's assessments with respect to the data from the reservoir rock is not the same as a decision on production tests when there is a change for the worse in some of them. This is even if there is no flaw in the decision to conduct production tests. The evidence is that the company's board of directors referred extensively to the findings of the electrical log tests and the latest porosity data in particular, before deciding to carry out the production tests.
- In this context, I will note Levy's remarks at the board meeting, which show that even in his view, the investing public evaluates the company's reports even when examining the technical data included in it:
Yossi Levy: I assume that the public will examine the thickness of the net layer and try to understand the significance based on past experience in other drillings. There is currently no ability to assess the significance of the porosity and conductivity of the rock and the existence of cracks. I estimate that the report will be received in a positive but cautious manner." (Minutes of the Board of Directors meeting of September 7, 2013)