Second, an examination of the ISA's position shows that at least some of the data that led to my conclusion were not available to it. First and foremost, the claim that the new pores data were different from those included in the first resource report did not appear in the application for approval and the ISA did not address it (paragraph 56 of the ISA's position). The report published by Shemen on March 27, 2014, also does not mention the Authority's position and apparently did not take into account it.
Indeed, the Securities Authority is an administrative authority and the subject of this proceeding is a matter of legislation that it is responsible for enforcement. It is also the regulator who wrote the disclosure directive that was the basis for the amendment of the reporting regulations. Therefore, it is appropriate to listen to her interpretive position in recognition of her expertise in the field she believes in, her familiarity with the relevant market, and the experience she has accumulated in the field. However, the court is not obligated to adopt the interpretive position of the administrative authority, and must choose the interpretation that is appropriate for its approach (Additional Civil Hearing 4960/18 Seligman v. Phoenix Insurance Company Ltd., paragraphs 62-63 of the judgment of the Honorable Justice H. Meltzer, and paragraph 101 [Nevo] (July 4, 2021) (hereinafter: Seligman Civil Further Hearing); High Court of Justice 1765/22 Tomer Warsaw Law Office v. Minister of the Interior, para. 22 [Nevo] (July 3, 2022); Civil Appeal 2512/93 Locating Communication Services in a Tax Appeal v. State of Israel, IsrSC 51(3) 252, paragraph 9 of the judgment of the Honorable Justice D. Dorner [Nevo] (1997); High Court of Justice 6395/98 Elkoshi v. Compensation Officer, IsrSC 55(1) 454, 461-462 (2000)). In these circumstances, I did not find that the ISA's position could change my conclusions.
F.7 Interim Summary
- The above can be summarized by the fact that from the evidence presented to me, it emerges that the defendants should have included the porosity figure obtained in the electrical log tests in the report of September 8, 2013.
At the same time, in the absence of an expert opinion, it has not been proven that the latest figure indicates "serious problems" in drilling and that the chances of oil production have been dramatically affected. It was not proven that the oil marks were insignificant, nor was it proven that the decision to carry out production tests was unreasonable. Since it was not proven that this was the meaning of the findings, it was not proven that the defendants knew this and concealed the matter from the public with fraudulent intent. As stated, the defendants even presented evidence showing that the decision to conduct the production tests was made on the basis of the recommendations of experts in the field.