Subsequently, the parties' summaries were submitted.
- The main arguments of the parties
C.1. Arguments Regarding Procedural Agreements and the Weight of the Decisions of the Panelists Who Heard the Class Proceedings
- At the beginning of the summaries on behalf of the plaintiff, a notice was included according to which, in accordance with the "procedural agreement", the court must also include within its considerations the investigations, the summaries, the decision to approve the application of Halfon, and the decision to approve the request of the purchasers of shares.
The defendants, for their part, claim that the procedural agreement was different from that described in the plaintiff's summaries, and that all that was agreed upon in the framework of it was that the affidavits and the interrogation protocol of the defendants and of Adv. Meiri of the Halfon applicant would be included as evidence in the case. Moreover, the prima facie rulings in the decision of the Honorable Justice Keret in the Halfon application were canceled in the framework of the judgment that approved the settlement agreement in that proceeding, and an appeal against the judgment was rejected (Civil Appeal 1582/20 in the Halfon case). In addition, it was noted that the decision of the Honorable Judge H. Kabub in the motion of the shareholders was not part of any procedural agreement in this proceeding, and that the plaintiff even chose to exclude himself from the class represented in this class action, and therefore he must prove his claim, in full, himself.
In the summaries of the reply on behalf of the plaintiff, it was claimed that it was determined "that within the framework of the considerations, the investigations, the summaries and the decision of the Honorable Judge Keret Meir [in] class action 38842-10-13 or the decision of the Honorable Judge Kabub in class action 13948-08-15 can be taken and not as the defendants claim." It was further argued that the court should not be denied the possibility of bringing among its considerations the decisions of two judicial instances that decided the issue, even if they were interim decisions.