It should be noted that in the statement of claim and in its summaries, the plaintiff also mentioned additional sections of the law from the Securities Law and its regulations, without presenting an argument alongside their mention (section 53 of the statement of claim and section 65 of the summaries).
- The requested remedy is the full refund of the amount invested by the plaintiff because he purchased the shares following the false reports and overstatements, together with interest and linkage differentials from the date of filing the claim until full payment, and legal expenses, including attorney's fees. In addition, at the discretion of the court, to determine compensation for the plaintiff for suffering and mental anguish.
- In the plaintiff's summaries it was noted that the plaintiff, who was born in 1935, came to testify from his sickbed in a wheelchair, and his complex physical condition sometimes made it difficult for him to follow up on the questions he was asked during the interrogation. At the same time, his counsel clarified that the plaintiff was mentally clear and determined to prove his claim, and that even during the investigation, he was consistent and insisted that he relied on Shemen's misleading publications that significant signs of oil had been found. It is clear from his testimony that he was misled by the false publications and that there is a causal connection between the misleading publications and his purchase of the shares. The plaintiff's counsel noted in the summaries that at the time the plaintiff signed the affidavit he was healthy and understood every word of his affidavit, and that he had previously been present at the hearings that took place in the class actions. When the court ordered the replacement of Adv. Halfon in the class action, it decided to contract with him and file a personal lawsuit.
C.3. The Defendants' Claims to the Body of the Claim
- The defendants pointed out that the plaintiff purchased his shares on September 10, 2013, and hence the only report relevant to his claims is the report dated September 8, 2013, and not the reports made thereafter.
- The defendants clarified that they believe that the plaintiff purchased oil shares because it reported finding significant oil marks, and accept his claim that the inclusion of this statement in the oil report was significant to the extent that it caused him to sell shares of another company and purchase oil shares. At the same time, the defendants emphasize that the plaintiff's only claim is that Shemen reported finding significant signs of oil, when in fact no oil was found.
- The defendants claim that the phrase "significant oil marks" included in Shemen's report is a phrase that originates in the law, and more precisely In section 6 To the Eleventh Addendum. It was argued that the meaning of the phrase "discovery of significant oil marks" is that the oil marks were discovered by recognized verifiable tests, which are mentioned in the preamble To Section 6 for the Eleventh Addendum, as opposed to random findings. According to the defendants, the plaintiff and his counsel are not aware that the expression "significant oil marks" is an expression of the law, as well as that the discovery of these marks does not indicate the discovery of economically productive oil in drilling, but rather the discovery of Signs Oil in verifiable tests that are recognized by law. The report also includes a warning, as required by law, according to which production tests have not yet been carried out and this is not a discovery within the meaning of the Petroleum Law. Shemen's report was accurate and in accordance with the provisions of the law, and insofar as the plaintiff drew erroneous conclusions from it, it was a mistake on his part and not a deception on Shemen's part.
- The defendants claim that the plaintiff's investigation revealed that he did not read Shemen's reports, but relied only on newspaper articles in which they were reported. He also did not present the publications on which he relied, since the articles attached to his affidavit are from dates later than the date of his purchase of the shares on September 10, 2013. It was the defendants who presented the plaintiff with an advance article dated September 8, 2013, the plaintiff did not confirm that he had read it. In any case, a study of it shows that it does not encourage the purchase of oil shares and does not create the impression that oil has been found to be economically produced. It was argued that Shemen was not responsible for the content of journalistic articles, and that the plaintiff must show the specific article on which he relied and which included text for which Shemen was responsible, but he did not meet this burden.
- According to the defendants, the plaintiff's real argument is that the report גילוי "Significant Oil Marks" would be misleading, and if it had not been publicized, it would not have purchased oil shares at all, and therefore it is entitled to full restitution. This claim is different from the claim that was included in the pleadings, according to which the report concealed problems discovered in the drilling. According to the claim in the pleadings, the defendants should have included in the report, in addition to stating that significant oil marks had been found, the data on the pores rates found in the electrical log tests. This claim is a clear claim of a misleading detail in the report, and as such a full restitution remedy is relevant only if it is a misleading detail that completely changes the nature of the investment, or if there is a special relationship of trust between the parties. It was argued that in our case there is no basis to assume that if Shemen's report had also included a statement about the pore rates, the plaintiff would have ignored the statement regarding the discovery of significant oil marks and the transition to production tests, and would have completely refrained from purchasing Shemen shares.
- The defendants claim that the claim of a misleading detail in the report of September 8, 2013 should also be rejected.
It was claimed that the drilling was accompanied by first-rate professionals, and for this purpose an operations committee was established in which all the partners were members and consultants and external experts with renowned names in the field of oil were hired. The electrical log test is usually performed after the drilling reaches the target depth and provides preliminary data on a number of parameters, including the rate of pores at the different depths of the drill hole. As long as the result of the electrical log test indicates that there is no chance of oil production, the drilling is finished. Insofar as the result indicates that there is a chance of producing oil economically, we proceed to the next stage, which is production tests, the purpose of which is to examine whether it is actually possible to extract oil from the drilling pit economically.