A: The recovery in the held companies happened from two things, one, on an exogenous level from the markets, and two, from actions taken by those companies to really allow them to be healthy after the crisis they experienced.
Q: What is it in the markets, is it the price of oil that has increased?
A: Prices that have increased, yes, that have recovered.
Q: From the oil prices that have risen?
A: Yes, the gas and the oil, yes. But not only, I say... The recovery wouldn't have come to them if they hadn't gotten to this situation when they're relatively healthy.
Q: ... If the price of oil had risen day by day, it would have jumped from the same 30 to 70 companies, would it have recovered?
A: Yes, of course.
Q: ... If the price of oil had jumped from 30 to 100, the entire crisis would have ended.
A: That's how it started, so that's how it ended.
In the applicant's interrogation, Primak confirmed that there had been an increase in the company's share price (p. 415, questions 15-20). I will note again and reiterate, as stated, that the decision under attack in our case is not about whether the CEO is entitled to receive remuneration or not – but rather deals with the manner in which the over-ruling decision was approved and examines whether it was made in accordance with the law, with a preliminary evidentiary standard, for the purpose of discovering documents. Therefore, the respondent's claim that the meeting subsequently approved a change in the company's remuneration policy is irrelevant.
There may have been special circumstances that depended on the identity of the incumbent CEO or the reasons for approving the remuneration despite the objection of the general meeting, in accordance with the position of the Attorney General for related cases, as detailed in the matter Matrix, paragraph 38:
"Special Cases" can refer to special circumstances related to the identity of a serving CEO, including exceptional qualifications; retention of high-quality personnel; limited supply of potential CEOs due to the Company's field of business or special experience (paragraph 7.2 of the position); special circumstances related to the Company, including a business situation that may be impaired due to changes in the Company's management; events external to the Company that have a significant impact on its business and justify maintaining the stability of management; The Company's presence in a sensitive period that requires managerial continuity that cannot be possible without remuneration (paragraph 7.3 of the position); Special circumstances related to the relative advantage of the board of directors over the general meeting in examining the best interests of the company, inter alia: non-public data such as a competing proposal for the CEO; Negotiations that require the CEO to remain in order to mature and he is not yet obligated to report; a more accurate ability of the board of directors to evaluate the CEO's contribution to a particular event in the life of the company and to establish a set of incentives whose importance the meeting finds difficult to assess (paragraph 7.4 of the position)" (emphases added, M.A.).