(paragraphs 29-32 of the committee's decision).
This determination is deeply rooted in the professional expertise of the Respondent and its professional advisors. I did not find anything in the Petitioner's arguments that would show that the position of the Respondent and its counsel is erroneous. The Petitioner based its arguments on the details of the Ness proposal. However, even if at first glance Ness's proposal could be understood as granting the status of a substantial sub-doubt to Moody's, this is the beginning and not the end. To the details of the Ness proposal, it is necessary to add the examination of the Respondent's professionals, who, as stated, examined the matter against what is required in the aforementioned clause 5.3.2(b), and reached the conclusion that the services that Moody's will provide to Ness in the framework of the realization of the tender will not give it access, directly or indirectly, to the model of calculating the value of the estimated assets, that Moody's will not be entitled to update the database, and that it will not have an impact on it beyond the derivative of the data transfer. I did not find any reason to intervene in the decision of the tenders committee, which accepted the recommendations of the professionals in this context.
- As for Daniel, I noted above that Ness made it clear that institutional investors would not be required to purchase Danel's software in order to interface with the database. Moreover, with regard to the services that Ness will receive from Danel during the realization of the tender, the tenders committee determined in its decision (paragraph 33 onwards) that the software services that Danel will provide to Ness for the purpose of managing the database: "are similar to the services that the Danel software provides to any other entity that purchases it, when it serves for it as much as a 'registration office' for the assets held by it." In addition, the committee's decision emphasized that the committee's professional bodies examined the matter and reached the conclusion that Danel would not be involved: "in the core of the services for calculating the value of the valued assets, and in the supervision mechanisms that will exist in the provision of the valuation services" (paragraph 34 of the decision). The committee further emphasized in its decision that, according to the professionals' examination: "Danel is not required to make adjustments to the software, except for making adjustments to the applicability of the valuation services in the new tender, which was expanded to new asset types (adding about 7 new fields), while following the tender, Danel is required to adjust the fields in the software in any case, for the institutional entities in which the software is installed, regardless of the identity of the supplier winning the tender." It therefore follows that the Respondent did not ignore the Petitioner's arguments, they were examined by the Commission's professionals who did not find any substance in them, and I did not find a flaw in the Committee's decision to adopt their findings.
The Petitioner's arguments regarding Moody's and Danel are therefore rejected.
- Therefore, the petition is rejected.
- The Petitioner will bear the Respondents' expenses, in the sum of ILS 50,000 for each of the Respondents. This sum is derived from the nature of the petition, and from my estimation the considerable inputs that were required of the respondents in order to prepare the responses to the petition and prepare for the court hearing.
Given today, 12 Iyar 5786, April 29, 2026, in the absence of the parties.