On the merits of the matter, it was held that although it is not possible to decide the parties' arguments at this time, the chances of the lawsuit tip the scales towards the acceptance of the application. The court noted that a preliminary examination of the language Article 63 30Companies Law Indicates that the company has no discretion in whether to convene a special meeting when the shareholders holding the required number of shares require it. It was also determined that the purpose of the Companies Law Supports the reduction of the restrictions that apply to the implementation of this option, which is intended to ensure the right of shareholders to influence the company's conduct through the meeting. In addition, it was clarified, that even if the company has certain obligations in accordance with American law, they do not change the interpretation of Israeli law; and that in the implementation of a poison pill-type protection program, the proportionality of its implementation in relation to the threat from which it is intended to protect must be examined. In this context, it was clarified that the alleged concern does not stem from the demand to convene a meeting, but rather from other implicit agreements. Therefore, since no concrete but only theoretical concern was presented, this affects the strength of the company's arguments in relation to the defense plan.
With regard to the balance of convenience, it was determined that it is also biased in favor of the respondents. The court ruled that a joint application by a number of shareholders requesting a special meeting would not cause irreparable damage to the company – especially when even according to the company's approach, there is no concrete concern at this time about a hostile takeover carried out by the respondents as a result. On the other hand, the activation of the defense plan and the dilution of the holdings will cause irreparable damage to the respondents. In the meantime, it was held that the relevant question is whether the respondents' action is in accordance with their right to Companies Law will cause them irreparable damage due to the implementation of the protection plan, and not whether there are other ways they can take that will cause them less damage. In any event, it was determined that the risks presented by the Applicant were vague concerns, and in the absence of concrete damage that would be caused to her - The balance of comfort does not tend toPrivilegeV.