Administrative Petition (Tel Aviv) 67964-08-26 Acsilion Smart Transportation Ltd. v. Tel Aviv Stock Exchange Ltd.

Judgment

A petition from this afternoon, accompanied by a request for temporary injunctions and an interim injunction, calling for an urgent decision today. The application was filed with an undue delay, and is subject to dismissal in view of its timing, which is also unsubstantiated on its merits. This matter leads immediately to the dismissal of the petition, since in the absence of an order there is no point in the petition, as we learn explicitly from the application; in any event, the petition was also filed with no delay; and in any event, it has no substance. I will explain briefly the timetable imposed by the Petitioner.

1. The Petitioner is a publicly traded company. In accordance with the TASE Articles of Association in its fourth part, its shares were suspended from trading on May 25, 2026, when it did not publish financial statements as required. Reports have not yet been published, even after almost three months. The Petitioner estimates that it will publish them no later than September 11, 2026, although there is no certainty. But The TASE Articles of Association further instruct (Section 7(2)(a) of Part IV) that if three months have passed and the grounds for suspension (here - non-publication of reports) in the same way, then the resumption of trading by a CEO"The TASE at the time of cancellation of the reason for suspension will be made only within the framework of the preservation list. This is with exceptions that are not relevant. In other words, from the moment trading was suspended, it was clear that in the absence of reports until August 25, 2026, it was not possible for trading in the stock to resume except on the preservation list.
2. 002. The Petitioner hoped that the reports would be published soon, but the date was postponed, and it is her hope that the change of elements on the board of directors and the involvement of the other directors will assist in the publication soon. On August 18, 2026, it contacted the TASE and asked to postpone the date of the transfer of the share to the preservation list, as this would cause damage to the shareholders, she claimed, and the reports would be published soon. The CEO replied"To TASE on August 23, 2026 (Appendix 1): The provisions of the Articles of Association are clear and unequivocal – if more than three months have passed since the date on which trading in the security was suspended, the resumption of trading will initially be made on the use list. He explained: "When a security has not been traded for a period of more than three months, the information in the investor's possession regarding it is not up to date and is not relevant to the market conditions at the time of resumption of trading. For this reason, the Articles of Association stipulate that the return to trading at the end of a full quarter of absence from the market will be done gradually and in a manner that will enable investors to formulate a position regarding the security over a reasonable period of time, prior to its return to the main list".

0

3. The Petitioner argues: The language of the bylaws allows for a short postponement of the date of the transfer to the conservation list (which she understands is on its way), and she quotes, while referring to the part of the guidelines in the bylaws that she did not attach (clause 2.b.2 on p. 7-5 of the regulations): the transfer "will be carried out soon after a reason for preservation has been fulfilled". The provision that determines the date of execution does not specify a date, but rather leaves an interval of days. Hence, days are also 17 days, and you must wait with the transfer to the conservation list until thenAfter all, extricating yourself from the preservation list is difficult. In any case, the TASE should have exercised discretion, its method, in referring it to liquidation. 31111-09-14 Scalex Corporation Ltd. v. Reznik Paz Trusts Ltd. (February 3, 2015)). Its damages if its shares are transferred to the conservation list are severe, investments will go down the drain, and it can undertake that even if the report is not published by September 11, 2026"H, cease to oppose the transfer to the preservation list.
4. Alongside the petition, which was filed on the afternoon of August 24, 2026: a request for temporary relief, which was finally duly filed at 17:00, and it calls for a temporary injunction that the court must grant More tonight Tomorrow the share will be transferred to the conservation list, it is claimed, and later it is petitioning for an interim order until the petition is decided, which will prevent the transfer to the conservation list until the petition is decided. The absence of an order, on the other hand, creates a situation that cannot be returned, and the petition will be of no use. The urgent request was forwarded to the evening review, and with it the petition.
5. The Law of the Motion to Dismiss. The Applicant did not properly explain what is supposed to happen tomorrow, the date on which three months will pass from the suspension of trading: prima facie, nothing is supposed to happen, except that it is known that the fate of the Petitioner-Applicant's share is decided to be transferred to the Reserve List After Removal of the grounds for preservation of non-publication of reports. That is, in the future. But in light of the request and the petition, we are going. The request expressly clarifies that "The transfer is expected to take place tomorrow, on August 25, 2026". If we assume that this is the case, then this means that the Applicant filed her application on the eve of the date that has been known for months to be the relevant fixed date in the TASE Regulations. This, it seems, is in an attempt to create a situation in which it will hold on to the order, before the TASE has had time to respond, and afterwards - In order for her to hold on to an interim order until the completion of the petition's investigation, which in a good enough chance will lead to the publication of the reports until the completion of the inquiry (in about two and a half weeks, the Applicant hopes), the need for transfer to the Conservation List will be canceled, and there will be no longer a need to clarify the petition. But even if the Applicant hoped that the reports would be published in these days (and it is difficult to get an impression of her reasons on the matter), And even if she contacted the stock exchange only these days and was answered yesterdayThus, when she has suffered known damage by force for months and she brings her request before the court at the present time, her application should be regarded as suffering from a reasonable delay, which is sufficient to reject it.

Copied from the Ottoman Settlement Prophecy [Old Version] 19166.           Only more than necessary: the balance of convenience is not tilted in favor of the applicant in any case (all under the assumption, as her own method in her application, that the transfer to the conservation list is already on the agenda). As explained by the CEO"For the stock exchange, A stock that has not been traded for a proper quarter in terms of protecting the public should first be traded on the preservation list [and to be precise: it is not stated in the letter itself that the stock will now be transferred to the preservation list (since the reason for preservation is still in place), but in fact it is clear that even at the time of the cancellation of the suspension, the share will begin trading on the preservation list and not on the main one]. In any case, these are the rules. Observance of the rules can help maintain the stock exchange as a proper trading platform, to prevent Ineffective disclosure and corporate governance mechanisms, and prevent Harm to the investing public As a general rule (see judgment inAdministrative Petition (Tel Aviv-Yafo) 55852-05-25 Retail Minds Technologies Ltd. v. Israel Securities Authority (27.7.2025)).  In the absence of a clear justification for deviating from them, he clings to the rules.