12-34-56-78 Chekhov v. State of Israel, P.D. 51 (2)
- As for the chances of the lawsuit, prima facie and in a very concise manner: Zero (unrelated of course to the fact that in the absence of an application the petition becomes redundant in any case). The provisions of the Articles of Association are clear. This is the normative document that establishes the essential rules for the proper and fair management of the TASE, and its status is that of a regulation that is in effect in legislation (Civil Appeal 4275/94 Tel Aviv Stock Exchange Ltd. v. A.T. Torah Literature Database Management Ltd., P"IV 50(5) 485 (1997)). His instructions are clear and unequivocal, and instruct the CEO"To the TASE on how to act (Section 7 of the Rules, Chapter 6, Part IV of the Articles of Association):
"Conditions for the resumption of trading in a security after a suspension of trading
- The General Manager of the Stock Exchange .... shall resume trading in a security in which trading has been suspended if the grounds for suspension have been canceled... Subject to the following:
...
2) The first period of suspension has passed [3 months] - A"9]:
- a) Trading in the security will resume as part of the preservation list... ".
the first period has passed; trading in the security, when it is renewed, will therefore be renewed on the preservation list.
- The Applicant's reliance on the provision of Clause 2.b.2 of the Guidelines (p. G-5 of the TASE Articles of Association in Part IV, which was not attached to the Application), which deals with the transfer of a security to the Reserve List "Shortly after a conservation cause existed"It's hard to see how she'll help: she's about being transferred to the conservation list, not about"Conditions for resuming trading in a security after a suspension of trading" (Section 7 of the Rules), and if the Applicant wanted to be persuaded that one directive radiates to the other rule, this required clarification, which is not included in the application. In any event, "Nearby" Meaningless - waiting until the reason for preservation disappears, perhaps another 17 days, perhaps longer. Especially when the rules (chapter 6) specify everything related to this specific matter within a clear period: three months, at the end of which - There is no resumption of trade unless it is on the preservation list. Beware of interpretations intended to postpone the date set by the statute (Civil Appeal Authority 2553-01-25 Deutsch v. Rabinovich Building & Investments Ltd. (18.3.2026))The same is true of the TASE Regulations, since there is no end to the matter. It should also be noted that the reference to the matter Scalex It will not be of any use: Apart from the difficulty in the general application of that decision in our case, it is also not a provision in the TASE Rules that deals with the certification of The Board of Directors to act, and to exercise his discretion (as was the case in that case), but rather a technical and clear instruction to the CEO"to the TASE how it should operate. This is how it will operate, as this is what the TASE Regulations instruct.
- In view of the above, the application is denied. Once the application is rejected, there is no longer any hope in the petition, as the Petitioner-Applicant explained in her application for interim orders (paragraph 9 as an example). Accordingly, the petition will be deleted. More than necessary: Dina would have been dismissed in any case because of the delay in filing it, similar to the application. And if that were not enough: in any case, I would consider rejecting the petition on its merits as well, without Answer, when the Petitioner was unable to present any reason to interfere with the discretion of the CEO"To TASE, which he did not see to be granted The Petitioner's request to deviate from the rule that at the time of the resumption of trading after the end of three months from the suspension, trading on the preservation list will be resumed - In accordance with the authority and even the duty of the CEO"to the stock exchange.
- The request for interim orders is denied. The petition, which has become redundant (and in any case should have been dismissed on its merits) is deleted without the need for an answer and therefore without an order for costs. The application will be defined as open to the public.
Granted today, August 24, 2026, in the absence of the parties.