Zion Oil & Gas Inc (ZNOG)

[InFocus]

My contention: Zion Oil has been subject to religious discrimination due to a potential bias incident beginning with the initial SEC complaint, followed by possible malfeasance in the reporting and insinuation that Zion Oil would know of an investigation as the direct result of that initial complaint, followed by legal action/class action lawsuits based upon the assumptions of the complaint and reporting of the expectation of Zion Oil's awareness of any SEC investigation. It's possible the entire process has a basis rooted in discrimination.

After doing some research and becoming informed regarding common practices of SEC inquiries and investigations, I found a wealth of pertinent information via the Harvard Law School website and applied the Harvard Law School references to circumstances of the class action complaint against Zion Oil.
The following is an excerpt sent to the three attorneys of the class action as well as all of the partners of the Pomerantz Law Firm.

In response to elements of the class action complaint:

Referencing Harvard Law School’s Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation website, a post by Noam Noked titled “SEC Investigations and Enforcement Related to Financial Reporting and Accounting” clearly states an informal inquiry converts to a formal investigation “often done without notice to the company” and this progression may occur for the sole reason that certain documents required for review “can often be obtained by the staff only through a subpoena.”

Therefore, the class action complaint alleging Zion Oil and Gas should have known about the investigation prior to receipt of the subpoena in late June 2018 lacks merit.

The stated objectives of Zion Oil support both Christian, Israeli, and Jewish interests. Unfortunately, the company can be targeted for these values that have been part of their mission statement from the onset.

One possible action is a Malicious Prosecution lawsuit can be levied against the attorneys of a class action according to the following case law citation:

On November 29, 2012, in an unpublished opinion, Innovation Ventures, LLC v. Howard W. Rubinstein et al., the California Court of Appeal affirmed an order by the trial court permitting Innovation Ventures, LLC, the marketer and seller of the drink 5-Hour Energy, to proceed in a malicious prosecution case against plaintiff’s counsel who had brought, and subsequently dismissed, a consumer class action alleging false advertising in connection with the drink. The Court, however, reversed the trial court’s ruling that a malicious prosecution action could proceed against the named plaintiff.

A successful malicious prosecution claim requires all of the following:
-beginning or continuing a criminal or civil legal proceeding
-without reasonable grounds to believe the allegations of the proceeding
-with a purpose other than simply getting a judgment in the proceeding, and that
-the proceeding has terminated in the favor of the person being prosecuted or sued (i.e. the future plaintiff in the malicious prosecution suit must first win the suit against him or her).