For these reasons, it believes that its activities should be restricted, supervised, and prevented the smuggling of assets by means of all the necessary remedies, including an investigative accountant who will be able to examine the scope of the assets and smuggling.
- On January 27, 2026, the man announced that he was opposed to the appointment of a special manager or receiver, as this was unnecessary and could cause irreparable damage to the companies. In his response, he repeats the explanation regarding the circumstances of the establishment of XX Ltd. He argues that this is not a sale of shares to third parties, nor is it a transfer of the company to a foreign party, and there is no smuggling of assets. The identity of the controlling shareholder has not changed, the assets have not been removed from the business system, and the property mass that is under examination in the framework of the balance of resources has not been deducted in the slightest. He further claimed that XX Ltd does not have any business activity of its own and in fact it holds the shares previously held by AA in tax appeal, while AA in tax appeal is a subsidiary according to the new corporate structure. In practice, all the companies are still under the full control of the man, with the same partners he had before. argues that the transfer of the shares does not contravene the foreclosure order, when it was duly approved by the Registrar of Companies. This is a transfer of shares of one company to another and not a transfer of shares from the person's possession or their transfer to a third party.
Regarding the appointment of an accountant, an investigator argued that this is completely unnecessary when the companies are conducted in full transparency and any accountant appointed by the court will be able to obtain all the information from the companies' accountants. He does not object to this, but notes that insofar as the Applicant is interested, she will have to pay for the opinion. He further argues that it is not possible to petition for the appointment of an investigative accountant for the purpose of financial examinations, as well as for the appointment of a special manager or temporary receiver, when these are contradictory remedies. The appointment of an investigative accountant is intended to examine the activity and present a full picture to the court, the appointment of a receiver or a special manager is intended for drastic managerial intervention where there is a serious failure or immediate danger, a completely unnecessary and dangerous remedy in his view.
- On February 5, 2026, the woman's response was submitted stating that she insists on her request, emphasizing that this was an explicit violation of the foreclosure order. She also claimed that if it had not been for the smuggling, the man would have approached the court in this matter and asked for permission to transfer the shares to the foreign company he founded.
- The affidavits of the parties' property were submitted with considerable delay in relation to the date set in the hearing, after receiving an extension:
On February 9, 2026, an affidavit of property was filed on behalf of the man, and on February 17, 2026, an affidavit of property was filed on behalf of the woman.
- On February 25, 2026, the woman announced that she was complying with all of her requests, inter alia, in light of the data that emerge from the property affidavit submitted by the man. She also announced that she was petitioning for contempt of court for continuing to rent the vacation apartment, without allowing her and the children to use it, despite the decision given on the matter.
- This decision is now being made, due to the personal circumstances detailed in the decision. With the parties, sorry. In view of the restrictions on the types of discussions on emergency orders due to the war with Iran (Operation Lion's Roar), and while all the required data is before me, this decision is given in writing.
Discussion and Decision
- An examination of the parties' arguments against the partial evidence presented so far shows that the recent changes in the way the family corporations are maintained and managed, may reflect an attempt to conceal information and smuggle assets. In order to enable the Applicant to receive half of the value of these corporations, it is necessary to obtain all the required information and provide remedies that will ensure its share while continuing to manage them profitably.
- An examination of the affidavit of property on behalf of the man and its appendices, including the documents of the Registrar of Companies and the agreements signed by the various companies, shows that on 10/3/25 the man established XX Ltd and transferred the ownership of "AA Ltd" to XX Ltd.
The following is a breakdown of the manner in which the relevant shares and assets are held for each of the companies:
- AA Ltd.
At the time of the opening of the proceedings: 100% of the shares were held in the direct ownership of the man. On December 31, 2025, this company was transferred to the ownership of XX Ltd without any direct shareholding on behalf of the man.
- AA owns real estate with a total value of approximately NIS 16,000,000 and these are:
- an apartment on A Street in City A, worth approximately NIS 4,000,000;
- contractual rights in Apartment B in Project B at an unspecified value;
- contractual/pledge rights in an apartment on Gimel Street in Gimel City with a value of NIS 4,485,836;
- an apartment in City D worth NIS 3,166,656;
- An apartment in City A worth NIS 2,993,170.
- In addition, it owns shares in subsidiaries:
76% of the shares of Company B Ltd.