The second (Roth Case, ibid., ibid., opposite the letter F), the receiver does not deprive the debtor of his ability to take legal action, and does not become the debtor's business manager. Therefore, if the receiver reaches the conclusion that there are no assets that can be seized, or that the chances of their seizure are low, the solution will be collection proceedings at the Execution Office or bankruptcy proceedings, which the Applicants have initiated (I will discuss this separately below).
The third, which is the subject that bothered me, after I read the remarks of President Avnur (who herself dealt with these issues, to the best of my recollection), is presented by President Meir Shamgar - whom I have already mentioned above, his organizational and administrative understanding (in addition to the legal knowledge and judicial temperament that characterized him) - in this language (the Roth case, ibid., p. 117, opposite the letter Z - p. 118, opposite the letter C; emphases in the original):
"The burden on the courts is certainly a relevant consideration, and the court must take it into account in the framework of considerations prior to the exercise of the powers of appointment; The proceeding would be unjust or inconvenient if the receiver's actions in and of themselves required the court's very extensive intervention. On the other hand, it is also possible that sending the debtor to the Writ of Execution offices will not help in any way to reduce the burden, but rather to increase it - in cases where there are disputes regarding ownership of the assets, which the court will be forced to redecide in any case. It is also possible that the court will be required to hear appeals against the decisions of the Head of the Execution Office, and this too would place a burden, albeit of a different kind, on the implementation of the judgment.
In light of the above, it seems that the granting of powers to the receiver to carry out defined tasks and for a short period of time may not impose on the court an unjustified burden in the circumstances of the case.