However, it was not possible to ignore the company's engagement in the partnership agreement, and the question marks that exist regarding the implications of that engagement and the agreement on the company's operations.
- Although the prima facie picture that is learned from the statements of both the applicant and the objector to the court file is worrying as to the fate of the company, it has not been proven before me that this is a company that as of today is unable to repay its existing and expected debts, to the extent that it should be regarded as a non-solvent
Moreover, it is precisely from the Applicant's requests for information relating to the partnership, and precisely in view of the ambiguity that the objector took in providing the information and the considerable question marks that arise from the documents presented to the court file (including with regard to the bank account), it is not impossible that the Company has resources at its disposal, the nature and scope of which have not yet been clarified.
- Insofar as we are dealing with question marks, I will add and note that a significant part of the applicant's arguments are those that the objector denies. These are factual disputes, which require factual clarification. In accordance with the ruling of the Honorable Supreme Court, this factual inquiry does not usually take place in the framework of an inquiry into a liquidation application.
In the body of the liquidation application, the applicant made very harsh claims against the objector, including those relating to the execution of financial transactions that contradict the provisions of the law, forgery of documents, and the submission of false reports by the objector on behalf of the company.
On the other hand, it was argued by the objector that there is no substance to the applicant's claims, and that this is an active corporation, whose conduct is in accordance with the company's basic documents, its decisions and the provisions of the law.