Background
Attorney Chelsea Corinne Stone applied for inclusion on the list of trustees authorized to administer corporations in insolvency proceedings. The Ministry of Justice’s Public Committee for Compiling the List of Corporate Trustees rejected her application in decisions dated July 29 and August 10, 2026, finding that she satisfied neither eligibility route under section 37(b) of the Insolvency and Economic Rehabilitation Law, 2018.
Section 37(b) permits inclusion of an attorney or certified public accountant with five years of professional experience, or a person possessing special expertise or proven experience in managing corporations during insolvency proceedings. Stone argued that her academic and court work had given her distinctive expertise in insolvency law and other skills critical to a trustee’s work. She also contended that the statute left “special expertise” open-ended rather than limiting it to prior corporate-insolvency management.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the petition. Justice Khaled Kabub, writing for the panel, held that section 37(b)’s second eligibility route requires special expertise or proven experience specifically “in managing corporations in insolvency proceedings.” Expertise in insolvency law alone therefore did not satisfy the statutory threshold. The Court reasoned that Stone’s interpretation conflicted with the statutory language and would produce an absurd result because knowledge of insolvency law is already expected of applicants under every eligibility route and is separately tested through professional examinations and regulatory requirements.
The Court clarified that an attorney with fewer than five years in practice could still qualify through special expertise acquired outside the attorney-training route, provided that expertise concerned managing corporations in insolvency proceedings. Stone, however, had neither such expertise nor proven management experience. She also could not qualify through the professional-experience route because she joined the Israel Bar only on January 31, 2022, less than five years before applying. The Court found no basis for judicial intervention, dismissed the petition without requesting a response, and made no costs order.
Key Takeaways
- “Special expertise” under section 37(b) must concern the management of corporations in insolvency proceedings; general expertise in insolvency law is insufficient.
- An attorney with fewer than five years of practice may qualify through the alternative route if the attorney independently possesses the required corporate-insolvency management expertise or experience.
- An applicant relying on the attorney-experience route must have five years of professional work experience and cannot satisfy that requirement through pre-admission academic or court work.
Why It Matters
The decision gives section 37(b) a narrow, text-based construction and distinguishes substantive knowledge of insolvency law from practical expertise in managing insolvent corporations. Applicants who lack five years of professional experience must demonstrate specialized management capability or a proven record in corporate insolvency, not merely academic, judicial, or legal familiarity with the field.