Background
Bankruptcy proceedings involving debtor Sigal Noy and respondent Ofir Chen had been pending for several years in the Tel Aviv–Jaffa District Court. Attorney Haim Eisenkot was appointed receiver over 15,000 shares of Medinol Ltd. that Dov and Lilach Hauser claimed belonged to the debtor. A separate appeal challenging the receiver’s appointment remained pending before the Supreme Court.
The receiver sought Medinol’s internal corporate documents and financial statements to assess how the shares might be used to satisfy the debtor’s obligations. On July 23, 2026, the District Court granted the request over the objections of Medinol and Schwartz, Lerner, Dovshani Trusts (2003). The applicants appealed and requested a stay, arguing that disclosure before the appeal was decided would be irreversible and would render the appeal moot. They also contended that a receiver succeeds only to the debtor’s rights and therefore could not inspect records unavailable to shareholders themselves.
The receiver responded that disclosure would cause no irreversible harm because he was court-appointed and bound by confidentiality duties. The Official Receiver and respondent Alexander Noy did not oppose a stay, while the remaining respondents filed no response.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Yael Wilner granted the application and stayed the District Court’s disclosure order until resolution of the appeal. She explained that a party seeking a stay ordinarily must show both favorable prospects on appeal and that the balance of convenience supports relief, with the balance of convenience generally carrying greater weight.
When an order requires disclosure of information or documents, however, compliance before appellate review creates irreversible harm because disclosure cannot be undone and may effectively defeat the appeal. The Court was also unpersuaded that delaying production would cause the receiver irreversible harm. That was sufficient to grant the stay without assessing the appeal’s likelihood of success.
The Court made no order for costs.
Key Takeaways
- A disclosure order may be stayed when production before appellate review would make meaningful appellate relief impossible.
- In deciding whether to stay an order pending appeal, Israeli courts generally give primary weight to the balance of convenience.
- The Supreme Court did not decide whether the receiver was entitled to Medinol’s internal records or whether his appointment was valid; those issues remained pending on appeal.
Why It Matters
The decision protects the practical value of appellate review where the challenged order compels disclosure of confidential corporate material. Even when the recipient is a court-appointed receiver subject to confidentiality duties, the irreversible nature of disclosure can justify maintaining the status quo.
The ruling is procedural, not a determination of the receiver’s substantive information rights. It therefore leaves unresolved the broader question whether a receiver over allegedly debtor-owned shares may obtain corporate documents beyond those available to the debtor as a shareholder.