A receiver was appointed to a public company which main activity was in the field of real estate in Central and Eastern Europe, and within the framework of his position he requested to summon two people who were not officers of the company to interrogate them. These objected to the interrogation contending that the whole purpose of the interrogation is to get a procedural advantage in a Court case that the receiver plans to file.
The Supreme Court held that in insolvency proceedings, the Court appointed officer receives extensive investigative powers in order to bridge the existing information gaps, but such rights must be balanced against the rights of the interrogees, including the interrogees' right not to be subjected to unreasonable, excessive or inappropriate burden. The purpose of the interrogation cannot be to obtain procedural advantage for the officer in a claim to be filed against the interrogee or against any other person. Therefore, the officer is entitled to summon to the interrogation, but he may present only questions which purpose is to obtain general information relating to the collapse of the company or to examine the possibility of opening legal proceedings on behalf of the company but not questions aimed at achieving a procedural advantage.