Podcast Host Asher Ben Oz Seeks to Cancel Insolvency Proceedings Citing No Benefit to Creditors
Asher Ben Oz, known for the popular podcast "Foskas," has filed a request with the Tel Aviv Magistrate's Court to cancel the insolvency proceedings against him. He argues that the demand to pay 3,000 shekels monthly to the creditors' fund is objectively impossible given his minimal income. Represented by attorney Asaf Tasiri, Ben Oz proposes a realistic payment plan of no more than 700 shekels per month and claims he has no assets or significant earnings. He contends that the insolvency process is futile, given his debts exceed 11.9 million shekels and there are no assets to liquidate, thus providing no real benefit to creditors.
Ben Oz's request follows a renewed motion last month by court-appointed trustee Ran Masika to order his detention, alleging Ben Oz has failed to address his financial obligations and has caused significant damage to the insolvency estate. The trustee accused Ben Oz of living in a luxury penthouse in Ramat Gan, frequenting upscale restaurants, and boasting about his wealth on his podcast and media appearances, all while not paying into the insolvency fund and hiding his financial dealings.
In response, Ben Oz clarified that his residence is only possible due to support from friends and third parties who value his skills, and that he has no independent income or assets. He emphasized that his income is minimal and primarily allocated to child support payments. He also argued that imprisonment for inability to pay is neither legally nor morally justified. Ben Oz highlighted that the "Foskas" brand is his only potential source of future income and that incarceration would destroy his professional reputation and eliminate any chance of economic rehabilitation.
The insolvency proceedings were initiated by a creditor represented by attorneys Yoav Ben Porat and Yoav Raz. Trustee Masika responded that the legal process is a creditor's insolvency petition and not a customizable plan, urging patience for the court's decision. Attorney Tasiri criticized the trustee's detention request as populist and economically illogical, asserting that insolvency laws are meant for rehabilitation, not punishment. He called for the cancellation of the insolvency order and a return to individual debt collection procedures.
The case underscores the challenges in insolvency enforcement when debtors claim inability to pay and question the efficacy of collective proceedings in cases with massive debts but no realizable assets.
