"The chairman of the board of directors must submit to the ministers and the authority -
the budget proposal and the plans stated in section 32(a)(2) and the draft of the reports mentioned in section 33(a) - one month before the date for their discussion, unless the ministers determine, after consultation with the authority, a shorter period for this matter."
In this aspect, Barlev's opinion indicates that the state had real knowledge and deep involvement in what was happening at Agrexco, by virtue of the statutory supervision mechanisms of the Government Companies Authority and the State Comptroller, which included receiving financial reports, publishing activity data, and conducting ongoing audits (ibid., at p. 15):
"Subject to the provisions of the Government Companies Law, the Government Companies Authority, by virtue of its functions prescribed by law, knew the company, received its financial statements and knew their contents. Accordingly, on the ISA's website, there is an activity report of the company, which includes details regarding the company, including a concise report, which includes data from the company's financial statements...
It should also be noted that Agrexco is a company audited by the State Comptroller, and in practice there were even auditor reports that pointed to certain phenomena in its conduct. Hence, the government was aware of what was happening at Agrexco also because it was a controlled body.
Not only that, but from the little material in my possession, it appears that the Government Companies Authority has directed questions to the company's auditors on matters related to its efficiency, dismissal of employees and its financial statements, in addition to everything detailed in section 15 "The actual involvement of the government in the company's activities."
The same applies to the division of responsibility with respect to financial statements in general and to the knowledge of the Companies Authority in particular (Barlev opinion, at p. 20):