In light of the above, the examination of the question of whether it is possible to allow the filing of a derivative claim on behalf of the Association involves answering the question of whether there are other supervisory mechanisms, and whether they are sufficient; or whether in order to ensure effective supervision and control, derivative claims should also be allowed in relation to the Association. It should be noted that the examination at this stage focuses on the supervision mechanisms that exist in the law, and it is not a concrete examination of their implementation of these mechanisms in practice, in this case or in other cases. If the supervision mechanisms exist but are not used (or have been used insufficiently), the correct course of action is to take legal action against the entity responsible for enforcement.
- In the Kahani case, the court examined the question of the possibility of filing a derivative claim against the health plans (as Ottoman associations) also taking into account two additional characteristics: the "location" of the body in question on the private-public axis; and the nature of the relationship between the body, its members and the state.
It seems that these aspects are also connected to the question of the nature of the additional supervisory mechanisms (which are not a derivative claim) of the corporation. The assumption that seems to have been before the Supreme Court is that the closer a corporation is "located" to the "public edge" of the axis, and the closer the relationship between it and its members is to the relationship between the citizen and the state, there is reason to assume that the greater the degree of responsibility and supervision of the state over the corporation's activity. This assumption is inferred from the ruling in the Kahani case, According to the statement, the health plans are not a private corporation about which there might have been concern that in the absence of a derivative claim mechanism, it would have remained unsupervised. This is, the court held, a comprehensive supervision arrangement that directly derives "from the fact that the health funds are 'a public body in the full sense of the term'" (the Cohen case, at para. 25 of the judgment of Justice Y. Amit).