Second, similar to the situation that characterizes the health funds, there are various regulatory bodies that are responsible for supervising and controlling the way the association operates. Indeed, the state's means of supervision of the health funds are very broad. The court in the Kahani case emphasized this and clarified (in paragraph 24 of the judgment of Justice Y. Amit) that:
"The state's powers of supervision and control over the health funds control almost every aspect of their activity. These are broad powers, which include supervision of the financial, business, and budgetary conduct of the health funds, their corporate structure, and the quality of the services they provide to the public. Nor are these supervisory powers without 'teeth,' but rather powers that are accompanied by significant sanctions available to the relevant parties, which they are entitled to impose in appropriate cases both on the health funds and on their officers."
See also Opening Motion (Jerusalem District) 278/96 The Association for Democracy and Integrity in the Maccabi Health Fund v. Maccabi Health Fund, [published in Nevo] 5758(b) 433, 448 (judgment of Judge A. Procaccia) (1999), cited in the Priestly Case.
The scope of regulation and external supervision of the association is more limited than the supervision of the health funds. However – and as detailed above – there is a regulation consisting of a number of regulators, all of whom are responsible for supervising the Association's activities.
- Third, BPriestly Matter The court gave great weight to the existence of an external entity to the corporation's management (i.e., the Attorney General) authorized to file a claim on behalf of the health funds at the request of the Minister of Health, by virtue of Section 37E to the National Health Insurance Law. The court ruled that this is an exhaustive arrangement, which "Not intended to sand Alongside The Derivative Claim Arrangement Prescribed in the Companies Law" (Priestly Matter, in paragraph 42 of the judgment of Justice Y. Amit. My emphasis, R.R.).
An amutah also has an authority, which, although not identical, has a similar meaning. The relevant comparison in this context is the authority of the Registrar of Amutot under sections 49-50 of the Amuta Law to order the correction of deficiencies in amutot. Section 50(a) of the Associations Law grants the Registrar of Associations (or the Attorney General) the authority to submit to the District Court an application for the dissolution of an association on various grounds, one of which is because the association is acting contrary to the law, its objectives or its bylaws (section 49(1) of the Associations Law). Section 50(b) of the Associations Law states that "a request for liquidation as stated in section 49(1), (2) or (5) shall not be filed until after the Registrar has given written permission to the amutah to correct the distortion and the amutah has not done so within a reasonable time after receiving the warning."