Moreover, in which of the answers of the defendant's legal counsel to the requests to join, which were given prior to the filing of the lawsuit, and when the said bylaws were still in force, it was stated: "... According to the association's bylaws, the authority to discuss your application is vested in the general assembly". This answer is erroneous and misleading, and contradicts the explicit provision of the Regulations, as quoted above. It should be noted that the defendant did not act in accordance with its bylaws, even after one of the plaintiffs and their counsel made the defendant's legal advisor aware of his mistake in this matter.
In this situation, when no decision was made during such a long period of time in which of the applications to join, when As we learn from the correspondence between the parties, the defendant did not intend to bring the motions to the hearing before the appropriate body at all, and in any event did not make a decision on the motions over a long period of time, in view of the disputes between the parties that stood in the background, and when in my opinion the defendant was not able to present to the court any real reason for rejecting the applications to join any of the plaintiffs (except for her claims against Mr. Glam personally, And as for my opinion, they were also not sufficient to substantiate its decisions in his case, as stated below), it appears that the plaintiffs' argument that the defendant acted as it did while taking into account extraneous considerations should not be rejected, and on the face of it, this is indeed the reasonable conclusion.
It seems, therefore, that there is no choice but to intervene in the matter.
In this context, the defendant's arguments for failure to exhaust the administrative process, for not contacting the Registrar of Non-Profit Organizations or other regulators, should be rejected. This is both because such an application is not required at all in the circumstances of the case, given that the defendant itself is the body that was supposed to examine the applications to join and has consistently refrained from doing so, and because it has not been proven that any of the said bodies has the authority or ability to intervene in the defendant's decisions in this matter.