This correspondence indicates that the mere entitlement to payment of the second half of the commission is not in dispute, and the problem revolves around the reinvestment – i.e., the possibility of converting the commission into shares.
- The meeting was held on September 24, 2019;
Subsequently, a meeting was held between Ackerman, Peleg and Don on September 16, 2019, the transcript of which was attached as Appendix 35 to Peleg's affidavit - an examination of the transcript shows that large parts of the conversation are unclear, and therefore it is difficult to derive information from this conversation.
After this meeting, a meeting was held between the parties on September 24, 2019 – i.e., after the second offering – in which Peleg, Ackerman, Ben Shabbat and Don were present. A transcript of this conversation was submitted to the court (as Appendix 26 to Peleg's affidavit). As to the background to this meeting, there is some disagreement between the parties. I will note that as detailed, Don claims in his affidavit that the demand to receive the second half of the commission was raised close to this meeting. As stated, I do not find this argument of Don acceptable. This is because it is clear from the evidence that the very entitlement to the second half of the commission was not in dispute, but a problem arose regarding the plaintiff's right to convert half of the commission into shares. Support for my determination is found in a conversation between the parties dated September 24, 2028, the content of which is not in dispute since a recording of the conversation, as well as a transcript of it, were submitted to the court. The transcription of this conversation constitutes significant evidence in the proceeding, since, as will be detailed below, from the statements of the parties in the course of the meeting, it is possible to learn both about the dispute regarding the second half of the commission, but also about the dispute in general. This includes the question of whether the plaintiff was indeed entitled to payments in addition to the other half of the commission whose payment was arranged at this meeting, and also on the manner in which Peleg interpreted clause 3.1.4, which is at the center of the dispute in the proceeding here.