In a parenthetical article and prior to the details that arise from this conversation, I will note that a review of the transcript of the conversation shows that the conversation is not recorded from the beginning, but rather from the transcript it is clear that the recording began after the conversation began, and in addition, the recording is interrupted before the end of the conversation.
And from here to the conversation – from the very beginning of the transcription, Don himself presented the problem – as detailed above. Thus, on page 1 of the transcript, Don says: "We talked at the time that we would divide these 250 into 12, I came to Guy and told him to listen, instead of dividing them into 12 I want to increase it, give you one payment now in September and an immediate payment in October, okay." He adds: "Now what's the problem? The problem is that I have to show an agreement against this payment. Ok? And I don't have an agreement that shows that." In other words, as already written – there is no dispute about the entitlement to payment, but rather that Don presented the company with the second agreement, in which there is no documentation of this agreement, and therefore a problem arose in the execution of the payment.
To this, Peleg responds: "No, there is an agreement that shows that this is the second part, the consultancy was paid for 2018, this is the written agreement." In other words, Peleg refers to the first agreement. Don replies to Peleg that this is the old agreement, while Peleg replies that it is the original agreement. To which Don replies: "No. This is the original agreement, but there is a new agreement that you signed and it cancels the previous agreement." An argument takes place between the parties, in which Peleg slams Don that the second agreement is an agreement that Don wanted only to show Fayette and that Peleg has correspondence attesting to this. Don goes on to say: "So you agree that you deserve 12 payments of $250,000? Yes or no? Is this the agreement between us?" (page 3 of the transcript) - i.e., he reiterates that there is no dispute about the very entitlement to the second half of the commission. Peleg replies that there was an obligation to make the payment immediately after the IPO, but Don withdrew the payment and in the end Peleg agreed to the division into installments. After the parties argue, Ben-Shabbat tries to reconcile, Ackerman suggests that Ben-Shabbat be an arbitrator between the parties on the matter, and Don agrees. Following this, Ben-Shabbat concludes that there is a gentlemanly agreement regarding a division into 12 months. In response to Ben Shabbat's question, Don replies that the payments should begin in June, and Ben Shabbat reflects that instead of dividing into 12 installments, Don proposes a division into two installments that will take place in September and October (page 7 of the transcript). Ben Shabbat concludes: "Excellent now, so we have our first point of argument" and asks Peleg what he says. In response, Peleg details the sequence of the signing of the second agreement, including his claim that this agreement was signed at Don's request and in order to assist him with Fayette. Peleg then specifies that in November Don asked to amend the agreement at Fight's request and to arrange for the return of the commission in the event that the IPO would not have taken place (page 9 of transcript). To this, Don replies: "That's right," Ben Shabbat asks if this is the third agreement, and Peleg says, "Third. That's the agreement that's being presented here." Ben Shabbat asks: "So is it the same as the one in October or the same as the one in June?" And Peleg responds: "Like in October plus, what happens if the IPO fails, is not carried out."