Don adds that the sum he agrees to pay – $480,000 – "is above and beyond what you actually deserve" (page 17 of the transcript).
A summary of this part of the conversation shows that the parties do not disagree that the plaintiff is entitled to the second half of the commission, and both parties confirm that the disputes between them revolve around two – first, the number of payments of the commission and second, the question of whether the commission can be converted into shares. As for the second dispute, both parties are unanimous that there is a problem in allowing a conversion, when in the second agreement there is no anchor for the payment of the second half of the commission, and as a result, there is no anchor for the conversion. Support for these assertions can also be found in the testimonies of Ackerman, Peleg and Ben Shabbat. Thus, Ackerman testified that the purpose of the meetings held in September was to try to get the second half of the commission, because in practice there were no gaps on this issue, but their demand was to convert this amount of commission into shares at the price of the PRE IPO (see his testimony from line 19 on page 28 to page 29, line 7, and on pages 29-30). Similarly, Ben-Shabbat testified that prior to the meeting, there was no dispute about the actual entitlement to the second half of the commission, but only about the number of payments and the possibility of conversion (see his testimony on page 91). In addition, Ben Shabbat testified that no additional issues were raised, and moreover, on page 106, lines 12-14, he further testified:
"Q: But if they told you that there were other issues.
A: So we would probably have talked about them, but since they weren't talked about, then there's nothing."
And back to the transcript of the conversation, at this stage of the conversation - Don and Ben Shabbat leave the room and the conversation continues between Ackerman and Peleg (so on page 20 of the transcript it is written that they hear footsteps moving away and in this regard see Ackerman's testimony on page 64 of the transcript, in which he confirmed that Don and Ben Shabbat did indeed leave at the same stage, and yes, Peleg's similar testimony on page 198). Ackerman tells Peleg that the fact that Don agreed to pay 250 is proof that the first agreement is valid (page 21 of the transcript) and continues that "the next time we contact, we will not contact him at all. Let's say the company complied with the agreement, paid him 230, paid him 250, let's continue with the original agreement. That's what needs to be done, the story is over," and Peleg confirms this. Ackerman continues: "Okay. Whatever we get now we will take, don't argue about the 250 bring them first. I want to be in a war position with him as a 250 with me... Take the 250 after that you will deal with the rest after the 250. Once again, the very fact that he pays them means that he agrees with the original, there is no wisdom." (page 22 of the transcript).