From the affidavits of Peleg and Don, it appears that there may be a disagreement between them as to the nature of the service offered to the company by Peleg in the first place. As for the proposed service, Peleg claims in his affidavit that already in 2017, after the relationship between him and Don was established, against the background of the company's acute need to raise funds in light of the bad financial situation, he initially suggested that the company merge with a stock exchange skeleton in Israel in reverse. However, after examining the feasibility of this possibility, it became clear that it was not feasible, since Israeli officials had shown no interest in the company, which was in a faltering economic situation. According to Peleg, immediately afterwards, he offered to help the company carry out an IPO on the Sydney Stock Exchange, Australia. Subsequently, Peleg claims that he was the one who established the connection between the company and Mr. Kobi Ben Shabbat (hereinafter: "Ben Shabbat"), who created the connection between the company and an Australian brokerage firm called Armada Capital (hereinafter: "Armada Company") and the manager of this company – Ananda (hereinafter: "Ananda"). A connection that eventually led to the company's IPO on the Australian Stock Exchange.
Don, on the other hand, argues for the existence of two parallel routes – a path that began first chronologically – in which Peleg's services were hired for the purpose of recruiting investors and investments in the company, in view of the company's need for cash flow, and a second route, which developed at a later stage and in which Peleg also undertook – of raising funds through the company's IPO (I will note that in this matter the parties disagree as to the question of the extent of Peleg's contribution to this route). I will note that with regard to this last route, the disputes between the parties regarding the development of this route are also marginal, since, as will be detailed below, the parties actually agree on most of the facts relating to this route.
- As to the first dispute – which revolves, as stated, on the question of what was the nature of the initial service offered to the company by Peleg – which in my view is important for the continuation of the manner in which the agreements between the parties are interpreted – I accept the defendant's version. According to this version, the engagement between the parties began with the hiring of Peleg's services as a fundraiser for the company, and after that, another path developed relating to the company's IPO. I will note that Peleg almost completely ignored this path in his affidavit. This begins with his affidavit – chronologically – in detail, according to which from the very beginning of the engagement, the route proposed by him is that of the company's IPO in Australia – nothing more. At the same time, later in his affidavit (beginning with paragraph 25), Peleg mentions – in passing – that after a development that took place on the subject of the company's IPO (which will be detailed below), he sent to discuss an agreement that had been drawn up in the past, even before the matter of the IPO was on the agenda, which was signed by him, but the company did not sign it and therefore was not valid – and sought to amend this agreement. Kerry appears from his affidavit that in practice he also does not refute the claim that the relationship between the parties was initially created when the company sought to hire Peleg's services in order for him to recruit financial investors for it.
- the first draft agreement – the basic agreement – which was signed only by the plaintiff;
As to the fundraising route, support for the fact that this was the essence of the engagement between the parties from the outset is found in the agreement, which was attached as Appendix 2 to Don's affidavit and which, as stated, Peleg himself confirms that he signed it (and it is even attached as part of Appendix 6 to Peleg's affidavit). With regard to this agreement, Don claims in his affidavit that in light of the company's cash flow difficulties, he examined the possibility of raising funds, and in this framework, the possibility of the company entering into a fee finders agreement was examined, meaning that Peleg would locate business partners and potential investors for the purpose of financial investment in the company. For the purpose of this engagement, draft agreements were exchanged between Don and Peleg relating to this service that Peleg would provide to the company.