Actually, no. The language of the clause does not state a price for conversion after Oct. 1, 2007. This means one of two things. First, that there was an understanding that the shares would be converted on Oct. 1, and they were converted on that date for the set price. Second, it was an oversight--which, despite the best efforts of lawyers, happens all the time in contracts. In which case, there is no set price for conversion, and it would likely be interpreted by a court to mean market price. My guess is that the first was intended and occurred.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
