Marksteine r owns 100% of Marksteine r USA, Inc., which in turn owns 100% of MI G. 1 NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 09a0389n.06 Nos. 08-5486; 08- 5490 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
AMERI CA’S COL L ECTI BL ES NETWORK, I NC., Pla int if f- Ap pe lle e , Cr os s- Ap pe lla nt,
v. MI G B ROADCASTIN G G RO U P, I N C. , and GU EN TE R MA RK STE I

NE R, De fe nd ants -A

pp e lla nts , Cr os s- Ap pe lle e s. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P E AL F ROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT CO UR T F OR THE EA STE RN DI STRI CT OF TEN

NESSEE

B EF OR E: NO RRI S, CO OK , a nd GR I F F I N, Cir c uit

Judg e s. GRI FF I N, Circuit J udg e. Def endants MI G B roadc asting Group, Inc. (“ MI G”) and its Chi e f E xecutive O ffice r, Gue nter Mar k s te in e r ( “ M ar k s te in e r ” ) , a

p p e a l t h e d is tr ic t c o urt’ s ju d g me n t e n te r e d in f av o r o f p la inti ff, Americ a’s Collectibles Ne twork, Inc. (“ ACN”), f ollowing a

two-day bench tr ial. We affir

m the judgme nt in plaintiff’ s favor ag ainst defe ndant MI G, but reve rse the judg ment ag ainst Marksteiner
. We dismi ss as moot the cross-a ppeal. I
. Guenter Marksteine r is the President and CEO of MI G B roadc asting Group. MI G oper ates 1 WHD T- DT , a

high- de fi nit ion

te le vis ion st ati on in We st Pa lm B e a c h, F lor ida . A c c or din g to defe ndants, WHDT-DT ( “WHDT”) was the f irst high- definition television s t at i on in the UnitedNos. 08-5486; 08-5490

Am e ric a’ s Co lle c tib le

s Ne two rk

, I nc . v . M IG Br oa dc as t G ro up , I

nc . e t al

.

- 2 - State s. Ma

rk ste ine r pe rs on a lly ho lds the F e de ra l Communic a tio ns Com mis sio n ( “ F CC” ) b ro a dc a st license f or WHDT. ACN is a Tenne ssee c orporation with headquar ters in Knox County , Tenne ssee. ACN doe s business as t h e J ewe lry

Television Networ

k (“JTV”), a

home shopping network that sells jewelry and g emstones, amongother thing s, on television. ACN contra cts with television stations across the United States to car

ry its J TV broa dcast. I n 2002, AC N contac ted MI G bec ause it wa nted WHDT to car

ry its J TV broa dcast in the West P alm Be ach ma

rket. The parties e x ecute d an agree ment , d ated August 21, 2002 (“2002 Ag ree ment”) that paid MI G an hour ly rate for its J TV air time. The 2002 Ag ree ment expired on September 1, 2003. Th e 20 02 Ag re e me nt w a s lu c ra tiv e fo r b oth part ies , de sp ite MI G’ s in iti a l sk e pti c ism reg ardingJ TV’s succ es s i n the West Palm Beac h marke t. The par ties decide d to rene g otiate the 2002 Ag ree ment mid-term, and they signe d a new

ag ree ment on April 24, 2 0 03 (“2003 A g ree ment”). Th e 20 03 Ag re e me nt wa s ma de re tr oa c tiv e to Ap ri l 1, 20 03 , a nd su pe rs e de d th e 20 02 Agre e me nt. Th e 20 03 Ag re e me nt c on ta ine d a “ no n- c anc e la ble c la us e ,” wh ic h s pe c if

ie d th a t ne ith e r p art

y
c ou ld t e rm inate the c on tr a c t, unl e ss it pro vid e d wr itt e n noti c e of c anc e llatio n b y c e rt if ie d ma il w ith in thirty day s of the contr act’ s y ear ly automatic re newa l date, comme n ci n g M ar ch 1, 2004. On Marc h 9, 2004, Marksteine r, w h o n eg otiated the 2002 and 2003 A g ree ments on MI G’s beha lf, ema ile d A nd

y Ca ldw e ll ( “ Ca ldw e ll” ) a

t AC N. Ca ldw e ll mana g e d AC N’ s a ff ili a te c on tr a c ts. In h is
e-ma il, Mar

k s te in e r r e q u ested that the pa

rties re neg otiate the 2003 Agree ment to refle ct the incr ease dNos. 08-5486; 08-5490

Am e ric a’ s Co lle c tib le

s Ne two rk

, I nc . v . M IG Br oa dc as t G ro up , I

nc . e t al

.

- 3 - cost of WHDT air time. Over the next week, the pa

rties exchang ed e- mails reg ardingnew pr icing for WHDT air time. On Mar ch 24, 2004, the pa rties sig ned a ne w ag ree ment (“2004 A g ree ment”). Simi lar to the 2003 Ag ree ment, the 2004 Ag ree ment contained a “non- canc elable c lause,” pr ov idi ngtha

t ne ith e r p art

y c ou ld te rm inate the c on tr a c t unle ss it g ave wr itt e n n oti c e a t le a st thir ty da y s p r i o r

t o t h e c o n t r a c t ’ s a

u t o m a t i c r e n e w a l d a t e o f Ap r i l 1 s t
. U n l i k e th e 2 0 0 3 A g r e e me nt, howeve r, the 2004 Ag ree ment contained a modified notice provision that wa s specific ally n e g otiated by bo th p art ie s. Th e ne w n oti c e pr ov isi on re qu ir e d e ith e r p art

y to pr ov ide no tic e of

te rm inatio n “ in writing , sent by cer

tified mail or return rec eipt reque sted, hand delivery , or other de livery service that pr ov ide s w ri tte n d e liv e ry ve ri fi c a tio n . . . .” In e arl y 20 05 , n e ith e r M I G n or

AC N s ou g ht t o
rene g otiate the 2004 Ag ree ment, an d i t automatically rene wed on Apr il 1, 2005, for an a dditional one-year term. I n J anu ar y 2 0 0 6 , Pats y

H ar r is ( “ H ar r is ” ) , anA CNe mp lo y e e , e - ma il e d WH D T ’ s s tati on manag er, B rian Content (“ Content”), to complain that WHDT wa s not broadca sting JTV’s signa l in acc ordanc e with the 2004 Ag ree ment. Har ris reque sted a “ pree mption credit” fr om WHDT, namely , a cr edit on ACN’s monthly bill for unrea liz ed JTV air time on WHDT. Marksteine r per sonally

called H arr is to discuss her e-mail and explained to her that MI G’s ag ree ment with ACN did not provide for pr eemption cr edits unless J TV s al es droppe d below $280,000. He a lso followed-up their te lephone c onversation w i t h an e- mail on J anuar y 25, 2006,
ex p l ai n i n g i ngre at er

d et ai l t h e p ay

m en ts ch edu l e c o n t ai n edi nth e 2 0 0 4 Agr ee m en t
. Ha rr i s d i s agreed with Marksteiner ’s asser

tion that the $280,000 floor nullified any applicable pree mption credit.Nos. 08-5486; 08-5490

Am e ric a’ s Co lle c tib le

s Ne two rk

, I nc . v . M IG Br oa dc as t G ro up , I

nc . e t al

.

- 4 - On J anuar

y 30, 2006, Marksteine r sent an e -mail to Ms. Harr i s , wh i ch st ated, in per tinent pa rt : Th e AC N contra c t w ithWHD T i s d ue to e xpir e ve ry

sh or tly . In th e pa st, the old contra ct has just be en allowed to a utomatically rene w even though i t co n tained ambig uous holdover languag e. S ince the pree mption issue has not come up be fore , no one ca red a bout it. S ince it is beingraised now , any rene wal contr act will have to contain new a

nd appropr iate languag e. Th e pers on in ch arg e of a ff ili a te a g re e me nts sh ou ld c on ta c t me imm e diate ly to discuss the future relationship wit h WHDT. Har ris Ba g ley , (“B ag ley ”) an ACN e x ecutive r esponsible for A CN’s prog raming , informed Pa tsy Ha r r i s t h a th e w a s n o tc o n c e r n e d a b o u tp r e e mp t i o nc r e d i t s “ b e c a u s e A C N e n

j o y e d i ts relationship wit h MI G.” Af ter discussingthe issue with Ba g ley , Patsy Har ris e-ma iled the following communication to Marksteine r on January 31, 2006: For g et it. All I asked w as that someone e x plains [s ic] why additional pree mptions ha d o c c u r r e d th a t h a d n o t o c c ur

r e d b e f o r e . I d id n ’ t g e t an an s w e r s o I s u g g e s te d a cre dit. That g ets peoples [si c] attention whe reve r you g o. Bur t Ba g ley will contact y ou re g ard ingthe c on tr a c t. T o the be st of my kn ow le dg e bo th pa rt ie s have ha d li ttl e to c omp la in a

bo ut i n r e g ard s to the c on tr a c t. Bur t Ba g ley (“B urt”) is Ha

rris B ag ley ’s s o n . Bu rt , who was tra nsitioni ng into Caldwell’s p o s i t i o nan d

t h e r e f o r e r e s p o n s i b l e f

o r th e M IG c o n tr a c t , a s k e d h i s f a th e r t o h a n d l e th e M IG neg otia t ions beca

use of the importa

nce of the ACN/MI G re lationship. Harris B ag ley ag ree d. Howeve r, he did not follow up with Markste iner be cause he sawno need to discuss pre emption
cre dits. On Februa ry 3, 2 0 0 6 , M ar k s te in e r s e n t a ninte r n a l e

- ma il to Ro an e Cr o s s ( “ Cr o s s ”), an
a c c ounta nt a nd di rect or

a t MI G, statin g that he ha d n ot h e ard fr om B a g le y . A c c or din g toNos. 08-5486; 08-5490

Am e ric a’ s Co lle c tib le

s Ne two rk

, I nc . v . M IG Br oa dc as t G ro up , I

nc . e t al

.

- 5 - Mark ste ine r, he wa s r e a dy to w or k o n a ne w c on tr a c t and e -m a ile d Cr os s b e c a us e he wa nte d h e r t o be involved with the re neg otiations. I t is undisput ed that betwe en January 30, 2006, and Mar ch 9, 2006, M I G did not provide
wr itt e n n oti c e to A CN statin g an int e nt to te rm inate the 20 04 Agre e me nt. On Ma rc h 9 , 2 00 6, le ss than thirty

day s befor e the schedule d automatic rene wal date of the 2004 Ag ree ment, Marksteine r
se nt C a ldw e ll the fo llo wi nge -m a il o utl ini nghis pr op os e d c ha ng e s: [T] he annua l c ontrac t w ith MI G for a irtime in the West P alm Be ach, F lorida marke t is due to expi re this month . . . . At this t ime, MI G desires that any rene wal contr act be sim pli fi e d to op e rate on

a c omm iss ion -o nly

ba sis
. The c omplex terms and pr ocedur es conta ined in the Aff iliation Agr ee ment have become burdensome a

nd need to be repla ced by a c o m p l et ely

redr afte d ag ree ment ba se d o n a

str a ig ht s a le s c omm iss ion c omp ute d f

ro m JTVne t sa le s. Caldwell forw arde d M ar k steiner’ s e-mail to B ag ley . Ba g ley , afte r conduc ting inter nal J TV sales
re s ea rc h , re s p o n d edt o M ark s t ei n er v i a e -m ai l o nM ar ch 1 3 , 2 0 0 6 , s t at i n g: When I passed on y our Marc h 9, 2006 email to our attorney to disc uss c hang es in the ag ree ment, he pointed out that the ag ree ment has alre ady extended for a

n additional one y ear term and is non- canc elable. Reg ardle ss, w ithout wa iving the c ontrac t, Iam available to discuss possibl e cha ng es with y ou . . . . I n Marc h 2006, the parties exchang ed various e-mails with draf ts of new c ontrac ts and revisions, as well as comments about those dra fts. Acc ording to Marksteiner , he and Cross we re “ working ag g ressively” to have the new contra ct finaliz ed by Marc h 31, 2006, so that the parties w ould not be op e ratin g wi tho ut a

c on tr a c t. B y

Marc h 3 1, ho we ve r, the pa rt ie s ha d no t a g re e d up on a ne w c on tr a c t,
and MI G c on tin

ue d to br oa dc a st JTV on WHD T. L ike wi se , AC N c on tin ue d to make pa

y me nts to MI G in acc ordanc e with the 2004 Ag ree ment.Nos. 08-5486; 08-5490

Am e ric a’ s Co lle c tib le

s Ne two rk

, I nc . v . M IG Br oa dc as t G ro up , I

nc . e t al

.

- 6 - On May 9, 2006, Ba g ley

e-ma iled Marksteine r stating that he made chang es to the propose d contract to acc ommodate MI G’s conc erns a nd that ACN’s attorne y

was re viewingthe dra ft ag ree ment. Acc ording to Ba g ley , ACN was involved with thr ee other matters that either c onsumed the time of its top ex ecutives or neede d to be re solved befor e the MI G dea l was finalized. On May 17 , 20 06 , Mark ste ine r se nt a n e -m a il t o B a g le y

ind ic a tin g tha

t “ it i s ti me fo r s ome movement on the new

contra ct.” In response , Ba g ley e-ma iled Marksteine r st at i n g : “I am trying . . . Ipromise . . . . Har

ris.” On May 19, 2006, Marksteine r e- mail ed Ba gl ey and listed the subject line a s “WHDTUR GE NT
. ” In h i s e- m ai l , M a r k s t ei n er at t ac h edJ T V’ s Ap ri l 2 0 0 6 s al es re p o rt i n d i ca t i n g a
me rc ha nd ise re tur

n r a te of 50 pe rc e nt, wh ic h h e c ha ra c teriz ed as “int ole ra

ble .” Ac c or din g to Marksteine r, the hefty return rate was di sconce rting beca use MI G’s commission was direc tly tied to it and WHDT’s reputation wa s linked to the quality of g oods sold on the station. At 5:00 p.m. on Fr iday , J une 30, 2006, af ter JTV had finished its prog ramming for the month, M I G c ea s ed b ro ad ca s t i n g t h e J ew el ry T el ev i s i o nfe ed
. Ba gl ey

l ea rn edo f t h i s d ev el o p m en tt h ro u gh J TV’s Customer Servic e De partment sometime over the wee kend, on either J uly 1 or J uly 2, 2006. On Monday , J uly

3, 2006, Marksteine r e-m ai l ed Bag ley a “N otification of Te rmination of Carr ia g e ” le tte r, date d Jun e 30 , 2 00 6. I n it , M ark ste ine r s tate d th a t “ [i]n Ma rc h o f t his y e ar I tim e ly notified y ou that the annua l contrac t then in effe ct betwe en JTV and MI G would expire on 31 Marc h 06 and that MI G would not rene w carriag e of J TV prog ramming under the terms of this ag ree ment.” Mark ste ine r a lso wr ote that:Nos. 08-5486; 08-5490

Am e ric a’ s Co lle c tib le

s Ne two rk

, I nc . v . M IG Br oa dc as t G ro up , I

nc . e t al

.

The orde r of judg ment, howeve r, awards ACN $456,396.81 in compensatory damag es. The 2 district court’s c alculation of A CN’s damag es appe ars in the district cour t’s memora n d um of decision, and w e ther efor e re ly on this amount as the proper fig ure. - 7 - MI G ca nnot indefinitely

continue to ca

rry J TV prog ramming below pre vailing r ates and as of 1 J uly 2006, MI G s hall terminate the J TV feed .
. . . MI G is a commer cial business and m u s t m ak e a prof it through the sale of e x cess a irtime of its manag ed stations. At this time, the lowest available rate offe red during any day part on WHDT Stuart-Miami is $200 per hour.” Af t e r M I G c e a s e d

c ar r i a g e o f t h e JT V f

e e d , B a g l e y

an d C r o s s tr i e d

t o r e n e g o t i a t e , b u tthe ir neg otiations were unsuc cessf ul. On J uly 6, 2006, ACN filed a Complaint in the Unit ed S tates Dist rict Court for the Easter n District of Tenne ssee se eking c o mpensatory damag es for

MI G’s alleg ed bre ach of the 2004 Ag ree m en t , as well as tre ble damag es under Tenn. Code. Ann. § 47- 50-109, asse rting that M ar k s t e i n e rp r o c u r e d

M IG ’ s b r e a c hi nh i s i n d i v i d u a l c a p a c i ty a s anF C C l i c e n s e e f

o r W H D T
. In Marc h 2 0 0 7 , ACN filed a motion for pa rtial summary

judgme nt, which was de nied. The district court he ld a benc h trial on September 11 a nd 12, 2007. On Marc h 27, 2008, following extensive po s t -t ri al briefing, the district court ente red judgme nt in favor of

ACN on both claim s , fi n d i n g MI G liable to ACN for brea chingthe 2004 Ag ree ment, awa

rding $434,692.86 in compensatory damag es, and f

inding Ma

rksteiner l i able f

or pr oc ur ingMI G’s br e a c h, awa rd ing$8 69 ,3 85 .7 2 in

tr e ble dama g e s. Th e dis tr ic t c ourt a pp are ntl y 2 provided Mar

ksteiner with an of

f-se t cre dit of $434,692.86 to preve nt a double-r ecove ry for ACN. De fe nd ants a

pp e a l the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s jud g me nt a g a ins t it f or br e a c hin g the 20 04 Agre e me nt,
arguin g that Ma

rk ste iner ’s Janu ary

30 , 2 00 6, e -m a il t e rm inate d th e Agre e me nt. De fe nd ants a lsoNos. 08-5486; 08-5490

Am e ric a’ s Co lle c tib le

s Ne two rk

, I nc . v . M IG Br oa dc as t G ro up , I

nc . e t al

.

- 8 - asser t that the district court er

red in findingMarksteine r per sonally liable for p r o c u r in g M I G’s bre ach under Te nn. Code. Ann. § 47-50- 109. ACN cross- appea ls the district court’s tre ble damag es aw ard,
asser ting that it er

red by providing Marksteine r an of f-se t cre dit of $434,692.86. I I
. Whe n r e vie wi ngthe fi nd ing s o f a dis tr ic t c ourt

foll owi ng a be nc h tr ia l, w e a pp ly a c le arl y
e rr on e ou s st and ard

of re vie w t o it s f

ind ing s o f f

a c t and a de no vo sta

nd ard of r e vie w t o it s conclusions of law . F ED . R. C IV . P. 52 (a )( 6) ; A n d e r s o n v . Besse me r Ci ty , 470 U.S. 564, 573-74 (1 98 5) ; Lin ds tro m v . A -C

Pr od . Li ab . Tr us t , 424 F.3d 488, 492 ( 6th Cir. 2005). “[M] ix ed questions of law a nd fac t are subject to de novo re view . . . . Howe ver, the deter mination of any

underlying fac ts . . . is subjec t to a clea rly err oneous standar d.” Sandler v. AI I Acquisition Corp., Inc. , 954 F.2d 382, 385 (6th Cir. 1992) (holding that waiver is a mix ed question of law and fa ct). A f

inding of fac t is c le arl y e rr on e ou s w he n “ the re vie wi ngc ourt is l e ft wi th t he de fi nit e and

fi rm c on vic tio n th a t a mistake has bee n committed.” Kline v. Tenn. Valley Auth. , 1 2 8 F
. 3 d 3 3 7 , 3 4 1 ( 6 t hC i r . 1 9 9 7 )
. In addition, “[g]reat defe renc e is demande d when the f actua l findings r equired the judg e to make
cre dibilit y

deter minations.” Pe r- Co, Ltd

. v . G re at L ak

es F ac tor s , 299 F. App’x 559, 561 (6th Cir. 2 0 0 8 ) ( u np u

b l i s h ed ) ( qu o t i n g Taylor Steel, Inc. v . Keeton , 417 F.3d 598, 604 ( 6th Cir. 2005)). III
.Nos. 08-5486; 08-5490

Am e ric a’ s Co lle c tib le

s Ne two rk

, I nc . v . M IG Br oa dc as t G ro up , I

nc . e t al

.

Under its terms, the 2004 ag ree ment automatically rene wed on Apr il 1, 2006, unless written 3 notice of te rmination was provide d by Marc h 1, 2006. - 9 - The 2004 Ag ree ment’s automatic r enew al clause p ro v ided: “[t] his Ag ree ment will renew
a uto matic a lly

fo r o ne -ye ar t e rm s unle ss eith er part y te rm inate s th e Agre e me nt i n w ri tin g a t le a st thirty (30) da y s prior to the end of any term.” The Agree ment was “ non-ca ncela ble by either pa rty .” 3 I t s n o t i ce p ro v i s i o nre qu i re d t h e f o l l o wi n g: Any notices conte mplated by this Agr eeme nt shall be in writing, se nt by cer tified mail or retur

n rec eipt reque sted, hand de livery , or other de livery service that provides written deliver

y verific ation and s h al l b e deeme d rec eived the e arlier of either two business day s after

mailing or

when a ctually

confirme d by

written ver ification. I ts waiver c lause provide d: No express or implied wa iver of a ny defa ult under this Ag ree ment shall in any way be construe d to be a waiver of any future or subsequent def

ault of a w aiver

of any of the oth e r r ig hts of

the pa rt ie s und e r t

his Agre e me nt, or

a mod if ic a tio n o f a

ny of sa id Terms or a

ny extension or enlarg ement of the rig hts of the par ties there unde r. The J anuar

y 30, 2006, e-ma il, whic h defe ndants claim provided ACN with suff icient notice to t e rm inate the Ag re e me nt, state d, in p e rt ine nt p art : Th e AC N c on tr a c t wi th WHD T is du e to e xpir e ve ry sh or tly
. In the pa st, the old cont ra ct h as just been a llowed to automatically rene w eve n though it conta ined ambig uous holdover lang uag e. Since the pree mption issue has not c ome up bef ore, no one ca red a bout it. S ince it is beingraised now , any rene wal contr act will have to contain new a

nd appropr iate languag e. Th e pe rs on

in c ha rg e of a ff ili a te a g re e me nts sh ould con tac t me imm e diate ly to discuss the future relationship wit h WHDT. A.Nos. 08-5486; 08-5490

Am e ric a’ s Co lle c tib le

s Ne two rk

, I nc . v . M IG Br oa dc as t G ro up , I

nc . e t al

.

- 10 - Def endants a ssert that the January 3 0, 2006, e-ma il satisfied the requir ements of the 2004 A gr e e me nt’ s n o ti c e a

n d te r mi n a ti o n proce dures be cause the par ties’ “pa st business practice s” wa ived ACN’s rig ht to demand strict adhe renc e to the contr act’ s terms. Acc ording to defe ndants, MI G and ACN “e nter[ed] int o new c ontrac ts and let old ones ex p i re , wi t h o ut adher ing to a ny of the for mal
n o t i ce o f termination proce dures r equire d by contra ct.” Spec ifically , defe ndants point to ACN’s failure to object to Marksteine r’s “ late” Ma rch 9, 2004, e -mail duringthe par ties’ rene g otiation of the 2003 Ag ree ment. Under the 2003 contra ct, MI G was r equire d to provide notice of termination by Marc h 1, 2004. Ba sed on this inc ident, MI G claims that ACN waive d its right to re quire strict compliance with the 2004 Ag ree ment’s terms. Th e dis tr ic t c ourt

ru le d th a t MI G’ s Jan

ua ry 30 , 20 06 , e-m ail d id n ot t e rm inate the pa rt ie s’ Ag ree ment beca

use the e -mail neither stated that MI G was e x erc i s i n g i t s ri ght to terminate the contra ct nor c omplied with the contrac t’s notice provision. We ag ree . “[T] he sea

rch f or the c ontrac ting pa

rt i es ’ i ntent should focus on the four corne rs of the contra ct . . . . ” R e a lt

y S h o p , I n c . v . R R W

es tm in s te r H

o ld ing, Inc. , 7 S. W.3 d 5 81 , 5 97 (T e nn . Ct
. Ap p . 1 9 9 9 ) ( c i t i n g W

hitehaven Cmty . Baptist C hurch v. H

olloway , 973 S.W .2d 592, 596 (Tenn. 19 98 )) . T hu s, a

str on g pr e sumpt ion ari se s un de r Te nn e sse e law that A CN and MI G i nte nd e d e xac tly what the 2004 Ag ree ment provided – that a party wishing to ter

minate the contr act must state that it was terminati n g t h e co ntrac t, must do so i n writing at least thirty day s prior to the end of

the contra ct’s term, and must de liver its notice of termination via cer tified mail, return r ece ipt requested, hand deliver

y , or other de livery

service that provided wr itten delivery verific ation.Nos. 08-5486; 08-5490

Am e ric a’ s Co lle c tib le

s Ne two rk

, I nc . v . M IG Br oa dc as t G ro up , I

nc . e t al

.

- 11 - D e f e n d an ts f ir s t r e ly u p on Oa kland Press Co. v. NLRB. , 6 06 F .2 d 6 89 (6 th C ir . 1 97 9) to
su pp or t th e ir “ pa st b us ine ss p ra c tic e s” wa ive r a rgume nt, a sse rt ingthat “ [t]his c ir c uit sp e c if ic a lly
rec og nizes the importance of past business prac tices in construingnotice re quirements.” I n Oakland Press, we a ffirme d the Natio n a l L abor Relations Boar d’s adoption of a n Administrative L aw Judge ’s fi nd ingthat a lett e r s e nt b y a un ion re pr e se ntativ e pr ov ide d s uf fi c ie nt n oti c e to t e rm inate the pa rt ie s’ contra ct. 606 F.2d at 691. There , the renewa l provision stated t hat the agree ment would “continue in full force and eff

ect from y ear to the y ear there afte r, unless written notice of desire to canc el or to terminate is serve d by either party

upon the other at least six ty (60) da y s prior to the date of expiration.” Id. at 690. P ri o r t o t h e six ty -day deadline, a

union repre sentative sent a letter to the
e mpl oy e r t

hat in c lud e d th e fo llo wi nglangua g e : You ar e her eby

notified that New spaper

Driver s and Ha

ndlers L ocal 37 . . . de sires to c on tin ue its c ur re nt c oll e c tiv e ba

rg a in in g a g re e me nt w ithy our f ir m, b ut a lso to ne g oti a te c e rt a in c ha

ng e s or re vis ion s in its pr ov isi on s, inc lud ing tho se se t fo rt h in memorandum a g ree ments and other supple ments thereto to take eff ec t during the contra ct per iod . . . . L ocal 372 of

fers to meet and c onfer

with y our re prese ntatives for the purpose of neg otiating said chang es or revisions at a mutually convenie nt date, time or plac e. The c hang es or r evisions to be neg otiated will be sent to y ou at a late r date
. Id. The e mploy er r ejec ted the union’s letter , arguing that the ag ree ment had re n ew ed for an additional y ear

beca use the union had not e mploy ed the specific languag e contained in the contra ct’s termination clause
. Id. The AL J found t hat t he above l etter provided s ufficie nt notice of te rmination beca use the union had se nt an identical letter the y ear befor e, and the empl o y er h ad t re ated it asNos. 08-5486; 08-5490

Am e ric a’ s Co lle c tib le

s Ne two rk

, I nc . v . M IG Br oa dc as t G ro up , I

nc . e t al

.

- 12 - adequate notice of the union’s desire to terminate the e x isting contra ct and r eneg otiate. Id. at 691. We s tate d th e fo llo wi ngwi th r e sp e c t to the AL J’s f ind ing : T h e l an gu age o f t h [ e] l et t er [ fr o mo n e y ea r b ef

o re ] i s v i rt u al l y

i d en t i ca l t o l an gu age of the Union letter s in the case now bef ore us. It was conside red to terminate the ag ree ment of 1972. The Law Judge considere d that if that languageterminated the contracts then, it was suff icient to terminate them now
.

* * * We c on c lud e that, whil e the re c or d is su sc ept ible to d if fe ri ngc on c lus ion s, substantial evidence on the re cord c onsidered a s a whole suppor ts the findings of

the Administrative L aw Judge which we re a dopted by the B oard. Id. (interna l quotation marks omitted) (emphasis adde d). Al tho ug h w e affir

me d th e AL J’s d e c isi on , w e did no t sp e c if

ic a lly ho ld t hat “ pa st b us ine ss prac tices” are releva

nt when “construing notice provisions ” or that our case law is “clea r that such history is releva nt.” In addition, we did not decide Oa k lan d Pre ss under Tenne ssee l aw –we revie wed the A L J ’s dec ision under a de fer ential “suff iciency of the evidenc e” sta ndard. F inally , the pr e se nt c a se is d ist inguis ha ble fr om Oa k

lan d Pre ss beca use the pa rties neve r pre viously

deeme d the
c on tr a c t te rm inate d un de r sim ila r langua g e a s the Janu ary 30 , 20 06 , e -m a il. F or the se re a so ns , Oa k lan d Pre ss is not dispos itive of our inquiry
. AC N c on te nd s that we sh ou ld re je c t de fe nd ants ’ “ pa st b us ine ss p ra c tic e s” argume nt b e c a us e it i s b arr e d b y

the pa ro l e vid e nc e ru le
. In sum, M I G’ s a rgume nt r e lie s o n c on du c t th a t oc c ur re d in Marc h 2 00 4, be fo re the e ff e c tiv e date of

the 20 04 Agreem ent . I n a dd iti on , M I G s pe c if ic a lly
rene g otiated the notice pr ovision contained in the 2004 Ag ree ment and did not insist on “e-mail” a s
an ac cepta

ble form of

notice.Nos. 08-5486; 08-5490

Am e ric a’ s Co lle c tib le

s Ne two rk

, I nc . v . M IG Br oa dc as t G ro up , I

nc . e t al

.

- 13 - We ag ree with ACN. MI G’s reliance on conduct that oc curr ed bef ore the parties e x ecute d the 2004 Ag ree ment is ba rre d by the parol evidenc e rule . “The g ener al rule is that par ol evidence is not admissible to contra dict a written ag ree ment, whether simple or by deed.” Cla

y ton v . H au ry , 45 2 S. W
. 2 d 8 6 5 , 8 6 7 ( T e n n . 1 9 7 0 )
. M o r e s p e c i f i c a l l y , “ p ar o l e v i d e n c e c an n o t b e a dm i t t e d to contra dict or var

y the terms or to e nlarg e or diminish the obligation of a written instrument or de ed, except on g round s o f fraud, ac cident or mistake.” Id. a t 86 7- 68 . M I G’ s “ pa st b us ine ss p ra c tic e s”
argume nt w ou ld c on tr a dic t or va ry the te rm s o f t

he 20 04 Agreem ent (as op po se d to a idi ngin i ts interpre tation), se e Bu rli

so n v . Un ited

St at es, 533 F.3d 419, 430 ( 6th Cir. 2008), and MI G neve r claimed t h at t h e n otice provision was a mbiguous. In addition, the 2004 Ag ree ment contains an integ ration cla

use providingthat the “a g ree ment constitute[d] the ent i re a g ree ment betwee n the parties.” T h u s , an y conver sations and extrinsic ag ree ments betwee n MI G and ACN pr ior to or contempora

neous with the ex ecution of the 2004 Ag ree ment are considere d superse ded or me rg ed into the contrac t. Burlison , 5 3 3 F.3d at 430. The Ag ree ment’s no-wa iver c lause a lso render s defe ndants’ ar g ument unavailing
. Assuming a

rguendo that MI G’s “pa st business pr actice s” ar g ument is not barre d by the par ol evidenc e rule, MI G cannot succe ssfully demonstrate w aiver

under Te nnessee law. “[M]ut ual assent
. . . canno t b e a c c o mp li s h e d b y . . . an amb igu o u s c o ur s e o f d e a li n g b e tw e e n th e tw o p arties from wh ic hd if f e r in g in f e r e n c e s r e g ar d in g c o n ti nu a ti o no r mo d if ic a ti o no f th e o r ig in a l c o n tr a c t m ight
rea sonably

be dra wn.” Cum mi ns v . O

pr y lan d Pro ds

. , N o . M 1 9 9 8

- 0 0 9 3 4

- CO A

- R3

- CV , 2 0 0 1 WL 2 1 9 6 9 6 , at * 3 (T en n . C t
. Ap p . M ar . 7 , 2 0 0 1 ) ( unp u b l i s h ed ) ( qu o t i n g Jame

stowne on Signal, Inc. v.Nos. 08-5486; 08-5490

Am e ric a’ s Co lle c tib le

s Ne two rk

, I nc . v . M IG Br oa dc as t G ro up , I

nc . e t al

.

- 14 - First Federal Sav. &Loan Ass’n , 8 07 S.W. 2d 55 9, 56 4 (T e nn . App . Ct . 1 99 0) ). Te nn e sse e law a lso require s cre dible evid en ce of mutual ag ree ment to modify the contra ct’s ter

ms. Gold Kist, Inc. v. Pillow , 582 S.W .2d 77, 79 (Tenn. App. Ct. 1979) (wa iver by conduct ty

pically involves unequivoca l
ev i d en ce ) ( ci t i n g Baird v

. Fidelity-Phe nix Fire Ins. Co., 162 S.W .2d 384, 389 (Tenn. 1942) ). He re, the dis tr ic t c ourt fo un d that “ the re wa s no c re dib le e vid e nc e ” to su pp or t MI G’ s c la im that th e pa

rt ie s’ 2002 and 2003 contract neg otiations waived the termination and noti ce provisions contained in the 2004 Ag ree ment. See also Anderson , 470 U.S. at 575-76 (“ [W ]hen a trial judg e’s f inding is base d on his decision to cre dit the testimo n y o f o n e o f two or more w itnesses, ea ch of whom has told a coher ent and f

acia lly plausible story that is not contra dicted by extrinsi c evide nce, that finding, if not internally inconsistent, can virtua lly never be cle ar e rror .”). B. Next, MI G ar g ues that ACN had a ctual notice of its int ention to terminate the 2004 Ag ree ment, asser

ting that its J anuar

y 30, 2006, e-ma il plainly

expressed MI G’s desire to rene g otiate. As a pre limin ar y m at t er , this argument fails bec ause the 2004 Ag ree ment expressly identified the
on ly a c c e pta ble fo rm s o f n oti c e . In a dd iti on , w e have pr e vio us ly he ld t hat a pa rt y ’s state d d e sir e to
re ne g oti a te or

te rm inate a

c ontr a c t pr ov ide s in su ff

ic ie nt n oti c e of

te rm inatio n: I n and of its e lf , th e g ivi ngof

a “ no tic e of

de sir e ” ob vio us ly

c ann ot c ha

ng e the te rm s of the c on trac t. The experienc e of ma nkind from time immemorial has bee n that notice of de sire is not inevitably tantamount to consummation of desire. Cincinnati N

ewspaper Guild, Local 9 v. Ci n ci n n a t i Enquirer, Inc., 863 F.2d 439, 442 ( 6th Cir. 1988). More over, MI G’s ar gu m en t i s flawe d beca use it ignor es ACN’s a

bility to rene g otiate theNos. 08-5486; 08-5490

Am e ric a’ s Co lle c tib le

s Ne two rk

, I nc . v . M IG Br oa dc as t G ro up , I

nc . e t al

.

Def endants do not conte st the materiali t y o f M I G’s bre ach or the district court’s 4 $434,692.86 compensatory damag es aw ard. - 15 - ag ree ment w it

h o u t w a iv in g it s r igh ts
. O nM ar c h1 3 , 2 0 0 6 , B a g le y r e s p o n d e d

to M ar k s te in er’ s Marc h 9 e -m a il a s f

oll ow s: When Ipassed on your Mar ch 9, 2006 email to our attorney to discuss chang es in the ag ree ment, he pointed out that the agree ment has alre ady extended for an additional one y ear term and is non-c ance lable. Regardless, without wai ving the contract, I am available to discuss possible changes with you .
. . . (Emphasis adde d.) Finally , the district court found: [N] either MI G nor ACN treated the January 30th e-mail as a

notice of te rmination. M o s t certainly , there is no proof in this recor d that ACN eve r consider ed the J anu ar y 3 0 t he - m a i l a s a n o t i c e o f t e r m i n a t i o n . B u te v e nm o r e i mp o rt an t l y , M IG never considere d the e-m ail as a notice of termination. In his J une 30, 2006, letter to Harr is B ag ley , Marksteine r stated that he g ave “ timely notifi[ cation]” in March
. Similarl y , in

his July 5, 20 06 , e -m a il t o Cr os s, he a de d “ of fi c ia l le tte r o f n oti c e to [Jewe lr y Te le vis ion ],” Mark ste ine r m a de no me nti on wh a tso e ve r o f t he Janu ary

30 th e-ma il. I nstead, fr om J anuar y 2006 th ro u gh J uly

2006, MI G continued to invoice ACN “as per contra ct.” And MI G continued to a ir the J ewe lry Television fe ed, and AC N c on tin

ue d to pa y MI G’ s invo ic e s. In oth e r wo rd s, a ft e r Ma rc h 31 , 20 06 , b oth parties c onducted themse lves as if the 2004 A g ree ment had in fa ct re newe d. For these re asons, we hold that the district c ourt corr ectly ruled that the J anuar y30, 2006 emai l d i d n ot terminate the 2004 A g ree ment. We theref ore a ffirm the district c ourt’s judg ment ag ainst MI G for br eac hing the 2004 Ag ree ment on J une 30, 2006. 4 I V. Next, Marksteiner a

ppeals the judg ment rende red a g ainst him pursuant to Tenn. Code. Ann. § 47-50-109.Nos. 08-5486; 08-5490

Am e ric a’ s Co lle c tib le

s Ne two rk

, I nc . v . M IG Br oa dc as t G ro up , I

nc . e t al

.

- 16 - Te nn e sse e Cod e . A nn . § 47 -5 0- 10 9 p ro vid e s: I t is unlaw ful for a

ny person, by

inducement, pe rsuasion, misrepre sentation, or other means, to induce or procur e the br eac h or violation, ref usal or fa ilure to perf

orm any lawful c ontrac t by

any party there to; and, in ever

y case wher e a brea ch or violation of su c h c on tr a c t is so pr oc ur e d, the pe rs on so pr oc ur ingor

induci ngthe same sh a ll be liable in tre ble the amount of da mag es re sulting fr om or incident to the bre ach of the contra ct. The pa

rty injured by

such bre ach ma

y bringsuit for the bre ach a nd for such dama g es. Under Tenne ssee law , a plaintiff’ s claim for pr ocure ment of bre ach “ can be alleg ed
succe ssfully

only when the inter fer ing pa

rty is a third party not closely tied to the operations of the brea chingcorpor ation.” W aste Conversion Sys., Inc . v. Gre enstone Indus., Inc ., 33 S.W .3d 779, 782 (Tenn. 2000) (re ly ing on Fo rre ste r v . S toc k sti ll , 869 S.W .2d 328, 333-34 (Te nn. 1994) and holding that Tenne ssee c ourts rec og nize a privileg e aga inst tortious interfer ence in contrac tual relationships

“ wh e n the re is un ity of int e re st be tw e e n the int e rf e ri ng pa rt y and the br e a c hin g pa

rt y ” ). I t is a

ba sic principle unde r Tenne ssee law “that a pa

rt y t o a contr act c annot be liable f or tortious interfe renc e with that contra ct.” Cambio H ealth Solutions, L LC v. Reardon, 213 S.W .3d 785, 789 (Tenn. 2006)
.

“ I t f oll ow s th a t a

c or po rate dir e c tor , o ff

ic e r, or e mpl oy e e , if

a c tin g wi thi n the sc op e of [his ] autho ri ty for the inter ests of the c orporation, should not be held liable be cause [hi s] action is t reated as that of the c orporation.” Renne ll v. T hrough the Gree n, Inc. , N o . M 2 0 0 6

- 0 1 4 2 9

- CO A

- R3

- CV , 2 0 0 8 WL 695874, *5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 14, 2008) ( unpublished). As the Court of Appe als of Te nnessee
rec ently stated, “[w]e have not [y et] upheld any jury verdic t or bench trial judgme nt that has held a corpor ate of

fice r liable for

brea chingits own corporation’s contrac t.” Id. at *8.Nos. 08-5486; 08-5490

Am e ric a’ s Co lle c tib le

s Ne two rk

, I nc . v . M IG Br oa dc as t G ro up , I

nc . e t al

.

Joint Tr ia l E xhibi t 3 a lle g e dly re fe rs to a

June 30 , 2 00 6, let ter writte n b y Mark ste ine r t o 5 ACN in his indivi dual ca pacity as an FC C l i ce n s ee. T his letter, howeve r, is not contained in the rec ord and is not spec ifically discussed in the district court’ s decision.

- 17 - The district cour

t r uled that Marksteine r was liable for damag es arising from MI G’s bre ach b e c a u s e h e “ c l e ar l y i n t e n d e d t o i n d u c e th e b r e a c h o f th e 2 0 0 4 A g r e e m e n t w h e n h e i n s tr u c t e d M IG to discontinue the J ewe lry Television fe ed on June 30, 2006,” basing i t s conclusion on

“ M ar k s t e i n e r [ ’ s ] a dm i [ s s i o n ]
. . . t h a t[ h e ] s e n tt h e J un e 3 0 thl e t t e r i nh i s i n d i v i d

u a l c a p a c i ty . ” In its decision, the district c ourt relied upon two documents in suppor t of its ruling , specific ally , J oint Trial Exhibi ts 3 and 5, as well as a portion of Marksteiner’s deposition testimony , which conta ined the fo llo wi ngc oll oq

uy : Q. [ At tor ne yfor Plain tif f ]: L et me make s ure a

bout the Ex hibit 11 (same as Joint Exhi bit 3)
. Exhi bit

11 is a le tte r fr om Gunte r Mark ste ine r to A CN in [5] h i s i n d i v i d

u a l c a p a c i t y. A. [ Marksteine r ] Th a t’ s c or re c t, ye s. Q. Ex hibit 11, y ou are not acting in any way as a sha reholde r, direc tor, offic er, e mp l o y e e , a g e n to r

r e p r e s e n t a t i v e i nan y

w ay , s h a p e , f o r mo r f a s h i o no f M IG Br oadca st Group, Inc.? A. Th a t is c or

re c t. Q. Okay
. And in this letter as licensee of the television s t at i on y ou instructed MI G B roadc ast Group to discontinue the f eed of J ewe lry Telev i s i o n at the end of June 30th, 2006? A. Th a t’ s c or

re c t, ye s. Q. And in instructing MI G Br oadca st Group, Inc. to do that y ou wer e not acting a s a sh are ho lde r, dir e c tor , of fi c e r, e mpl oy e e or a g e nt of MI G B ro a dc a st Group, but we re a cting solely in y our individual capa city as license e?Nos. 08-5486; 08-5490

Am e ric a’ s Co lle c tib le

s Ne two rk

, I nc . v . M IG Br oa dc as t G ro up , I

nc . e t al

.

ACN argues that eve n if Marksteine r was acting as an of fice r of MI G at the time he pr ocure d 6 the br e a c h, he is ne ve rt

he le ss pe rs on a lly lia

ble be c a us e he wa s n ot a c tin g in t

he be st i nte re sts of

his corpor ation. See W

aste Conversion Sys., Inc ., 33 S.W .3d at 783. ACN points to the underly ing laws uit and un fa

vo ra ble jud g me nt a s e vid e nc e that Ma rk ste ine r a c te d c on tr ary

to M I G’ s inte re sts
. I f this showing w as suffic ient, howeve r, cour ts would need to look no fu rt her tha n the filing of a c omp la int to f ind that an o ff

ic e r w a s a c tin g c on tr ary

to i ts c or po ra tio n’ s b e st i nte re sts
. - 18 - A. Th a t’ s c or

re c t, ye s. Marksteine r asse rts that in finding him liable for pr ocuringMI G’s bre ach, the district court confuse d two letters wr itten by him on J u n e 3 0 , 2 0 0 6. The fir st is J oint Trial Ex hibit 5, a letter written by

Marksteine r in his official c apac ity , solely as CEO of MI G broa dcasting . This letter, sig ne d by Mark ste ine r and a dd re sse d to A CN , w a s wri tte n o n M ark ste ine r, Inc . a nd MI G c or po rate l e t t e r h e a d , an d i n f o r m e d A C N t h a t“ a s o f 1 J u l y 2 0 0 6 , M IG s h a l l t e r m i n a t e th e J T V f

e e d
. . . . ” It explained t h at t h e decision wa s motivated by economic c oncer

ns, stating that MI G could not “indef initely continue to ca

rry J TV prog ramming below pre vailing r ates . . . . [I t] is a commerc ial bu sin e ss a

nd mus t ma ke a pr of it thr ou g h th e sa le of

e xce ss a ir

tim e of its mana g e d s tatio ns .” Thus , if J oint Trial Ex hibit 5 procur ed MI G’s bre ach, a s defe ndants contend, the brea ch wa s consummated by Marksteine r in his capa city as MI G’s CEO ac ting on MI G’s beha lf, and he is entitled to assert privileg e under W

aste Conversion Sys., Inc ., and Fo rre ste r. 6 Acc ording to the parties, Ma rksteiner wrote a second le tter on the e veningof June 30, 2006, afte r speaking w ith his FCC counsel in W ashing ton, D.C. The di s t ri ct co u rt’s dec ision does not d i s c u s s t h i s l e t t e r . M ar

k s t e i n e r t e s t i f i e d , h o w e v e r , th ath e t e r

m i n a t e d th e J T V f

e e d “ p r i m ar i l y” be c a us e of “ the high le ve l of

re tur n[e d] [] g oo ds so ld b y

Jew e lr y Te le vis ion .” Ac c or din g to h isNos. 08-5486; 08-5490

Am e ric a’ s Co lle c tib le

s Ne two rk

, I nc . v . M IG Br oa dc as t G ro up , I

nc . e t al

.

- 19 - testimony , he was under a duty as FCC licensee to pr otect the public from substandard g oods being sold over the WHDT broa dcast. ACN contends that Ma

rksteiner deliberately invoked hi s status as an F CC li cense e to bre ach the 2004 Ag ree ment beca use he kne w that he had no leg al right to do so in his capacity as CEO of MI G. ACN argues that “Mar ksteiner knew full well that ‘instructing ’ MI G to te rminate the Jewelry Television fe ed would ca use a br eac h beca

use he, a cting solely

in his indi vidual capa city , was i s s u i n g a n i n s tr u c t i o n t o him se lf , act inga s MI G’ s Pr e sid e nt” to t e rm inate the fe e d. (E mph a sis added.) This argument is too attenuated for us to acc ept. Under

Tenne s s ee l aw , ACN bea rs the burden to de mon s t ra t e t h at Marksteine r stood as a “ third-par ty ” to the contr act at the time he procur ed the br eac h. See W aste Conversion Sys., Inc

. , 33 S.W. 3d a t 78 2; Forrester , 869 S.W .2d at 333-34. When asse s s i n g Marksteine r’s liability , we c annot over look the “basic principle unde r Tenne ssee law that a party to a contra ct cannot be liable for tortious inter fer ence with that contrac t.” Reardon , 213 S.W .3d at 789 (c itations omi tted). To a ff ir m th e jud g me nt a g a ins t Ma rk ste ine r, we wo uld

have to c on c lud e that he sto od a s a third party

to the 2004 Ag ree ment, a contr act that he persona lly neg otiated and sig ned on beha lf of MI G, and that he was not c losely tied to the operations of MI G as its President and CEO. Se e W as te Conversion Sys., Inc

. , 33 S.W .3d at 782. Such conc lusions are not supported by the re cord. The c orn er s t o n e of the district court’s findingof liability under § 47- 50-109 wa s Marksteine r’s own de position st atement that he sent th e J une 30, 2006, letter in his indi vidual capa city . Even a ssuming the e x istence of Marksteine r’s F CC let t er , an dits status as J oint TrialNos. 08-5486; 08-5490

Am e ric a’ s Co lle c tib le

s Ne two rk

, I nc . v . M IG Br oa dc as t G ro up , I

nc . e t al

.

- 20 - Ex hibit 3, Marksteine r’s testimony constitutes opinion testi mony by a lay person r eg ardinga leg al conclusion. In Torres v. County of Oakland , 7 58 F .2 d 1 47 (6 th C ir .1 98 5) , w e state d: Th e pr ob le m with [lay

wi tne ss] t e sti mony

c on ta ini nga

le g a l c on c lus ion

is i n convey ing the witness’ unexpressed, a nd perha ps err oneous, leg al standar ds . . . . This invade[s] the province of the c ourt to determine the applicable law . . . . Id. at 151. Marksteine r’s lay testimony reg ardinghis leg al opinion of whethe r he w as func tioning in his official or individual ca pacity when he orde red the termination of the JTV fee d is not dis po sit ive . In th is r e g ard , Ru le 32 (d )( 3) (a ) o f t he F e de ra l Ru le s o f C ivi l Pr oc e dure pr ov ide s: (3) To the Takingof the De position. ( A ) O b j e c t i o nt o C o mp e t e n c e , R e l e v an c e , o r M a t e r i a l i ty. An objection to a de p onent’s compe tence – or to the compe tence , rele vance , or materia lity

of testimony

– is not waived by a failure to make the obje ction befor e or during the deposit ion, unless the ground for it might have been c orre cted at that time. Id. Most important, even if Marksteiner was a cting as an F CC li cense e, under Tenne ssee law , a plaintiff’ s claim for pr ocure ment of bre ach “ can be alleg ed succ essfully only when the interfe ring p art y i s a t h i r d p a r t y n ot closely tied to the ope rations of t he breac hing corporation .” W as te Conversion Sys., Inc ., 33 S.W .3d at 782 (empha sis a dded). The rec ord belies t h i s conclusion. Marksteine r was intimately connec ted wit h the day -to-day operations of MI G, as its President and CEO, and as the primary

neg otiator of the c ontrac t at issue in the prese nt case
. F or the se re a so ns , w e re ve rs e the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s jud g me nt a g a ins t Ma rk ste ine r b e c a

us e AC N failed to prove that Marks t ei n er was pe rsonally liable for pr ocuringMI G’s bre ach. B eca use we
reve rse the judg ment ag ainst Marksteiner , we dismiss as moot ACN’s cross-a ppeal.