T h e H on or abl e Se an F. Cox, U n i t ed St at es D i s t r i ct J u dg e f or t h e Eas t er n D i s t r i ct of M i chi gan, si t t i n g by * d esi gnat i o n.

O n Jul y 23 , 2 0 0 7 , t he d i st ri ct co urt grant ed E o n’ s m o t i o n t o s ub st i t ut e “ La t i vaf t er Li q ui d at i ng T rus t ” as t he 1 re a l p a rty in in te re st. 1

NO T REC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 09a0578n.06 Case No. 08- 5959 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT LA TIV AF TER

LIQ UI DA TIN GTR UST , P laintif f-App ellee,

v. CL EA R C HA NN EL C OM M UN IC AT ION S, INC., Defendan t-Appellant.

_______________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P EA L F RO M THE UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE E ASTERN DI STRIC T OF TEN NE SSEE

BEFORE: BAT CHELDER, Chief Judge, CLAY, Circuit Judge; and COX , District Judge. * ALICE M. BATCHEL DER, Chief Ju dge. In this contract dispute, De fenda nt-Appellant Clear Channe l Comm unications, Inc. (“ Clear Channe l”) ap p ea l s a jury awa rd of c ompensatory dama g e s and

the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s awa

rd of pr e -j ud g me nt int e re st to Plai nti ff -A pp e lle e Eo n Stre ams, Inc . ( “ Eo n” ). F or

the re a so ns that f

oll ow , w e AF F I RM. 1 I. Clear Channe l operates a ne twork of a pproxi mately

1200 radio stations. Prior to g oing out of business, Eon provided internet streaming service s, which allow radio stations to broadc ast liveA d -inse rtio n tec h n o lo g y a llo w s a sta tio n to inse rt a d v e r tisem e n ts into it s “stre a m e d ” inte rn e t b ro a d c a sts to 2 rep l ac e the a d ve rti sem en t s t ha t air o n the stati o n’s l o ca l rad i o b ro ad ca st s. 2 prog rammingon their we bsites. I n J anuar y 2004, Eon and Clear

Channel ente red into a one -y ear , automatically

rene wable Service Ag ree ment, under which Eon would provide internet stre amingfor

so me of Cle ar C ha

nn e l’ s st atio ns . L ate r that y e ar, Ste ph e n Ne wm an, Eo n’ s c hie f e xec uti ve of fi c e r, a pp ro a c he d B ri an Pa

rs on s, Clear Ch an n el’s Vice President of Te chnolog y , with a proposal f or Eon to provide a d-insertion technolog y for Clea

r Channel’ s internet broad ca s t s . On Octobe r 13, 2004, Ne wman e- mailed 2 Parsons a “ L etter of

Ag ree ment” (“L OA”) that would amend the Ser vice Agree ment betwee n Clear Channel and Eon. Under the proposed L OA, Eon would, among othe r thing s, develop a nd imp le me nt i nte rn e t a d- ins e rt ion te c hn olo g y

fo r C le ar C ha

nn e l. I n r e tur n, Cle ar Chan nel w a s to extend the Service Agree ment for a minimum three -y ear

term and move all streamingradio stations within its network to Eon. On Oc tob e r 1 9, 20 04 , Pa

rs on s se nt a

n e -m a il t o N e wm an a

nd Emma Woo ds of

Eo n, and to Kim J ohnson, Clear Channel’s Vice President of Sales and Marke ting. Parsons beg an the e-ma il by statin g: “I am goin g t o h ave to s tart fr om s c ratc h o n th is b ut w ante d to ma ke sure the de a l po int s
wer e put i nto and ver ified via e mail first.” Parsons then listed the de al points as including: ( 1) a three -y ear term under

which Eon would be Clear Channel’s pref err ed st rea

ming partner; ( 2) Eon’s maintaining c ompetitive pricing , quality , and fe ature s; (3) Clear Channel’s maintainingeditorial control of ne twork and br anding ; and (4) a 15% commission for Eon on any internet a dvertisement sale within Clea

r Channel’s network. The same day , J ohnson “re plied to a ll” to note that the 15%

c omm iss ion

wo uld be on a dv e rt ise me nt s a le s in iti ate d b y Eo n, no t on

a ll s a le s.3

After another round of revisions betwee n Eon and C lear Channel, W oods e-mailed Par sons

w h ats h e r e f

e r r e d t o a s “ h o p e f

u l l y th e f i n a l v e r s i o n ” o f

th e L O A o n O c t o b e r

2 1 , 2 0 0 4

. T h e n e x td ay, Parsons e-ma iled Newma n an “upda

ted dra ft” of the L OA. Parsons wrote: “[A]s a reminder, I won’t be able to ge t an answe r on a thre e-year commitmen t u n t i l I co nfirm with my cohort VPs.” The

atta c he d “ up date d dr a ft ” inc lud e d a ll the de a l po int s Pars on s ha d lis te d in his Oc to ber 1 9 e-mail , inc lud ingthe thr e e -ye ar t e rm . Parsons attende d Eon’s January 2005 board meeting and informe d the boar d that the contra ct was “ in leg al” but a ssured them: “[W ]e ha ve a deal, so nobody

has to worr

y about any

thing he re; we do ha ve a deal.” At some point a fter that board meeting , Newma n met with J eff

rey L ittlejohn, a C lear Chan n e l S e n io r

V ic e Pr e s id e n t. N e w ma nte s ti f ie d th at L ittl e

jo h nto ld h im : “ We ’ ve absolutely

g ot a dea l.” Ov e r t he ne xt se ve ra l mo nt hs , Eo n so ug ht t o s e c ur e a wr itt e n e xpre ssi on

of that de a l so it could show potential investors that Eon ha d a sol id commitment from C lear Channel. In an ef fort to ge t a si g ned L OA, Newman presented Parsons with severa l new proposa ls sugg esting chang ing th e t ermfr o mthre e y ea rs t o a o n e- y ea r o r t wo -y ea r r en ew ab l e t e r m , a n d e v en ex p re s s i n g a willingness to eliminate Eon’ s commission o n ad v ertisement sa les it init iated. Mea nwhile, Eon beg an deve loping the a d-insertion tec hnology . Parsons regularly met with Eon duringthis ti me. Represe ntatives of Eon and Clear Channel toge ther met with pote ntial a dvertising customers. Clear Channel’s interna l communications ref err ed to Eon’s re sponsibili ties to d ev elop the ad- insertion technolog y

and expressed a

n objective of

moving a ll streamingstations over to Eon. Parsons eve n joined Eon’s boar d of direc tors. The m i n utes of Eon’s A pril 2005 board meetingref

lect that Parsons a

nnounced that Clear Channe l was “c ommitt ed to ex ecutingthe written4

contra ct . . . .” At Eon’ s J uly 2005 board me et i n g, P ar s o n s as sured the dir ector s that a sig ned contra ct would be se nt that day . That contra ct, howeve r, neve r ar rived. In Septe mb e r 2005, Clear

Channel sig ned an a g ree ment with Akamai Te chnolog ies, Inc., one of Eon’s c ompetitors, to serve as C lear Channel’s stre amingprovider. I n November

2005, Clear Channel notified Eon of its intent to let its S ervic e Agree ment with Eon expi re. In May 2006, Eon sold substantially

all of its assets to a third par ty for $17 million. Eon filed suit ag ainst Clear Channe l, alleg ing brea ch of contra ct, promi ssory estoppel, and

ne g lig e nt m i s r e p r e s e nt a

t i o n . B o t h p art ie s uns uc c e ssf

ull y mov e d f or summa ry jud g me nt, and

the c a se proce eded to a

jury trial. FollowingEon’s evid en ce an d aga i n at the close of all evide nce, Clea r Channel unsucc essfully moved for judgme nt a s a matter of law under Rule 50(a)

. A jury found for Clear Channe l on Eon’s promissory estoppel and neg lige nt misreprese ntation claims, but found for Eon on the bre ach of

contra ct claim and a

war ded Eon $40 mi llion in damag es. C lear Channel filed

a po st- ve rd ic t Ru le 50 (b ) m oti on fo r jud g me nt a s a matte r o f l aw, or , in

the a lte rn ativ e , a

ne w tri a l; and Eon moved to a lter the judg ment to incl u de pre -judg ment interest. The district court denie d Clear Channe l’s motion and gr anted Eon’ s, bring ing the total awa rd to approximately

$44.2 milli on. Cle ar C ha nn e l ti me ly

fi le d it s N oti c e of

Ap pe a l. II. Clear Channe l makes seve ral a rguments on appea l. First, it argues it was entitled to judg ment

as a matter of law beca

use there was no “mee ting of the minds” reg ardingEon’s propose d L OA, and thu s n o c on tr a c t f

or it t o b re a c h. Ne xt, Cle ar C ha nn e l co nt end s th at the d ist ri c t c ourt e rr e d in allowingGra dy Vande rhoofe n, an Eon boa rd member , to testify

reg ardingEon’s diminished value5

and that Va nd e rh oo fe n’ s te sti mony

wa s, in a

ny e ve nt, ins uf

fi c ie nt e vid e nc e of

Eo n’ s d ama g e s. F ina lly , Cl e ar C ha

nn e l argue s th at th e dis tr ic t c ourt e rr e d in awa rd ingEo n p re -j ud g me nt i nte re st. A. Was there a contrac t? We r eview a district c ourt’s denial of a Rule 5 0 (b ) m o t i o n de novo

. Radvansky v. City of Ol ms te d F all s , 496 F.3d 609, 614 ( 2007). “[I ]n a divers i t y ca s e, wh en a Rule 50 moti on for judgme n t as a matter

of law is base d on the suffic iency of the e vidence , this court applies the standard of

revie w of the state whose substantive law g overns the matter.” Am e ric an Trim , L. L.C. v. Orac le Corp. , 3 8 3 F. 3 d 4 6 2 , 4 7 1 (6 thC i r. 2 0 0 4 ) ( ci t i n g Morales v. Am . Honda Motor Co. , 151 F.3d 500, 506 ( 6th Cir.1998)). In Tenne ssee, The standa

rds g ov er n ing tr ial courts in rulingon motions for directe d verdic t or JNOV . . . a

re w ell established. In ruling on the motion, the cou rtmust take the strong est leg itimate view of the e vidence in favor of the non-movingparty . In other words, the c ourt must remove a ny conflict in the evidenc e by construingit in the light most favora

ble to the non-movant and discarding all counter vailing evidenc e. The court may

g rant t h e motion only

if, afte r asse ssing the e vidence acc ordingto the fore g oing sta

ndards, it deter m i n es that rea sonable minds could not differ as to the conclusions to be dra

wn from the e v i d en ce. I f there is any doubt as to the proper conclusions to be dra

wn from the e vidence , the motion mustbe denie d. Potter v. Ford Motor Co. , 2 1 3 S

. W

. 3 d 2 6 4 , 2 6 7 -6 8 (T en n . C t
. Ap p . 2 0 0 6 ) ( qu o t i n g Ea ton v . M c Lai n , 891 S.W .2d 587, 590 (Tenn. 1994) ) (inter nal citations omitted). Cle ar C han nel a

rgue s th at th e L OAre g ard ingEo n’ s a d- ins e rt ion te c hn olo g y

wa s n ot a contra ct bec ause Clear C hannel never acc epted the terms of any of Eon’s va rious offe rs. I t contends that there was no mee ting of the minds betwee n it and Eon and that their volley s of e- mails and draf t pr op os a ls w e re sim

ply on g oin gne g oti atio ns that ne ve r c ulm inate d in a mut ua l a g re e me nt. Eon, on the other ha

nd, argues that Parsons’s Oc tober 22 e -mail with the attac hed “updated draf t” of the L OA set for

th an express contra ct betwee n the parties. Eon c ontends that “[t] he jury6

could l egi timately

have c oncluded that the only open item in November

2004 was whe ther Clear Channel would conf

irm a three -y ear

term for the L etter of Ag ree ment.” Eon submits that “[t] he jury could have conclude d that any doubt on t h i s p oint was remove d when Par sons attended the E on board me etingin J anuary 2 0 0 5 and manife sted Clear Channe l’s unqualified a nd unconditional

acc eptanc e by

stating ‘ we ha

ve a de al.’” In other wor ds, Eon argues that the evidenc e wa s sufficient for the jur y to find that an express contra ct exist ed as of October 22, 2004, the date of

the final L OA draf t, or at lea st by

J anuar y 2005, the date of

Parsons’s appe ara

nce be fore the Eon boar d. “[A]n enforce able c ontrac t must, among other elements, re sult from a me etingof the minds and must be suffic iently

definite to be e nforc ed.” Rice v . N.N. Inc., Ball & Roller Div. , 210 S.W .3d 5 3 6 , 5 4 2 (T en n . C t
. Ap p . 2 0 0 6 ) ( qu o t i n g Jame stowne on Signal, Inc. v . First Federal Sav. &Loan Ass’n , 807 S.W .2d 559, 564 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1990)) . Taking“the strong est leg itimate view of the

e vid e nc e in f

avo r o f” Eo n, and

“ dis c ard inga ll c ounte rv a ili nge vid e nc e ” in f avo r of Cle ar C ha

nn e l, Potter , 213 S.W .3d at 267, the jury rea son ab l y could have conclude d that the par ties rea ched a

n

a g re e me nt o n th e L OA ’s mate ri a l te rm s. In r e ply ingto E mma

Woo d’ s O c tob e r 2 1, 20 04 , e-mail

c on ta ini ngthe “ ho pe fu lly [] fin a l ve rs ion ” of

the L OA, P ars on s atta c he d a n “ up date d d

ra ft ” containingall the “de al points” listed by Woods i n her ve rsion. True, Par sons cautioned that he

wo uld have to g e t a

pp ro va l f or a three-y ear ter m f

ro m hi s f e llo w C le ar C ha

nn e l V ic e Pr e sid e nts
. This approva l, ho w e v e r , w a s ma n if e s te d b y Pa r s o n s ’s and L ittlejohns’s subsequent assuranc es to Eon CEO Stephen Newma

n that they “had a deal.” Moreove r, the c onduct of the pa rties also ser

ved as evidenc e that the deal was seale d: Eon and Clear Channel even made joint sale s calls to potential adver tising customer s. Even if we were inclined t o rea ch an opposite deter mination, we cannot say7

“that reasonable minds could not differ a s to the conclusions to be dra wn from the e vidence .” Potter , 213 S.W .3d at 267. B. Sh ould th e dist r ic t c our t h av e all owe d Va nde r hoo fve n t o t e st ify, and wa s his te st im onysuffic ie nte vid e nc e of Eo n’ s da m ag e s? Gra dy V an d e r h o o f v e nis a v e n tu r e c a p it a li s t, th e E xe c u ti v e V ic e - Pr e s id e n t o f So u thern Appalac hian Fund ( which invested in Eon) , an d wa s a member of Eon’s boa

rd. Va nderhoof ven testified that Eon’s va lue would have been $57 milli on with the C lear Channel contra ct, instead of the $17 milli on it sold for in 2006. As an investor in E on, Vande rhoofve n i n 2 0 0 5 i n v es tigated Eo n’ s f ina nc ia ls, re ta ini nga mark e t r e se arc h f ir m to ve ri fy

Eo n’ s ma rk e t po te nti a l. Wh e n h e be c ame a member of Eon’s boa

rd in Marc h 2005, he re cei v ed E o n’s monthly financ ial repor

ts, including income stateme nts, balanc e sheets, and cash flow st atements. Vanderhoof ven testified that be tween J une 2004 and J une 2005, the num ber of stations Eon was streaming incre ased by over 500%. After J une 2005, howe ver, the reve nue fr om Clear Channe l began to dwindle, a nd Vande rhoofve n d e t e r m i n e d t h a t C l e ar

C h an n e l w a s m o v i n gi t s s tr e am i n gb u s i n e s s t o an o th e r c o mp an y. Vande rhoofve n based his $57 million valuation on the reve nue Clear Channel had be en g ener ating for Eon pr ior t o t h e discontinuation of their business, and the pr ojection for the 12-month period prior to Eon’s sale

. Cle ar C ha

nn e l argue s, a s an in iti a l matte r, t hat Eon c ann ot r e c ov e r d ama g e s f or its diminis hed value beca

use T en n es s ee doe s not recognize dimi nished-value damag es outside the context of commercia l rea l estate, a nd beca use a potential loss in Eon’s value wa s not contemplated by the pa rt ie s w he n th e y

e nte re d into t

he c on tr a c t.8

In BVT Lebanon Shopping Center, L td. v. W al-Mart Stores, Inc. , 48 S.W .3d 132, 136 (Tenn. 20 01 ), the Te nn e sse e Sup re me Court up he ld a dim ini sh e d- va lue awa

rd to a sh op pin g c e nte r who se value ha d decr ease d when its anc hor tena nt brea ched a covenant of continuous occupa ncy . The c ourt held that i t s co nclusion was in line with g ener al contra ct re medies: “The purpose of assessing damag es in brea ch of contra ct cases i s to place the plaintiff as ne arly as possible in the same position she would have been in ha d the contra ct been pe rfor med[.] ” Id. (qu o t i n g Lam on s v. C ha mb e rla in , 909 S.W .2d 795, 801 (Tenn. Ct. App.1993))

. “Ge nera lly speaking ,” the court rec og nized, “damag es for br eac h of contract include only such as are incidental to or di rec tly cause d by

the bre ach a

nd may be re asonably

supposed to ha

ve enter ed into the contemplation of the pa rties.” Id. (qu o t i n g Simmons v. O’ Charley’s, Inc

. , 914 S.W .2d 895, 903 (Tenn. Ct. App.1995)). The cour t in BVT Lebanon did not limi t its hol di n g t o t he commer cial re al estate context; i ndeed, it re lied on basic princ iples of

c on tr a c t la

w t o p la c e the pla int if

f in the po sit ion it wou ld have e njo y e d ha d the c on tr a c t be e n k e pt. Her e, had Clea

r Channel not b re ache d the contra ct, Eon would have had a f ix ed-te rm

a g re e me nt t o s tr e am inte rn e t br oa dc a sts fo r hu nd reds of ra dio statio ns , o bv iou sly inc re a sin gits attrac tiveness to potential investors and buy ers. And by the time Clear Channe l executives assured Stephen Newman and the E on board that a dea l was in place , Clear C h an n el k n ew that Eon was seekingassura

nces to mollify

investors; Clear Channe l kne w that the amende d Service Ag ree ment was integ ral to Eon’s f

inancial he alth. Diminished-value damag es we re in order he re a nd wer e not

outsi de the c on te mpl atio n o f t he c on tr a c tin gpa

rt ie s. C l ea r C h an n el co n t en d s th atev en i f d i m i n i s h ed -v al u e d am age s ar e al l o we d i nth i s s et t i n g, they canno t be prove n without ex pert testimony , and that Va nderhoof ven’s testimony

as a la y opinion witness under F eder al Rule of Evid en ce 701 was improper . “‘We re view for abuse ofO n M arch 13 , 20 0 9 , C l ear C hannel m o ved t hi s C o urt t o cert i f y t hree que st i o ns o f

l aw t o t he Sup rem e C o urt 3 o f T e n n e sse e un d e r T e n n e sse e S u p re m e C o u rt R u le 2 3

. S p e c ifi c a lly, C le a r C h a n n e l a sk e d us to inq u ire o f t h a t co u rt: “( 1 ) whet her T enness ee wo uld p e rm it a co rpo rat e p l ai nt i f f t o recove r $4 0 m i l l i o n i n dimini shed val ue d am ages f o r a b re a c h o f co n tra c t t h a t d o e s n o t i n v o lve e ithe r p e rm a n e n t d a m a g e to re a l e sta te o r a c o v e n a n t o f co n tinu o u s o c c u p a n c y; (2) whether T enness ee p erm i t s a p l ai nt i f f t o recove r di m i ni shed val ue d am ages f o r a breach o f

an i m p l i ed co nt ract ; and ( 3) w het her T enn es s ee r equi r ed di mi ni s hed v al ue damages t o be proven by ex pert t es t i mo ny . ” B eca us e we hol d t hat an 9 d is c r e ti o na

d is tr ic t c o urt’ s e v id e n ti ar y r u li n g s , in c lu d in gr

u li n g s o nw it

n e s s te s ti mo n y

un d e r Ru le [] 701 . . . o f t he F eder al Rules of Evidenc e.’” Un ite d S tates v . W

hite , 492 F.3d 380, 398 ( 2007) (qu o t i n g JGR, Inc. v . Thomasville Furniture Indus., Inc. , 370 F.3d 519, 524 (6th Cir.2004)). That Rul e pr ov ide s: I f the witness is not testifying a s an expert, the witne s s ’ testimony in the form of opinions or infere nces is limited to those opinion s o r i nfer ence s which ar e (a ) rationally based on the perc eption of the witness, (b) helpful to a clea r under standing of the witness’ te stimony

or the de termination of a f act in is sue, and (c) not ba sed on scientific, tec hnical, or othe r spec ialized knowledg e within the scope of Rule 702. Fe d. R. Evid. 701. The advisory commission notes to t he 2000 ame ndments to Rule 701 provide: [M] ost courts have per

mitted the owner or officer of a business to te stify to the value or pr oje c te d p ro

fit s o f th e bu sin ess, with ou t th e ne c essi ty of q ua lif y ing thewitn ess as an ac c ou nta nt, ap

prais e r, or

sim ila r e x pe rt . See, e .g., Lightni n g L u b e, Inc. v

. W itco Corp., 4 F.3d 1153 ( 3d C i r. 1993) (no a buse of discr etion in permitting the pla int if f’ s o wn e r t o g ive lay

op ini on te sti mony a s to dam a g e s, a s it wa s b a se d o n h is knowledg e and pa

rticipation in the day -to-day aff airs of the business). Such opinion t es t i m o n y i s ad m i t t ed n o t b ec au s e of ex p er i en ce , tra i n i n g o r s p ec i al i z edkn o wl ed ge within the rea lm of an expert, but beca use of the pa

rticularized knowledg e that the wi tne ss h a s b y

vir tue of his or he r p os iti on

in t he bu sin e ss. Id. (empha sis added). As an investor who rese arc hed Eon’s financ ial condition, a nd later as a mem b ero f Eon’s bo ard , V and e rh oo fv e n h a d p e rs on a l, p art ic ula ri zed kn ow le dg e of

Eo n’ s val ue . Th e dis tr ic t c ourt did not abuse its discretion in per mitti nghim to testi fy

about Eon’s project ed v al ue if it had re tained Clear Channe l’s business. Moreove r, contra ry to Clear Channe l’ s as s er tions, Vanderhoof ven’s te sti mony re ste d o n a

su ff ic ie nt f ound atio n —

his pe rs on a l r e se arc h into E on ’s fi na nc ia l r e po rt s. 3exp res s co nt ract exi st ed be t ween E o n and C l ear C hannel , t hat t he T enness ee Sup rem e C o urt i n BV T Le banon di d n ot

l i mi t i t s hol di ng t o t he r eal es t at e c ont ext , an d t hat Feder al Rul e of E vi dence 7 01 p er mi t s V ander hoof en’ s t es t i mo ny , we h e re b y D I SM I SS C le a r C h a n n e l’s m o tio n to c e rtify. 10 C. Shou ld the di strict

court have awarded Eon p re- judgme nt interest ? We revie w for an abuse of di scre tion a dis trict court’s pr ejudg ment-intere st awar d. Gentek Bl dg Prod uc ts, In c . v . S

te e l P e e l Lit iga tio n Trus t , 4 9 1 F. 3 d 3 2 0 , 3 3 3 (2 0 0 7 ) ( qu o t i n g Anderson v. W hittaker Corp. , 894 F.2d 804, 809 ( 6th Cir.1990)). “The re is no dispute that in a diversity action the question of pre

judgme nt interest must be deter mined under state law.” Da ily v . G us to R e c or

ds , Inc. , 1 4 F. Ap p ’x 5 7 9 , 5 9 1 (6 thC i r. 2 0 0 1 ) ( ci t i n g Mass. B en ef i t Ass’n v. M

iles , 137 U.S. 689 (1 89 1) ). Te nn e sse e law f avo rs “ awa

rd ingpr e jud g me nt int e re st wh e ne ve r do ing so wi ll mor e fu lly compensate plaintiffs for

the loss of use of the ir funds. F airne ss will, in almost a ll c ases, r equire that

a su c c e ssf ul p la int if f be fu lly c omp e ns ate d by the de fe nd ant fo r a ll los se s c a us e d by the de fe nd ant, including the loss of use of money the plaintiff should have rec eived.” Scholz v. S.B. Intern., Inc

. , 40 S.W .3d 78, 83 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000). T he cour t determined that “E o n ’s d em i s e was a ssured when Clea

r Channel br eac hed the parties’ contra ct on September 9, 2005.” The court then c alculate d interest as a ccr

uing f rom that date at a r ate e qual to 4.666%, the avera g e rate from Septembe r 9, 2005 to Dece mber 14, 2007. The district court did not abuse its discre tion in awardingEon prejudg ment int e re st. III . Acc ording ly , we AF F IRM the jud g me nt o f t he dis tr ic t c ourt
.