Opinion ID: 2829636
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Beginning of the Engagement

Text: In late 2008, Cato was introduced to Hemispherx by Hemispherx’s advisor, The Sage Group, Inc. (“Sage”). Hemispherx and Cato entered into a non-exclusive contract (“the Agreement”) whereby Cato would serve as Hemispherx’s “financial adviser and placement agent, in connection with facilitating debt and equity financings for [Hemispherx]” for a term beginning November 24, 2008 and ending March 24, 2009. JA 0094-95. The Agreement also provided for an additional eight-month period after the expiration of the term of the engagement (the “Tail Period”), during which time, if Hemispherx closed a transaction with any investor introduced to Hemispherx by Cato (a “Tail Period transaction”), Hemispherx would be obligated to pay Cato a “Placement Fee” under certain conditions. JA 0095.  This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. 1 Because Cato must succeed on both arguments on appeal in order to reverse the District Court’s judgment, and because we conclude that Cato did not fulfill a condition precedent to payment under the contract, we need not reach Cato’s causation argument. 3 Specifically, Paragraphs 2(b) and 2(c) of the Agreement required Cato to provide to Hemispherx two separate lists of potential investors (the “Cato Prospects”). They provided in relevant part: (b) Payment of Fees: All applicable fees shall be payable . . . with respect to any Transaction completed with any Cato Prospect during . . . (ii) the eight month period (the “Tail Period”) following the term of this Agreement. At the end of the term of this Agreement, Cato shall designate in writing to the Company all Cato Prospects. Cato will only be entitled to Placement Fees for Transactions during the Tail Period completed with any of the listed Cato Prospects or their affiliates.