Court Opinion

ID: 9943138
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-22 19:00:41.752155+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:46:13.579775
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-20030        Document: 76-1      Page: 1     Date Filed: 02/22/2024

         United States Court of Appeals
              for the Fifth Circuit
                                                                     United States Court of Appeals
                                                                              Fifth Circuit

                              ____________                                  FILED
                                                                     February 22, 2024
                               No. 23-20030                            Lyle W. Cayce
                              ____________                                  Clerk

Catalyst Strategic Advisors, L.L.C.,

                                                           Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                    versus

Three Diamond Capital SBC, L.L.C., formerly known as
Contractors Building Supply Company, L.L.C.,

                                         Defendant—Appellant.
                ______________________________

                Appeal from the United States District Court
                    for the Southern District of Texas
                         USDC No. 4:21-CV-2905
                ______________________________

Before Stewart, Dennis, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Cory T. Wilson, Circuit Judge:
       This case presents a straightforward question: Is Plaintiff-Appellee
Catalyst Strategic Advisors, L.L.C. (Catalyst) entitled to a commission for its
role promoting the sale of its former client? The district court said yes and
ruled for Catalyst after determining basic principles of contract interpretation
compelled that result. Seeking reconsideration, Defendant-Appellant Three
Diamond Capital SBC, L.L.C., formerly known as Contractors Building
Supply Company, L.L.C. (CBS), argued for the application of Texas’s
procuring cause doctrine, but the district court rejected CBS’s argument
Case: 23-20030       Document: 76-1           Page: 2   Date Filed: 02/22/2024

                                 No. 23-20030

because that common law doctrine was displaced by the parties’ contract.
We affirm the district court’s rulings.
                                      I.
       Catalyst is a consulting firm that advises companies on mergers,
acquisitions, business sales, and divestitures. During the relevant period,
CBS was an equipment rental company based in Houston, Texas. CBS
enlisted Catalyst to help with an “enterprise-wide” sale of its company in
2017, and the parties executed an agreement memorializing the terms of their
relationship.   But in October 2018, CBS decided to stop pursuing an
enterprise-wide sale and terminated the agreement. Nevertheless, the two
companies maintained a working relationship.
       In 2019, CBS again sought an enterprise-wide sale. So it contacted
Catalyst, and they executed a second engagement letter (the Engagement
Letter). The Engagement Letter provided that CBS would pay Catalyst a
quarterly “Advisory Service Fee” of $25,000, with the possibility of a
separately calculated “Advisory Completion Fee” that would be earned
“upon the closing of . . . a Transaction.” A “Transaction” was defined as a
deal “involving a merger or the sale of all or substantially all the stock,
membership interests or assets of [CBS].”
       Importantly, the Engagement Letter provided that Catalyst would be
entitled to the Advisory Completion Fee “for any Transaction . . . completed
during the period from the date of this [Engagement Letter] until eighteen
(18) months after the date of termination of this Engagement.”            The
Engagement Letter also included a non-exclusivity provision allowing
Catalyst to take on other clients and permitting CBS to work with other
brokers, “provided . . . that any such strategic or financial advisor will not
participate in any portion of any Advisory Service Fee or Advisory

                                          2
Case: 23-20030        Document: 76-1       Page: 3   Date Filed: 02/22/2024

                                 No. 23-20030

Completion Fee payable to Catalyst with respect to ongoing services or any
Transaction.”
       After finalizing the Engagement Letter, Catalyst contacted several
potential buyers on behalf of CBS, including Herc Rentals (Herc). Catalyst
discussed a sale of CBS with Herc for several months, but Herc eventually
declined. Then, due to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020,
CBS terminated the Engagement Letter, effective May 30, 2020. In its
termination memorandum, CBS explained that Catalyst had “done a great
job,” and that “[t]he termination of the Engagement is not a reflection of any
dissatisfaction on our part.”
       After the rental industry recovered, the CEO of CBS renewed
discussions with Herc’s CEO in April 2021. This time, Herc agreed to
purchase CBS for approximately $190.3 million. The deal closed on August
30, 2021. CBS refused to pay Catalyst the Advisory Completion Fee even
though the transaction took place less than eighteen months after CBS
terminated its Engagement Letter with Catalyst. Catalyst sued CBS for
breach of contract.
       After discovery, the parties cross-moved for summary judgment. The
district court determined that Catalyst substantially performed its obligations
to CBS and that the unambiguous language of the Engagement Letter
required CBS to pay Catalyst the Advisory Completion Fee for any
transaction that closed within the eighteen-month tail period. The district
court therefore found that CBS breached the Engagement Letter and granted
summary judgment in Catalyst’s favor.
       CBS then filed a motion for reconsideration and a renewed motion for
summary judgment, both premised on its proposed application of the
procuring cause doctrine under Texas law. Although the district court noted
that CBS failed to raise its procuring cause argument earlier, the court

                                       3
Case: 23-20030        Document: 76-1        Page: 4   Date Filed: 02/22/2024

                                 No. 23-20030

nonetheless reached the merits of the issue. It found that the procuring cause
doctrine did not govern the Engagement Letter because the terms of the
contract displaced the doctrine. Consequently, the district court denied both
of CBS’s motions, and awarded Catalyst $3,839,693 in damages, plus 5%
prejudgment interest. CBS timely appealed.
                                      II.

       “We review grants of summary judgment de novo, applying the same
standard as the district court.” In re La. Crawfish Producers, 852 F.3d 456,
462 (5th Cir. 2017) (citing Templet v. HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 477 (5th
Cir. 2004)). Specifically, “[t]he court shall grant summary judgment if the
movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the
movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
       “Typically, we review a district court’s decision on a Rule 59 motion
to reconsider for abuse of discretion.” La. Crawfish, 852 F.3d at 462 (citing
Templet, 367 F.3d at 477). However, “[t]he applicable standard of review of
the denial of the [movant’s] motion to . . . reconsider is dependent on
whether the district court considered the materials attached to the
[movant’s] motion, which were not previously provided to the court.”
Templet, 367 F.3d at 477 (citing Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Bright, 34 F.3d 322,
324 (5th Cir. 1994)). “If the materials were considered . . . and the district
court still grants summary judgment, the appropriate appellate standard of
review is de novo.” Id. (citing Ford Motor Credit Co., 34 F.3d at 324); see also
Am. Elec. Power Co. v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 556 F.3d 282, 287 (5th Cir. 2009)
(same).

                                       4
 Case: 23-20030           Document: 76-1           Page: 5      Date Filed: 02/22/2024

                                       No. 23-20030

                                            III.

        We begin by (A) considering the procuring cause doctrine and
determine that it is displaced here.1 Next, we (B) analyze the terms of the
Engagement Letter and readily conclude that it mandates Catalyst’s recovery
of the Advisory Completion Fee. CBS’s counterarguments prove unavailing.
                                             A.
        In Texas, the procuring cause doctrine is “a ‘settled and plain’ rule.”
Perthuis v. Baylor Miraca Genetics Lab’ys, LLC, 645 S.W.3d 228, 234 (Tex.
2022) (citation omitted). The function of the procuring cause doctrine “is
to credit a broker (or salesman, or other agent) for a commission-generating
sale when ‘a purchaser [was] produced through [the broker’s] efforts, ready,
able and willing to buy the property upon the contract terms.’”                           Id.
(alterations original) (citation omitted). “Under this doctrine, the broker’s
entitlement to a commission vests on his having procured the sale, not on his
actual involvement in a sale’s execution or continued employment through
the final consummation of the sale.” Id. at 234–35.
        Three questions dictate the application of the procuring cause
doctrine:

        _____________________
        1
           Catalyst asserts that CBS twice forfeited its procuring cause argument: first, by
failing to raise it at summary judgment, and second, by failing to argue against forfeiture in
its opening brief on appeal. While these undisputed lapses might normally prove fatal, new
arguments raised in motions for reconsideration are preserved for appeal if the district
court addresses their merits. Am. Elec. Power Co., 556 F.3d at 287 (reviewing an issue raised
for the first time at reconsideration because the district court considered the merits); see
also Murchison Cap. Partners, L.P. v. Nuance Commc’ns, Inc., 625 F. App’x 617, 621–22 (5th
Cir. 2015) (same). Because the district court considered CBS’s procuring cause argument,
it is preserved, and CBS had no need to argue against forfeiture in its opening brief. Thus,
we proceed to the merits.

                                              5
Case: 23-20030       Document: 76-1       Page: 6    Date Filed: 02/22/2024

                                 No. 23-20030

       First, did the parties have the kind of contractual relationship
       to which the procuring-cause doctrine applies? If so, did the
       parties displace the doctrine by the terms of their contractual
       agreement? Finally, if the procuring-cause doctrine applies to
       the parties’ dispute and was not displaced, to what extent does
       the doctrine impose liability for the specific commission
       payments that the plaintiff demands?

Id. at 234. The Supreme Court of Texas has emphasized that “[t]he doctrine
provides nothing more than a default, which applies only when a valid
agreement to pay a commission does not address questions like how a
commission is realized or whether the right to a commission extends to sales
closed after the brokerage relationship ends.” Id.
       The second question of displacement is especially relevant because
“Texas strongly favors parties’ freedom of contract.” Waste Mgmt. of Tex.,
Inc. v. Stevenson, 622 S.W.3d 273, 286 (Tex. 2021) (quoting Gym-N-I
Playgrounds, Inc. v. Snider, 220 S.W.3d 905, 912 (Tex. 2007)). Indeed, the
procuring cause doctrine “is just a manifestation of [Texas courts’] larger
refusal to countenance any effort by parties to override the authoritative
constructions of contracts.” Perthuis, 645 S.W.3d at 236. Therefore,
“[w]hen a contract prescribes otherwise-valid binding terms for how to
handle post-termination commissions, . . . the courts will enforce them.
Contractual silence, however, leaves the procuring-cause doctrine intact as
to those contracts to which the doctrine applies.” Id. at 237.
       In Perthuis, the arguments for displacing the procuring cause doctrine
depended on two provisions: an at-will employment provision and a net sales
provision. Id. at 238–39. The Supreme Court of Texas determined that the
former provision did not affect the broker’s compensation, while the latter
simply established a generic commission-based compensation structure. Id.

                                      6
Case: 23-20030          Document: 76-1       Page: 7   Date Filed: 02/22/2024

                                 No. 23-20030

at 239. Thus, the court concluded that the procuring cause doctrine was not
displaced. Id. at 237–41.
       By comparison, the Engagement Letter contains a robust accounting
of Catalyst’s fees, including provisions for interim fees, various gradations of
completion fees, and the conditions under which those fees might be earned.
The parties also articulated their own terms for whether Catalyst could
collect an Advisory Completion Fee after the contract was terminated. While
the precise meaning of the Engagement Letter may be subject to
interpretation, the parties clearly spoke on these issues—far from the
“[c]ontractual silence” that the Supreme Court of Texas encountered in
Perthuis. Id. at 237.
       Nevertheless, CBS argues that the non-exclusivity provision of the
Engagement Letter mandates the application of the procuring cause doctrine.
According to CBS, the general rule in Texas is that non-exclusive brokers
must be the procuring cause of a transaction to recover a commission. See,
e.g., English v. Marr, 506 S.W.2d 333, 336 (Tex. Civ. App. 1974). However,
the procuring cause doctrine “does not restrict parties’ ability to modify their
contractual relationships” by substituting their own preferences in place of
the common law. Perthuis, 645 S.W.3d at 235. So even if CBS correctly
articulates Texas law on this point, the parties supplanted the general rule
with their own contract terms. Thus, while we must still analyze the impact
of the non-exclusivity provision as a matter of contract interpretation, we do
not view that provision as triggering the application of the procuring cause
doctrine.
       Because the Engagement Letter addresses “questions like how a
commission is realized” and “whether the right to a commission extends to
sales closed after the brokerage relationship ends,” the “default” common
law procuring cause doctrine is displaced by the language of the contract. Id.

                                         7
Case: 23-20030        Document: 76-1        Page: 8    Date Filed: 02/22/2024

                                  No. 23-20030

at 234. The district court correctly reached that same conclusion in rejecting
CBS’s arguments on reconsideration. Accordingly, we proceed to interpret
the terms of the Engagement Letter.
                                      B.
                                       1.
       Under Texas law, “[w]hen a contract’s meaning is disputed, our
primary objective is to ascertain and give effect to the parties’ intent as
expressed in the instrument.” URI, Inc. v. Kleberg County, 543 S.W.3d 755,
763 (Tex. 2018) (citing Valence Operating Co. v. Dorsett, 164 S.W.3d 656, 662
(Tex. 2005)). “We give contract terms their plain and ordinary meaning
unless the instrument indicates the parties intended a different meaning.”
Dynegy Midstream Servs., Ltd. P’ship v. Apache Corp., 294 S.W.3d 164, 168
(Tex. 2009) (citing Heritage Res., Inc. v. NationsBank, 939 S.W.2d 118, 121
(Tex. 1996)). “For contracts involving commissions, all the usual ‘rules of
construction’ apply, like the familiar presumptions favoring consistent usage,
disfavoring surplusage, and using the plain meaning of undefined terms.”
Perthuis, 645 S.W.3d at 236 (citing Great Am. Ins. Co. v. Primo, 512 S.W.3d
890, 892–93 (Tex. 2017)).
       The language of the Engagement Letter governing the term of the
parties’ contract states:
       Upon any termination of this Engagement by the Company,
       Client will be obligated to pay Catalyst the Advisory
       Completion Fee . . . for any Transaction that is completed
       during the period from the date of this letter until eighteen (18)
       months after the date of termination of this Engagement.

The operative terms of that provision are defined elsewhere in the contract.
“Company” and “Client” are defined as CBS, “Transaction” is defined as
“a merger or the sale of all or substantially all the stock, membership interests

                                       8
 Case: 23-20030          Document: 76-1          Page: 9      Date Filed: 02/22/2024

                                      No. 23-20030

or assets of the Company,” and in this context, “Advisory Completion Fee”
is defined as the commission earned by Catalyst upon the closing of “any
Transaction . . . [worth] $50 million or more.” These operative provisions
are clear.2
          Based on the language of the Engagement Letter, Herc’s purchase of
CBS constituted a “Transaction.” And by CBS’s own telling, Catalyst
fulfilled its end of the bargain by “[doing] a great job in representing the
interests of CBS for the scope of services for this Engagement.” It is also
undisputed that CBS terminated the Engagement Letter approximately
fifteen months before the business’s sale to Herc closed on August 30, 2021.
Further, it is undisputed that Herc purchased CBS for approximately $190.3
million. Thus, as the district court determined, Catalyst is entitled to the
Advisory Completion Fee based on the plain language of the Engagement
Letter.
                                            2.
          CBS advances one contractual and one equitable counterargument to
this conclusion. Both fail.
          First, CBS contends that the terms of the Engagement Letter,
irrespective of the procuring cause doctrine, required Catalyst to procure a
sale in order to earn the Advisory Completion Fee. And true enough,
Catalyst did not even know about the sale until shortly before it was
          _____________________
          2
          The parties spar over whether a redline version of their 2017 agreement should
be considered as evidence of the drafters’ intent and whether the district court improperly
consulted that disputed evidence. Because the terms of the Engagement Letter are
unambiguous, there is no need to consult extrinsic evidence of 2017 contract negotiations.
Further, the district court’s decision expressly “did not rely on” the 2017 redlines, so we
see no reason to wade into Texas law regarding parol evidence that—according to the
Supreme Court of Texas—“remains susceptible to confusion and inconsistency.” URI,
543 S.W.3d at 757.

                                            9
Case: 23-20030       Document: 76-1        Page: 10    Date Filed: 02/22/2024

                                 No. 23-20030

consummated. But while the Advisory Completion Fee was triggered by a
sale, it was earned as “compensation for Catalyst performing the Advisory
Services.”
       This interpretation is supported throughout the Engagement Letter.
For example, section M of the Engagement Letter includes an
acknowledgment that Catalyst offers no guarantee of success and that “the
payment of any of the fees or expenses shall not be contingent upon the
successful completion of a Transaction, but shall be due and payable as set
forth herein.”     In other words, CBS owed the fees and expenses
contemplated by the Engagement Letter to Catalyst for performing the
promised services, regardless of whether Catalyst itself completed a sale of
the business.
       This language is echoed in the non-exclusivity provision of the
Engagement Letter. That section explicitly contemplates CBS obtaining
brokerage services from other sources, but it ensures “that any such strategic
or financial advisor will not participate in any portion of any Advisory Service
Fee or Advisory Completion Fee payable to Catalyst with respect to ongoing
services or any Transaction.” This makes clear that Catalyst was to receive
the full Advisory Completion Fee even if a Transaction was ultimately
secured through a third party.
       Further, Catalyst’s entitlement to the Advisory Completion fee
expressly survived eighteen months beyond the end of the parties’
agreement. CBS was “obligated to pay Catalyst the Advisory Completion
Fee . . . for any Transaction . . . completed during the period from the date of
this [Engagement Letter] until eighteen (18) months after the date of
termination . . . .” Again, this language demonstrates that Catalyst was to
receive an Advisory Completion Fee even for a deal it did not close.
Accordingly, the text of the Engagement Letter does not permit CBS’s

                                      10
Case: 23-20030       Document: 76-1        Page: 11   Date Filed: 02/22/2024

                                 No. 23-20030

interpretation that Catalyst must have procured a Transaction to receive the
Advisory Completion Fee.
       Next, CBS contends that awarding Catalyst the Advisory Completion
Fee impermissibly rewrites the Engagement Letter to award Catalyst an
inequitable windfall. While “courts cannot rewrite the parties’ contract or
add to or subtract from its language,” Fischer v. CTMI, L.L.C., 479 S.W.3d
231, 242 (Tex. 2016), granting Catalyst the Advisory Completion Fee does
not run afoul of this directive. On the contrary, denying Catalyst its Advisory
Completion Fee would require rewriting the plain language of the contract.
       CBS asserts that Catalyst was fairly compensated for its efforts
through the Advisory Service Fees that CBS paid, totaling $150,000, and that
the $3,839,693 commission awarded to Catalyst by the district court
constituted a windfall. This reasoning appears premised on the erroneous
notion that the Advisory Service Fee and the Advisory Completion Fee were
mutually exclusive forms of compensation under the Engagement Letter.
But that theory is not borne out in the contract; the Engagement Letter
provides that “[a]ny Advisory Service Fees paid in eighteen (18) months
immediately prior to a Transaction . . . will be credited towards the Advisory
Completion Fee.” This fee structure set by the parties clearly contemplates
the Advisory Completion Fee being paid in addition to Advisory Service Fees
paid outside that eighteen-month window. And because Texas law demands
that “courts must examine the entire agreement and give effect to each
provision so that none is rendered meaningless,” the Engagement Letter’s
two-tiered compensation structure must be enforced. Kachina Pipeline Co. v.
Lillis, 471 S.W.3d 445, 450 (Tex. 2015) (quoting Tawes v. Barnes, 340 S.W.3d
419, 425 (Tex. 2011)).
       As for the fairness of this structure, the Supreme Court of Texas has
encouraged courts to avoid contract constructions that are “unreasonable,

                                      11
Case: 23-20030       Document: 76-1        Page: 12    Date Filed: 02/22/2024

                                 No. 23-20030

inequitable, and oppressive.” Frost Nat. Bank v. L & F Distributors, Ltd., 165
S.W.3d 310, 312 (Tex. 2005) (per curiam) (quoting Reilly v. Rangers Mgmt.,
Inc., 727 S.W.2d 527, 530 (Tex. 1987)). However, “[t]he principle of
freedom of contract requires us to recognize that ‘sophisticated parties have
broad latitude in defining the terms of their business relationship.’”
Sundown Energy LP v. HJSA No. 3, Ltd. P’ship, 622 S.W.3d 884, 889 (Tex.
2021) (quoting FPL Energy, LLC v. TXU Portfolio Mgmt. Co., 426 S.W.3d 59,
67 (Tex. 2014)), reh’g denied (June 11, 2021). More specifically, “the
[procuring cause] doctrine imposes no substantive limits [on contract
formation]. Parties remain free to structure commission agreements as they
choose.” Perthuis, 645 S.W.3d at 236. These principles reveal that contracts
between sophisticated parties do not become less binding or inequitable
simply because they involve the negotiated payment of large sums. When a
court enforces the terms of such a contract, as here, it promotes certainty and
fairness, not windfalls.
       But even if we considered the equities, they favor Catalyst. After all,
Catalyst prepared detailed business information to help present CBS to
buyers and increase its market value, Catalyst introduced CBS to Herc, and
Catalyst engaged in preliminary discussions with Herc about buying CBS.
These efforts prompted CBS to note that Catalyst had “done a great job in
representing the interests of CBS.” Moreover, the eighteen-month tail
period at issue in this dispute was no surprise to CBS. In fact, CBS
considered delaying the sale to Herc by a few months just to ensure that
Catalyst did not get its fee. Finally, the $3,839,693 fee Catalyst stands to
receive is proportional to the $190.3 million sale price of CBS. Thus, the
district court did not inequitably rewrite the contract on Catalyst’s behalf; it
merely held the parties to their agreed-upon terms.

                                      12
Case: 23-20030        Document: 76-1              Page: 13   Date Filed: 02/22/2024

                                        No. 23-20030

                                    *        *         *
       Having resolved the merits in Catalyst’s favor, one final matter
demands attention. In its briefing, Catalyst requests permission to seek
appellate attorney’s fees through a subsequent motion in this court.
“Although we have the authority to award such fees, ‘[o]ur preferred
procedure is to remand for the determination of the amount of such an
award.’” Zimmerman v. City of Austin, Texas, 969 F.3d 564, 571 (5th Cir.
2020) (alteration original) (quoting Marston v. Red River Levee and Drainage
Dist., 632 F.2d 466, 468 (5th Cir. 1980)). We follow that course and leave
the narrow issue of whether to award appellate attorney’s fees to the sound
discretion of the district court.
                                           IV.

       For the reasons stated, the procuring cause doctrine is displaced by
the clear terms of the parties’ agreement. And the parties’ Engagement
Letter plainly entitles Catalyst to an Advisory Completion Fee for the sale of
CBS to Herc, as the district court properly concluded. We remand only for
the district court’s consideration of an award of appellate attorney’s fees.
                                                  AFFIRMED; and REMANDED.

                                             13