Travis argued that the trial court wrongfully denied Ancor the right to a jury trial on its claim for the promote interest fee, asserting that the non-circumvention clause is a binding part of the contract, which Landon violated. He stated that even though ICON has not yet been sold, Ancor had to sue to ensure it could receive future payments resulting from the sale.
Judge Edith Brown Clement asked about the timing of the sale and the necessity of the lawsuit. Travis emphasized that the non-circumvention clause made it imperative to act before the sale to secure future interests.
Judge Cory Wilson questioned why the trial court denied granting judgment as a matter of law in favor of Landon on the breach of contract claims. Travis responded that there was ample evidence of a contract, breach, and damages.
Landon’s attorney, Alexander Harrell of Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath, argued that Ancor is not entitled to the promote interest or other damages because it couldn’t prove those damages were expected, given the expired letter of intent and the dead proposed transaction. Harrell maintained that the non-circumvention clause only applied during due diligence, a stance Travis argued against.
