¶ 62 "A broker who is the procuring cause of a sale is entitled to a commission under the theory of quantum meruit where a party receives a benefit which is unjust for him to retain without paying for it." Halpern v. Titan Commercial LLC , 2016 IL App (1st) 152129, ¶ 22, 409 Ill.Dec. 214, 67 N.E.3d 426. When a broker provides real estate brokerage services to a purchaser, the broker should not be deprived of commission merely because the purchaser completed the sale without the broker's direct involvement, when the broker introduced the parties of the sale and the purchaser "admittedly would have never known about the existence of the property" without the broker's efforts.

To survive summary judgment on this claim, Astra Capital must point to evidence that Advanced initially brought Avior and BCI together or was instrumental to the sales for which it seeks referral fees. See Halpern v. Titan Commercial LLC, 2016 IL App (1st) 152129 ¶ 18, 67 N.E.3d 426, 430 ("A real estate broker may be the procuring cause of a sale if he brings together the parties who ultimately consummate the transaction or if he is instrumental in its consummation."). It is undisputed that Advanced initially brought Avior and BCI together and that they would not have contracted with one another but for Advanced's efforts. Astra Capital also points to testimony that Advanced provided information to the parties about the Venezuelan aviation authority that helped facilitate the sales.

Certain brokers that work for commissions or work on contingencies must take steps to contractually protect their expected compensation in similar circumstances or they might be left to pursue recovery in quantum meruit. See, e.g., Halpern v. Titan Commercial LLC, 2016 IL App (1st) 152129, ¶¶ 17-20.

"We review the trial court's factual findings under a manifest weight of the evidence standard. [Citation.] A finding is against the manifest weight of the evidence 'only when an opposite conclusion is apparent or when the findings appear to be unreasonable, arbitrary, or not based on the evidence.' [Citation.]" Halpern v. Titan Commercial LLC, 2016 IL App (1st) 152129, ¶ 17. ¶ 41 First, we find sufficient evidence from which the trial court, as trier of fact on plaintiff's claim of joint employment by Fund II, could find that Bobb and McInerney were directing plaintiff's actions in their capacity as the investment committee of the general partner, not as owners of CGC. Siegel testified that the general partner "can farm anything out it wants to with the exception of the responsibility for the investment committee, which remains with the general partner." Plaintiff testified to the steps that have to be taken before the fund would invest in a company, including an investment memorandum, executive summary, preliminary offer, indication of interest, and due diligence.

¶ 62 Since Buckhannon, a number of Illinois cases, addressing other statutes permitting recovery of attorney fees by a "prevailing party," have similarly required either a judgment on the merits, or a judicially enforceable settlement agreement. See, e.g., Halpern v. Titan Commercial LLC, 2016 IL App (1st) 152129, ¶¶ 14-15 (under Commercial Broker's Lien Act, "a party is a 'prevailing party' for the purposes of awarding attorney fees when a judgment is entered in his favor and he achieves some sort of permanent affirmative relief after adjudication on the merits" but not "by merely the grant of an interlocutory motion for a preliminary injunction"); Rock River Times v. Rockford Public School District, 2012 IL App (2d) 110879 (plaintiff newspaper was not a "prevailing party" entitled to attorney fees under Freedom of Information Act when it achieved the desired outcome of its lawsuit, public release of a letter, without a judgment on the merits); City of Elgin v. All Nations Worship Center, 373 Ill. App. 3d 167 (2007) (religious group sued by city for violating a zoning ordinance was not "prevailing party" entitled to fees under Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act, despite the city's dismissal of its claims against the religious group without prejudice).¶ 63 Drake does not identify any c