Kleinberg

discussion only as and when necessary to address plaintiff’s arguments. While plaintiff tells us the parties’ summaries of the facts “align in most respects,” they do not. As the trial court stated, the parties presented “sharply divergent versions of many of the key facts.” In 2014, plaintiff began working in Landmark’s finance department as the vice president of finance. In 2015, plaintiff transferred from that position to a job as one of Landmark’s vice presidents of acquisition (called VPAs). VPAs were responsible for

3 identifying assets for Landmark to purchase. Landmark’s business model was to acquire leases for cell towers, billboards, and renewable energy plans, and then package them into portfolios for sale to investor funds. In his first transaction as a VPA, plaintiff identified a property consisting of 2,400 acres of land, several industrial buildings and wind leases, referred to as the Tehachapi deal. Landmark was only interested in purchasing the wind leases, but the seller, General Electric, refused to sell only the wind leases. Landmark ultimately agreed to bid on the package of assets, and was the high bidder at $8.2 million. The deal closed in December 2015. At…