After a six-day bench trial, the district court entered final judgment in favor of Howard Litsky in his lawsuit, based on diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, against G.I. Apparel, Inc. (“GI”), alleging claims for breach of contract and fraud, contrary to Georgia law. In these consolidated appeals, (1) GI, a major supplier of imprinted T-shirts and sports apparel, asserts the district court erred by awarding Litsky damages based on quantum meruit and statutory attorneys’ fees, pursuant to O. C.G.A. § 13-6-11; and (2) Litsky challenges the district court’s failure to award him additional damages for breach of contract based on the parties’ “Atlantika” transaction.

On appeal following a bench trial, we review a district court’s conclusions of law de novo, and its findings of fact for clear error. See A.I.G. Uruguay Compania de Seguros, S.A. v. AAA Cooper Transp., 334 F.3d 997, 1003 (11th Cir. 2003) (citing MiTek Holdings, Inc. v. Arce Eng’g Co., 89 F.3d 1548, 1554 (11th Cir. 1996)). After thorough review, we affirm. 1

The parties are familiar with the underlying proceedings and we only summarize the relevant facts here. Litsky sued GI, under Georgia law, for breach of contract and fraud based on GI’s failure to pay Litsky commissions for his brokerage services, which included taking GI’s orders for certain manufactured goods and then locating those goods, or the necessary components for the manufacture of the requested goods, in the marketplace. The lawsuit concerned commissions on three pre-employment transactions between Litsky and GI — Atlantika, Roochi, and Haiti — as well as recovery pursuant to an employment agreement that was never memorialized.

At the bench trial, the district court considered and weighed the testimony of 14 witnesses and reviewed extensive documentary evidence. 2 The district court found Litsky’s testimony about the terms of both the pre-employment agreement and the oral employment agreement more credible than the testimony presented by GI, including that of Anthony Prisco, the President and sole shareholder of GI. The court determined that because Litsky provided “a significant amount of value and other substantial benefits both in the present and in the future,” Litsky was entitled to recover under Georgia law based on quasi-eontract, quantum meruit, and unjust enrichment. In calculating the amount of damages, the court noted that GI “never offered any probative, credible, or persuasive evidence with respect to the mitigation of this amount in any manner.” The court further found that GI engaged in “bad faith, was stubbornly litigious, and caused [Litsky] unnecessary trouble and expense,” thus warranting an award of statutory attorneys’ fees to Litsky. This appeal followed.

*109 First, Litsky challenges the district court’s decision, after allowing for recovery of a commission for the Roochi transaction, to deny recovery for commissions on the Haiti and Atlantika transactions. In the Roochi transaction, unlike in the other two transactions, GI never took possession of the goods, which, in the case of the Haiti transaction, were non-conforming to the purchase order. The district court rejected Litsky’s argument that his procurement of a “ready, willing, and able” purchaser sufficed for recovery, where there was no delivery of the goods. The district court concluded that the pre-employment agreement required consummation of the sale, which never occurred for the Atlantika and Haiti transactions. Based on our review of the record and consideration of the parties’ arguments, we find no clear error in the district court’s factual findings on this point, nor can we discern legal error in the district court’s analysis of Litsky’s rights under the pre-employment arrangement between the parties and its conclusion that Litsky could not recover his commission for the unconsummated Atlantika and Haiti transactions.

Turning to GI’s arguments, we likewise find no error in the district court’s judgment in favor of Litsky for damages pursuant to quantum meruit. Under Georgia law, where, as here, no express contract exists between the parties, a party may recover under the theory of liability for quantum meruit, which requires the plaintiff to establish the following elements: (1) the provider performed as agent services valuable to the recipient; (2) either at the request of the recipient or knowingly accepted by the recipient; (3) the recipient’s receipt of which without compensating the provider would be unjust; and (4) the provider had an expectation of compensation at the time of rendition of services. See Artrac Corp. v. Austin Kelley Advertising, Inc., 197 Ga.App. 772, 399 S.E.2d 529, 533-34 (1990) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also O.C.G.A. § 9-2-7. 3

The district court made the following findings of fact pertaining to Litsky’s recovery of quantum meruit damages:

[T]he Court concludes that Plaintiff conferred substantial economic benefits to Defendant for which Plaintiff expected to be compensated, amounting to an implied promise to pay at the time he conferred the economic and other substantial benefits. The conferred economic benefits consisted of value Defendant has already received and value Defendant will receive in the future as a direct result of Plaintiffs efforts on Defendant’s behalf. The economic and other substantial benefits include, but are not limited to, money Defendant saved due to Plaintiffs contacts, Plaintiffs educating Defendant on how to do *110 cost analysis, and Plaintiffs exposing Defendant to his substantial business contacts and sources.

On this record, we are satisfied the evidence, which the district court carefully considered over the course of a six-day bench trial, fully supports the district court’s factual findings, which meet the elements of quantum meruit under Georgia law. 4

Finally, GI challenges the district court’s award of statutory attorneys’ fees, pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 13-6-11, which provides the following, inter alia: “[t]he expenses of litigation generally shall not be allowed as a part of the damages; but ... where the defendant has acted in bad faith, has been stubbornly litigious, or has caused the plaintiff unnecessary trouble and expense, the jury may allow them.” In support of its award, the district court found that GI acted in bad faith, was stubbornly litigious, and caused Litsky unnecessary trouble and expense, thus warranting an award of statutory fees.

GI’s argument that the existence of a bona fide controversy precluded the fee award is misplaced. While it is true Georgia courts have interpreted § 13-6-11 not to apply where bad faith is not at issue and the fee award is based solely on stubborn litigiousness or the causing of unnecessary trouble and expense, this limitation does not apply here because the district court expressly made a finding of bad faith, which, alone, supports the award. See Daniel v. Smith, 266 Ga.App. 637, 597 S.E.2d 432, 436 (2004) (‘When bad faith is not an issue and the only asserted basis for a recovery of attorney fees is either stubborn litigiousness or the causing of unnecessary trouble and expense, there is not any evidence to support an award pursuant to OCGA § 13-6-11 if a bona fide controversy clearly exists between the parties.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); cf. Marshall v. King & Morgenstern, 272 Ga.App. 515, 613 S.E.2d 7, 13 (2005) (“When a bona fide controversy exists between the parties, a plaintiff cannot cite stubborn litigiousness or unnecessary trouble and expense as proper grounds for awarding attorney fees.”). 5 Given the district court’s finding of bad *111 faith, the exception GI urges us to apply simply is not implicated.

AFFIRMED.