WPCP   I(r@yc@wROz9_\/pE6fnAR_n85;>,]||;xmt\G#%d?M%?tjU/(4ptI+'k<0 k/Ga`jSBss]3as%+2@MF3 Z:qS֓eji+64׍ƹA* ˙ޡ corajipPGX A&JiBYQJ~)Ek$'H[T,p2}@NE*]^n/_J7s_s`I&>`Cp.]YƆ"]gn:'#8#@>T?\(@OS|>)/6تix` g#٥W4 a3+wJnuͫ$ѵ;QNU>D 0 0% 08 0K 0^ 0q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0! 0" 0# 0<$ 0)<% 0@>% 0~&{' 0(UeJ?) 1e)") B* 0 C-*Tp*,"00S3e5":8"\8~8"#;E;>"mA 1gA"AB"D"DEJ"K 0KL 0L#{MUNXiXX$Xwhetherthepartiesintendtobeboundwhentheysignthecontractand,ifso,whethertheinitial   agreementincludedalltheessentialterms.$XXXXi=XiXX$XԀ(Citationomitted)Accordingly,aLetterofIntent !  maybebindingornonbinding,dependingontheintentionsoftheparties.Further,thefactthat \#" afurtheragreementiscontemplateddoesnotdefeatafindingthattheoriginalagreementwasa (%x $ bindingcontract,solongastheessentialtermsareagreeduponatthestart.Theessentialterms &D"& 2 2 2  mustbesetforth$XXXXi>XiXX$Xwithsufficientdefinitenessandclaritythatacourt,byinterpretationwiththe  aidofexistingandcontemplatedcircumstances,mayenforceit$XXXXi=XiXX$X.$XXXXi@XiXX$XԀ(Citationomitted).Seealso  Rosenfeldv.U.S.TrustCo.,290Mass.210,21517(1935);AmericanPrivateLineSvcs.,Inc.v. P EasternMicrowave,Inc.,980F.2dat3536.  l ThisCourt$XXXXi=XiXX$XsreviewoftheLetterofIntent,ProtocolandBusinessAgreement  8 involvingSemtekandMerkuriydemonstratesthatthosedocumentslackthedefiniteness,clarity    andessentialtermsnecessarytoconstituteabindingcontract.  3 (  7     NUXi  Intheabsenceofanenforceable   contract,Semtek$XXXXi=XiXX$Xsclaimforinducingbreachofcontractmustfailasamatteroflawand, P  accordingly,partialsummaryjudgmentis GRANTED astoCountI.  p / /" "  XE.` hp x (#X(#E  XB+` ` hp x (#X(#B RW2  4  .3   `   Semtek$XXXXi=XiXX$XsClaimforIntentionalInterferencewithProspectiveEconomic < AdvantageCountII RWX݌ $ Ќ ' X(#` ` X(#'    Semtek$XXXXi=XiXX$Xssecondcountallegestheexistenceofaneconomicrelationshipbetween  SemtekandMerkuriyasevidencedbyboththedocumentsitcontendsinCountIconstitutea p bindingcontractanditsactsinpartialperformanceofajointventureagreement,tobelater < formalizedinwriting.UnderMassachusettslaw,plaintiffhastheburdenofestablishinga X $XXXXiAXiXX$Xreasonableexpectancyoffinancialbenefit$XXXXi@XiXX$XԀarisingfromthiseconomicrelationship.Brownv. $  Armstrong,957F.Supp.1293,1305(D.Mass.1997).Lockheedcontendsthatthisisaburden   Semtekcannotmeetunderthefactsofthiscase  4 (  8     ]Xi  andthatitis,therefore,entitledtosummary  judgmentastoCountII. |  5Inopposition,SemteklookstothisCourt$XXXXi=XiXX$XsMarch26,2002Memorandumand H Opinionforsupportforitspositionthattherearematerialfactualdisputesprecludingsummary  h judgmentonthiscount.Asnoted,supra,atpage5,theCourtnowbelievesthatitfailedtomake  4 anappropriatedistinctioninitsearlierrulingandconfusedthelegalpredicatesforCountsIand   II.AlthoughanalyzingthecomplaintunderMarylandlawthen,theCourtheldthatthe |  purportedcontractdocuments,includingcorrespondencebetweenSemtekandMerkuriy,gave H  risetoamaterialfactualdisputeastowhetherornotSemtekcouldestablishajointventure d agreement.Nowthatdiscoveryiscomplete,plaintiffhasaddedtotherecordaffidavitsand 0 depositiontestimonysufficienttosurviveLockheed$XXXXi=XiXX$Xssummaryjudgmentmotiononthiscount  becauseMassachusettslawrequiresSemtekmerelytoprovea$XXXXiAXiXX$Xprobablefuturebusiness | relationshipanticipatingareasonableexpectancyoffinancialbenefit.$XXXXi@XiXX$XԀAmericanPrivateLine L Svcs.,Inc.v.EasternMicrowave,Inc.,980F.2dat36.Thus,Lockheed$XXXXi=XiXX$Xsmotionforpartial l summaryjudgmentastoCountIIis DENIED . <  6 ! (00%  " "  XE.` hp x (#X(#E  XB+` ` hp x (#X(#B Cf2  5  .3   `   Plaintiff$XXXXi=XiXX$XsDamageTheory Cfug݌  Ќ ' X(#` ` X(#'   Lockheedcontendsthatplaintiff$XXXXi=XiXX$Xsdamagetheoryissospeculativeandthefacts !  ofthiscasearesouniquethatSemtekshouldbebarredasamatteroflawfromseekingdamages, X#"  evenifitovercomesallthehurdlesonitswaytoliability. $%t $ 5  5 5  DefendantarguesthatSemtekneverraisedanymoneyinsupportofthisventure,   neverdevelopedanadequatebusinessplan,nevermodifiedthesatellites,neverobtained | necessarylicensesandwaivers,neverobtainedanycustomersandnevergotitsventureoffthe H ground.Moreover,asthefactsplayedout,TransworldandLockheedwereunabletosucceed  d withthisventurebecausenoadditionalsatelliteswereevercommerciallysuccessful.  0 7SemtekcontendsthatbyAugust8,1994ithadspentapproximately$300,000in    partialperformanceofitsobligationsunderitsjointventureagreementwithMerkuriy,thatithad x  developedproformas,obtainedexperiencedpersonneltomanageboththebusinessand D  technologyendsofthedealandthatDr.JamesR.Stuart$XXXXi=XiXX$Xsreport  8 (  9     knXi  setsforththenecessary ` comparisons,marketdemandandfinancialprojectionswhichwillformareasonablebasisto 0 makehistrialtestimonyadmissibleandpersuasive.Semtekinsiststhatitwouldhavesucceeded  ifitseffortshadnotbeencutoffthroughinterferencefromTransworldand/orLockheed. x ThisisnotaneasyissuefortheCourttoresolve.Casescitedbybothparties D containextensiveMassachusettsauthoritiestosupporttheirrespectivepositions.Without ` citationtoeachofthosecases,theprinciplesthatemergeare: , "!"  E. ` hp x (#X(#E  ?( hp x (# X(#?!q2  1  .  1  3     Prospectiveprofitsneednotbeprovenwithmathematicalaccuracy.!qyr݌  Ќ ' X(#  X(#'   "!"  E. ` hp x (#X(#E  ?( hp x (# X(#?!s2  1  .  2  3     Plaintiffneedonlyshowbyreasonableproofthatithaslostprofits.!stt݌ t!  Ќ ' X(#  X(#'   "!"  E. ` hp x (#X(#E  ?( hp x (# X(#?!u2  1  .  3  3     Allthatisrequiredisareasonablebasisofcomputationandthebest!usv݌ @#" Ќ ' X(#  X(#'   evidenceobtainable.  %\ $ "!"  E. ` hp x (#X(#E  ?( hp x (# X(#?!w2  1  .  4  3     ݀Theremustbeasufficientfoundationforarationalconclusion.!wx݌ &("& 7  7 7  ь ' X(#  X(#'   "!"  E. ` hp x (#X(#E  ?( hp x (# X(#?!)z2  1  .  5  3     Experttestimonyalonehasbeenexplicitlyrecognizedasamethodof  provingprospectivedamages.!)zz݌ | Ќ ' X(#  X(#'   TheseprinciplesaregleanedfromcasessuchasKnightsbridgeMarketingSvcs., H Inc.v.PromocionesYProyectos,S.A.,etal.,728F.2d572,57576(1stCir.1984)andLowriev.  d Castle,etal.,225Mass.37,5152(1916).  0 9Inthiscase,thereisamotioninliminependingwithrespecttoplaintiff$XXXXi=XiXX$Xsdamage    experttestimonyandtheremaybeadditionalmotionsfiledbeforetrial.TheCourthasyetto |  resolvethosemotionsandmayrequireahearingbeforetrialtodoso.TheCourt$XXXXi=XiXX$Xsreviewofthe H  qualificationsandreportsofplaintiff$XXXXi=XiXX$Xsdamageexperts,Dr.PlummerandDr.Stuart,indicates h thattheyappeartohavethenecessaryqualificationsandexpertisetooffertherequisiteevidence 8 toplaceSemtek$XXXXi=XiXX$Xsdamageclaimbeforethejury.ButtheCourthasnothadtheopportunityto  makeanycredibilitydeterminationoftheirtestimony,particularlywhenchallengedbythe  particularfactsofthiscase.Althoughdated,theopinionoftheSupremeJudicialCourtof P MassachusettsinLowriev.Castle,supra,225Mass.at52isinstructive:$XXXXiAXiXX$XThenatureofthe l businessorventureuponwhichtheanticipatedprofitsareclaimedmustbesuchastosupportan < inferenceofdefiniteprofitsgroundeduponareasonablysurebasisoffacts.Whentheelements,  uponwhichtheclaimforprospectiveprofitsrests,arenumerousandshiftingcontingencies !  whoserelationtothewrongcomplainedofisproblematical,andsuchprofitsarenotprovable P#" withassuranceasatrustworthyresultoftheallegedcause,thentherecanbenorecovery.$XXXXi@XiXX$XԀ %l $ WhiletheCourtisnotpreparedtograntsummaryjudgmentonthisissueatthis &<"& time,itcontinuestoharborconcerns,asexpressedinitsMarch26,2002Memorandumand ($( Opinion,astowhetherasufficientfoundationwillbeestablishedattrialtosubmitplaintiff$XXXXi=XiXX$Xs *%* 9  9 9  damageclaimstothejury.Intheend,thisissuewillbedeterminedbythequalityoftheexpert  testimonypresentedandthebasesuponwhichtheexpertopinionsaregrounded.CityWelding | andMfg.Co.v.GidleyEschenheimerCorp.,16Mass.App.Ct.372,37475(Mass.App.Ct. H 1983).OntherecordbeforetheCourtatthepresenttime,Lockheed$XXXXi=XiXX$Xsmotionforsummary  d judgmentonplaintiff$XXXXi=XiXX$Xsdamagetheoryis DENIED .  4  : %  (006 ! / /" "  !"# XE.` hp x (#X(#E  E.` hp x (#X(#E 2  6  .3       ` JudicialEstoppel ċ݌   Ќ X' X(#X(#'   OnDecember7,2001Lockheedfiledamotiontodismissthepresentactionon L  thegrounds,interalia,ofjudicialestoppel.Theissuewasextensivelybriefedandarguedbefore h theCourtonFebruary22,2002.OnMarch26,2002theCourtissuedanOrderand 4 MemorandumandOpiniondenyingthemotiontodismissandholdingthatthepresentactionis  notbarredbythedoctrineofjudicialestoppel.Intheinstantmotion,ayearandahalflater, | Lockheedhasagainincludedjudicialestoppelasagroundforitssummaryjudgmentmotion.To H summarizeitsargument,defendantassertsthatSemtekhastakeninconsistentpositionsand d madeinconsistentrepresentationsintheMassachusettslitigationinvolvingMerkuriyandinthe 0 presentactionbeforethisCourt.Lockheedassertsthattheserepresentationsweremadewiththe  intenttomisleadthisCourt. x!  Inresponse,plaintiffcontendsthatLockheed$XXXXi=XiXX$Xsargumentonthisissueisamere D#"  rehashingofitsearlierunsuccessfulmotionandthatLockheedcannotshowthatSemtekever %d $ :  : :  intendedtomisleadtheMassachusettscourt  ; (  10      h  orthatitwasprejudicedinthiscasebythealleged  inconsistentstatements.  |  <"m8iXXdd8ReviewingtheallegedinconsistenciesbetweenthepositionstakenbySemtekin  theMassachusettslitigationandinthepresentcase,theCourtfindsnointenttomisleadthis | CourtandnoevidencethatLockheedhasbeenprejudicedinitsdefenseofthepresentaction. H Accordingly,defendant$XXXXi=XiXX$Xsmotionforsummaryjudgmentonthebasisofjudicialestoppelis  d  DENIED .  4   h򀀀 |     `     h     ALBERTJ.MATRICCIANI,JR. b  Judge H  August15,2003 .~   hcc:  JackD.Lebowitz,Esquire J  XVadimA.Mzhen,Esquire 0  X XAndrewW.Zepeda,Esquire   X XLeslieN.Reizes,Esquire x  X XFrancisB.Burch,Jr.,Esquire D AnthonyL.Meagher,Esquire *z BrettIngerman,Esquire `  X XRobertE.Willett,Esquire , RichardW.Buckner,Esquire  JessB.Frost,Esquire   X XThomasV.Girardi,Esquire t!   X XWalterK.Lack,Esquire @#" StevenC.Shuman,Esquire &$v#   %\ $  X hE.` hp x (#X(#E  %B!%  &("&  '#'  (#(  )$)  p*%* SEMTEKINTERNATIONAL h   *  INTHE V+&+  X hE.` hp x (#X(#EINCORPORATED   HX hE.` hp x (#X(#EPlaintiff   h   *  CIRCUITCOURT   H hE.` hp x (#X(#E  hE.` hp x (#X(#Ev. `     h   *  FOR b   hE.` hp x (#X(#E  hE.` hp x (#X(#ELOCKHEEDMARTIN   h   *  BALTIMORECITY,Part20 . ~  X hE.` hp x (#X(#ECORPORATION,etal.  d  X  E. ` hp x (#X(#EDefendants   h   *  CaseNo.:97183023/CC3762   J    E.` hp x (# X(#E   0  ******************************************************************************      Ӏ ORDER        UponconsiderationofdefendantLockheedMartinCorporation$XXXXi=XiXX$Xsmotionfor x  summaryjudgmentandplaintiffSemtekInternational,Inc.$XXXXi=XiXX$Xsoppositionthereto,argumentsof H  counselhavingbeenheardonJuly29,2003,itisthis15thdayofAugust,2003,bytheCircuit h CourtforBaltimoreCity,Part20, ORDERED thatpartialsummaryjudgmentis GRANTED as 4 toCountIofplaintiff$XXXXi=XiXX$Xscomplaintandinallotherrespectsthedefendant$XXXXi=XiXX$Xsmotionforsummary  judgmentis DENIED forthereasonssetforthmorefullyintheaccompanyingMemorandum  andOpinionofthisdate. L   X   4  hX  򀀀(#(#K(#     `     h   ALBERTJ.MATRICCIANI,JR.   Judge |!   hcc:  JackD.Lebowitz,Esquire H#"  XVadimA.Mzhen,Esquire .$~#  X XAndrewW.Zepeda,Esquire %J!%  X XLeslieN.Reizes,Esquire '#'  X XFrancisB.Burch,Jr.,Esquire )$) =AnthonyL.Meagher,Esquire x*%* BrettIngerman,Esquire ^+&+ = = =  X XRobertE.Willett,Esquire  RichardW.Buckner,Esquire | JessB.Frost,Esquire b  X XThomasV.Girardi,Esquire . ~  X XWalterK.Lack,Esquire  J StevenC.Shuman,Esquire  0  X(XXi