WPCJ e`^|ҮRuˮµnH^e]v Eۋ+Ly&.;H I.QlhU1v;= gHW6ྊ0387u|{[;eZ%S#(U/H;1׽QkؽW?3Qc-ZPyq<(`p s^Cq?&Xl"5 [42 5ݨ&,c펤IQ7E;aH2 ? >-fxm]1vSgJ9?,Y3^A]c#ܼ=*:Zr\fƑr!Y.Oc%n#U=N % 0: ^ S w_ 4c w  m U5> 0V UJ3 N} 0 0D M 0Vc  " 0 E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0k 0D 0 0 0 0 0x 0H 0 0 0 0j 0E 0 0 0 0 0_! 0(" 0" 0<# 0# 0$ 0% 0& 0' 0( 0) 0s* 0V+ 1m6, 72, 1u, 72J- 00|- 0<- 0- 0>. 0v. 0`Z/ 0`/ 0`0 0`z0 0`0 08:1 0r1 02D2 0v2 0:r3 0Y3 0_4 0 d4 0jn5 06 B*\8 D/8 D+8 08 D/d: 0: Ba; 06~; 0; 0:< 0^< 0<T=U6=U*= 1= w> 72OH 0cH 0wH 1[I 72I 1J 72JJ JJe JHP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5e,,,,0(   Z6Times New Roman Regular($USUS.,-2 7p>1ingn3|x U\  `&Times New Roman(.3$ !USUS.,  ),h  Z 2CG Times (W1) Regular(:(2x$ !USUS.,        0  (#$  0     (.3$ !USUS.,      e 2G+J 0_level1  X /%4 4 <DL/23  ..  2( 4 <DL2   ; 9 #Cd#  2D+J 0_level2   ," <DL,23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2A+J 0_level3   ) <DL)23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2>+J 0_level4  ` &<<DL&23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2;+J 0_level5   #DL#23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  28+J 0_level6    DL 23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  25+J 0_level7  h DDL23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  22+J 0_level8   L23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2/+J 0_level9    L23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2GJ 0_levsl1  X /%4 4 <DL/23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2DJ 0_levsl2   ," <DL,23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2AJ 0_levsl3   ) <DL)23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2>J 0_levsl4  ` &<<DL&23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2;J 0_levsl5   #DL#23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  28J 0_levsl6    DL 23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  25J 0_levsl7  h DDL23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  22J 0_levsl8   L23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2/J 0_levsl9    L23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2GJ 0_levnl1  X /%4 4 <DL/23   2( 4 <DL2  2DJ 0_levnl2   ," <DL,23   2( 4 <DL2  2AJ 0_levnl3   ) <DL)23   2( 4 <DL2  2>J 0_levnl4  ` &<<DL&23   2( 4 <DL2  2;J 0_levnl5   #DL#23   2( 4 <DL2  28J 0_levnl6    DL 23   2( 4 <DL2  25J 0_levnl7  h DDL23   2( 4 <DL2  22J 0_levnl8   L23   2( 4 <DL2  2/J 0_levnl9    L23   2( 4 <DL2  <:Default Para<D+J :Outline001_1   ," <DL,23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  <D+J :Outline001_2   ," <DL,23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  <A+J :Outline001_3 j 4 ) <DL)23  ..  2( 4 <DL2 j <>+J :Outline001_4   &hhDL&23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  <;+J :Outline001_5   #DL#23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  <8+J :Outline001_6 j <  DL 23  ..  2( 4 <DL2 j <5+J :Outline001_7   ppL23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  <2+J :Outline001_8   L23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  </+J :Outline001_9 j D    L23  ..  2( 4 <DL2 j 234567890J35;AGMSY_1A.A.i.1.a.i.1.a.;:i.3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)=i)0.Normal<:Definition T<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1   XXX   (&H2 XXX (&H3 XXX (&H4 XXX XXX(&H5 XXX (&H6 XXX 20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEK_<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXS \  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard K_<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXS \  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/K_<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXS \  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 7T(X7  ?`%2A`Arial?  XXXS \  `&Times New RomanS7U(X7&  d dS)1dxd'dxd<:zTop of For7W(X7  ?`%2A`Arial?  XXXS \  `&Times New RomanS7U(X7S)2dxd0KS.SampleK_<6X9`(Courier NewKS \  `&Times New RomanS d0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterK_<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXS \  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  <6X9`(Courier New%2A`Arial0CEKQW]cioAutoList1A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A. x$USUS.,      1    _XKXInTeleCountEngineers,Inc., XKXXXK168Cal.App.3dat463,thecourt#XKXX XK#cited757ofthe  RestatementofTortsinsupportofitsholding.Thatsectionprovides: q 8  Onewhodisclosesorusesanother'stradesecret,withoutaprivilegetodoso,isliable ] totheotherifI   8  (a)hediscoveredthesecretbyimpropermeans,or5   8  (b)hisdisclosureoruseconstitutesabreachofconfidencereposedinhimby% k %kthe !  otherindisclosingthesecrettohim,or    8  (c)helearnedthesecretfromathirdpersonwithnoticeofthefactsthatitwasa  t secretandthatthethirdpersondiscovereditbyimpropermeansorthatthethird  ` person'sdisclosureofitwasotherwiseabreachofhisdutytotheother,or L    8  (d)helearnedthesecretwithnoticeofthefactsthatitwasasecretandthatits  8  disclosurewasmadetohimbymistake.$     S XKXXXKAlthoughCaliforniadoesnotlimitthetortofbreachofconfidentialrelationshiptotradesecrets,the   requirementssetoutinthissectionappliestothetortevenifnotradesecretisinvolved.     Asdiscussedbelow,Duty#XKXX XK#Freedidnotreposeanyconfidencein_Legg_ԀMasonbecauseithad ;  norelationshipwith_Legg_ԀMason.FurtherDutyFreehasnotallegedthat_Legg_ԀMasondiscoveredthe ' informationbyimpropermeans,that_Legg_ԀMasonhasreasontobelievethattheDutyFree  ManagementGroupobtainedtheinformationillegally,orwasotherwisebreachingadutyinsharing  itwith_Legg_ԀMason,orthatthedisclosureto_Legg_ԀMasonwasamistake. p aA.(;3$2#  0  .3  0  (O;$0  2#  a  .3  0` (#(#0CEKQW]cioAutoList2A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.fA.(CEKQW]cioAutoList3A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.hA.   SDU_2  !USUS.,  _  jOaeFDutyFreeAmericas,Inc.0  0h(#(#0h(#h(#*  INTHE    (#(#   Plaintiff0    h   *  CIRCUITCOURT| (# (#   vs. `     h   *  FOR H _Legg_ԀMasonWoodWalker,Inc.Ѵ sOѴ0 h 0h(#h(#*0(#(#BALTIMORECITY#Ѵ sO# sOѴ d(#(#   Defendant   #Ѵ sO# sOѴ# sO sOl# sO sO h   *  CaseNo.:24C04005696# sO sO# sO sO#Ѵ sO# sOѴ  0    `  *  * h *  *  * p *  *#Ѵ sO##ѴѴ`#I       MEMORANDUMOPINION  @h      Defendant_Legg_ԀMasonWoodWalker,Inc.( _Legg_ԀMason)hasfiledaMotionto   DismissCountsII,III,andIVoftheAmendedComplaintfiledbyPlaintiffDutyFree v  Americas,Inc.( DutyFree).Ӏ_Legg_ԀMasonarguesinitsmotionthat(1)CountII,which B allegesconversion,ispreemptedbytheMarylandUniformTradeSecretsAct( _MUTSA_); ^ failstoallegeanessentialelementofconversion,i.e.lossofcompletecontrol;andalsofails * becauseMarylanddoesnotrecognizeaclaimforconversionforintangiblerightssuchas  confidentialinformation;(2)CountIIIisalsopreemptedby_MUTSA_Ԁandadditionallymust r bedismissedbecausethereisnocauseofactioninMarylandforbreachofaconfidential > relationship,andinanyevent,_Legg_ԀMasondidnothaveaconfidentialrelationshipwithDuty  Z Free;and(3)CountIVmustbedismissedbecausetherewasneveracontractbetweenDuty  & Freeand_Legg_ԀMason.ѴѴCountI,whichisnotthesubjectoftheMotiontoDismiss,alleges "! misappropriationofXKXѴԀ#ѴXXK% #tradesecretsinviolationof_MUTSA_.Ahearingwasheldonthemotion n$# onJanuary6,2005,andforthereasonsstatedbelow,themotionwillbegranted.  :&!%   FACTS (V#'  K   DutyFree,aMarylandcorporationlocatedinFlorida,operatesdutyfreestoresinU.S. )%) airportsandalongtheU.S.,Canadian,andMexicanborders._Legg_ԀMason,aMaryland +&+ corporationwithitsprincipalplaceofbusinessinBaltimore,providesdiversifiedfinancial g-(-  98Ѵdd8   servicestothepublic.InJune2001,DutyFreesparentcompany,BAA,_plc_Ԁ( BAA),began  exploringthesaleofDutyFreetoathirdparty._SunTrust_ԀRobinsonHumphrey( _SunTrust_) Q wasretainedasDutyFreesfinancialadviser._SunTrust_Ԁpreparedaconfidentialoffering  memorandum( ConfidentialMemorandum)toassistpotentialpurchaserswithevaluating  d DutyFree.  0   TheConfidentialMemorandumcontainedproprietaryandconfidentialfinancial    informationaboutDutyFree.TheConfidentialMemorandumstatesthatitis solelyforuse M  byprospectivepurchasersinconsideringtheirinterestinacquiring[DutyFree].Thesecond   paragraphoftheConfidentialMemorandumstates: ` 8  8`   ByacceptingthisMemorandum,therecipientacknowledgesand , agreesthat:(1)alloftheinformationcontainedhereinissubject , toaConfidentialityAgreementpreviouslyexecutedbythe , recipient;(2)therecipientwillnotreproducethisMemorandum, , inwholeorinpart;(3)iftherecipientdoesnotwishtopursue , thismatter,therecipientwillreturnthisMemorandumto , _SunTrust_ԀRobinsonHumphreyassoonaspracticable,together , withallothermaterialrelatingto[DutyFree]whichthe , recipientmayhavereceivedfrom_SunTrust_ԀRobinsonHumphrey , or[DutyFree];and(4)anyproposedactionsbytherecipient , whichareinconsistentinanymannerwiththeforegoing , agreementswillrequirethepriorwrittenconsentof_SunTrust_ , RobinsonHumphreyor[DutyFree]. ,` x` x TheConfidentialMemorandumwasmadeavailabletoagroupofDutyFreesofficersand ",  employees( theDutyFreeManagementGroup)interestedinpurchasingDutyFree.The }$" DutyFreeManagementGroupprovided_Legg_ԀMasonwiththeConfidentialMemorandum I&!$ whentheyretained_Legg_ԀMasoninordertoassistthemintheirefforttoraisecapitalforthe (#& purchaseofDutyFree. )\%(   OnOctober11,2001,DutyFreewassoldto_DFA_ԀAcquisitionCorp,nowknownas +('* _DFA_ԀHoldings,Inc.DutyFreeallegesthatafterthesale_Legg_ԀMasonusedinformation y-(, jOa j9 j  obtainedfromtheConfidentialMemorandumto pitchitselfasafinancialadvisortosome  Bondholders,andthatitdisclosedtothoseBondholders,DutyFreestradesecretsand Q proprietaryandconfidentialinformation.  ) @XX%DISCUSSION  ѴѴӈ p   d   InreviewingthegrantofamotiontodismisspursuanttoMarylandRule2322(b),  - [theCourt]mustassumethetruthofallrelevantandmaterialfactsthatarewellpleadedand ~   allinferenceswhichcanbereasonablydrawnfrom[them].BennettHeating&Air J  Conditioning,Inc.v.NationsBank,103Md.App.749,757(1995),_revd_Ԁinpartonother   grounds,342Md.169(1996);2322(b)(2).Additionally, [_a]ny_Ԁambiguityorwantof ] certaintyin[the]allegationsmustbeconstruedagainstthepleader._Manikhi_Ԁv.MassTransit ) Admin.,360Md.333,345(2000)(quotingReadDrug&Chem.Co.v._Colwill_ԀConstr.Co, z 250Md.406,416(1968)). Whenmovingtodismiss,adefendantisassertingthat,evenif F theallegationsofthecomplaintaretrue,theplaintiffisnotentitledtoreliefasamatterof  law._Hrehorovich_Ԁv.HarborHosp.Ctr.,93Md.App.772,784(1992). Thus,in Y consideringamotiontodismissforfailuretostateaclaim,thecircuitcourtexaminesonly % thesufficiencyofthepleading.Id. Thecomplaintshouldnotbedismissedunlessit v appearsthatnosetoffactscanbeproveninsupportoftheclaimsetforththerein.Bennett, B!  103Md.App.at749.#Ѵ Ѵ0# #"  X ѴѴA. ` #Ѵ Ѵh$# ѴѴCOUNTIICONVERSION#Ѵ Ѵ$# ѴѴ $U $  X#Ѵ Ѵ%# ѴѴ  _Legg_ԀMasonarguesthatDutyFreesconversionclaimispreemptedbyMUTSA.#Ѵ Ѵy%#It &!"& isclearthatMUTSApreemptsanyothertortremedyinvolvingtradesecrets. r(#( f8  8`   Exceptasprovidedinsubsection(b)ofthissection,thissubtitle >*%* displacesconflictingtort,restitutionary,andotherlawofthis $+&+ Stateprovidingcivilremediesformisappropriationofatradesecret.  ,',  ` x` x f& ѴѴCommercialLaw111207(a).DutyFreearguesthatitsconversionclaimisnotpreempted k becauseitis #Ѵ Ѵ)(#notbaseduponmisappropriationofatradesecretpursuantto ѴѴ11 7 1207#Ѵ Ѵ0)#(b)(1)(ii),butispleadonlyasaprecautionintheeventthattheCourtfindsthatthe  ~ ConfidentialMemorandumandtheinformationinitarenottradesecrets.Theconversion  J countallegesthatLeggMasonconverted DutyFreestradesecretsandproprietaryand    confidentialinformation.(Emphasisadded.)Thusitdoesincludeaclaimforconversion g  of ѴѴtradesecretsthatwouldbepreemptedby#Ѵ ѴY+# ѴѴMUTSA. 3    However,eveniftherewerenoreferencetotradesecretsinthatcount,theconversion z  claimmustbedismissedbecausethereisnoallegationthatLeggMasonexercisedcontrol F overtheinformationtotheexclusionofDutyFree.Aconversion requiresnotmerely  temporaryinterferencewithpropertyrights,buttheexerciseofdominionandcontroltothe c completeexclusionoftherightfulpossessor.#Ѵ Ѵ+# ѴѴYostv.Early#Ѵ Ѵ.# ѴѴ,87Md.App.364,388(1991). / DutyFreehasnotallegedthatLeggMasonexercisedcontrolovertheinformationtothe v completeexclusionofDutyFree.Therefore,DutyFreehasfailedtostateaclaimfor B conversionandCountIIwillbedismissed.Itisthereforeunnecessaryforthe#Ѵ Ѵp.#Courtto  addressLeggMasonsargumentthatatradesecretsand/orconfidentialinformationmay _  notformthebasisofaconversionclaim. ѴѴ +"! #Ѵ Ѵ0# ;23456789:(J03=/ / ѴѴ"2"  6" <DLX6  212J  B  .3   `   #Ѵ Ѵ1# ѴѴCOUNTIIIBREACHOFCONFIDENTIALRELATIONSHIP21n2݌ #r# Ќ  X  X   X#Ѵ Ѵ2#<( 4 <DLX<LeggMasonarguesthatCountIII,breachofconfidentialrelationship,isalso %>!% preemptedbyMUTSA.DutyFreecorrectlypointsoutthatitmaypleadinthealternative ' #' becausetheCourtmayfindthattheinformationisnotatradesecret.SeeSwedishCivil [)$) AviationAdmin.v.ProjectManagementEnterprises,Inc.190_F.Supp_.2d785,785(D.Md. '+&+ 2002).However,LeggMasonsothertwoargumentsmaynotbedismissedsosummarily.  LeggMasonarguesthattheclaimforbreachofconfidentialrelationshipisessentially Q aclaimforbreachoffiduciaryduty,whichisnotrecognizedasatortinMaryland.See ѴѴKann  v.Kann,344Md.689,713(1997)#Ѵ Ѵ'7#(holdingthatthereisnoseparatetortforbreachof  d fiduciarydutyinMaryland). InresponseDutyFreecitesSwedishCivilAviationAdmin.v.  0 ProjectManagementEnterprises,Inc.andMarshallv.Proctor&GambleMfg.Co.,210F.    Supp.619,619(D.Md.1962),toarguethatMarylanddoesrecognizeaclaimforbreachof T  confidentialrelationship.LeggMasoncorrectlypointsoutthatinSwedishCivilAviation    Admin.,theonlyissueaddressedbytheCourtontheconfidentialityclaimwaswhetheritwas g preemptedbyMUTSA.Thedistrictcourtheldonlythattheclaimwasnotpreempted 3 becauseaplaintiffmaypleadinthealternative.  f8 ` However,asshownabove,[plaintiff]maypleadinthe P alternativeundertheliberalfederalpleadingstandards. 6 Accordingly,[plaintiffs]claimforbreachofdutyof  confidentialrelationshipisnotpreemptedbyMUTSAandsothe } motiontodismisswillbedeniedastoCountVII.c` x` x  Xf:190F.Supp.at802.Thatcourtdidnotaddressthelegalsufficiencyoftheclaim. /   NordoesMarshallv.Proctor&GamblesupportDutyFreesargument.Thatcourt  merelynotedthataclaimforbreachofaconfidentialrelationshiphadbeensubmittedtothe L!  jury.Becausethejuryfoundagainsttheplaintiff,thelegalsufficiencyoftheclaimwasnot #" beforethecourt. $_ $ f8  8`   Thesecondcauseofactionwasforbreachofanalleged &+"& confidentialrelationship.Thiscourtwassubmittedtothejuryon '#' interrogatoriesastowhetherornot,duringthecriticalperiod, |(#( plaintiffdisclosedtodefendantsanythingdefendantsdidnot b)$) alreadyknowwithregardtotheprocessingofcertainsoapbars; H*%* ifso,wasthisdisclosedinconfidence;ifso,wassuch .+&+ informationusedbydefendants;andinanyevent,didthe ,', plaintiffhavetherighttomaintainanactiononhisownbehalf  withrespecttosuchdisclosureanduse.Thejuryansweredthe k firstinterrogatoryinthenegative,makingitunnecessaryto Q considertheotherthree;andthecourtdirectedtheClerktoenter 7 judgmentforthedefendantsonthesecondcauseofaction.f>` x` x Marshall,210F.Supp.at620(footnoteomitted).FurthermoretheclaiminMarshallwas  d basedonanallegedmisuseofatradesecretwhichwouldnowbepreemptedbyMUTSA.  0 FinallyMarshallwasdecidedbeforeitwasclearthat  ѴѴMarylanddoesnotrecognizea    separatetortactionforbreachoffiduciaryduty.#Ѵ ѴC#IntlBhd.OfTeamstersv.WillisCorroon M  Corp.ofMd.,369Md.724,727n.1(2002) ѴѴ(citationomitted).#Ѵ ѴE#     Infurthersupportofitsargumentthatbreachofconfidentialrelationshipisatort ` separatefrombreachoffiduciaryduty,DutyFreecitesFarisv.Enberg,97Cal.App.3d309, , 312326(1979).TheFarisCourtstatedthatbreachofaconfidentialrelationship  ѴѴwasnot } limitedtofiduciaryrelationships,butcouldexistinanynumberofsituations,suchas I principalandagent,partners,jointadventurers,andinabuyer/sellerrelationshipwherea  tradesecretisdisclosedinthecourseofconfidentialnegotiationsonthepricetobepaidfor \ thesecret.Id.at321(citing#Ѵ ѴF# ѴѴԀThompsonv.CaliforniaBrewingCo., XKX ѴԀ310P.2d436# ѴX XKH##Ѵ ѴH# ѴѴ,440 ( (1957)).DutyFreecitesbothFarisandTeleCountEngineers,Inc.v.PacificTel.&Tel. y Co.,168Cal.App.3d455,461462(1985),#Ѵ ѴaI#Ԁtoshowthattheelementsofbreachofa E!  confidentialrelationshiparenotthesameastheelementsofbreachoffiduciaryrelationship. #"   InTeleCountEngineers,Inc.,thecourtnotedthatinordertostateaclaimforbreach $X $ ofconfidentialrelationship,therelationshipbetweenthepartiesmustbeanimpliedoractual &$"& contract: u(#( f8  8`   Thetortofbreachofconfidenceisbasedupontheconceptofan A*%* impliedobligationorcontractbetweentheparties.Itisan '+&+ obligationinlawwhereinfactthepartiesmadenopromise.It  ,', e    isnotbaseduponapparentintentionsoftheinvolvedparties;it  isanobligationcreatedbylawforreasonsofjustice.k` x` x f%L ѴѴ168Cal.App.3d#Ѵ Ѵ_N#Ԁat464(citationsandinternalquotationmarksomitted).Inotherwords, 7 theremustbe anunderstandingbetweenthepartiesandthedefendantsvoluntary  ~ assumptionofarelationofpersonalconfidence.Id.(citationsandinternalquotationmarks  J omitted)(emphasisadded).b #  1      ׀AsthecourtstatedinFaris, ѴѴ [t]heremustexistevidenceofthe    communicationoftheconfidentialityofthesubmissionorevidencefromwhicha g  confidentialrelationshipcanbeinferred.97Cal.App.3dat323. 3  f8  8`   Amongthefactorsfromwhichsuchaninferencecanbedrawn z  are:proofoftheexistenceofanimpliedinfactcontract;proof ` thatthematerialsubmittedwasprotectedbyreasonofsufficient F noveltyandelaboration;orproofofaparticularrelationship , suchaspartners,jointadventurers,principalandagentorbuyer  andsellerundercertaincircumstances. } #Ѵ ѴP# ѴѴԀc` x` x fQId. I F e     ThisisconsistentwithwhattheMarylandCourtofAppealshasstatedisrequiredfor e aconfidentialrelationshiptoexist.See#Ѵ ѴT#_Buxton_Ԁv._Buxton_,363Md.634,654655(2001) ѴѴ(A 1 confidentialrelationship #Ѵ Ѵ V#existsbetweentwopersonswhenonehasgainedtheconfidence  oftheotherandpurportstoactoradvisewiththeother'sinterestinmind.); ѴѴLynnv.  d _Magness_,191Md.674,684(1948)#Ѵ Ѵ6W# ѴѴԀ(Confidentialrelationship#Ѵ ѴW# ѴѴԀ #Ѵ Ѵ>X# ѴѴexistswheneverconfidence  0 isreposedbyonepersonandacceptedbytheother.)#Ѵ ѴX#. a     Asdiscussedbelow,DutyFreehasnotallegedanyfactsthatshowacontractexisted -  betweenitand_Legg_ԀMason,norhasitallegedfactstoshowan impliedobligationbetween   DutyFreeand_Legg_ԀMason. ѴѴDutyFreearguesthataconfidentialrelationshiparosewhen ` _Legg_ԀMasonobtainedtheConfidentialMemorandumwhichstatesthattheinformation , containedthereinwasconfidential.However,theflawinDutyFreesargumentliesinthe ] factthatLeggMasonobtainedtheConfidentialMemorandum#Ѵ ѴZ# ѴѴԀfromtheDutyFree ) ManagementGroup,#Ѵ Ѵc\# ѴѴnotfromDutyFree.#Ѵ Ѵ\# ѴѴThe#Ѵ Ѵ5]#ԀDutyFreeManagementGroupsoughttoretain  LeggMasoninordertoassistthemintheirefforttoraisecapitalforthepurchaseofDuty \ Free. ѴѴԀThus,ifthereexistedaconfidentialrelationshipatallitwasbetweenLeggMasonand ( theDutyFreeManagementGroup.#Ѵ Ѵ1^#TherewasnorelationshipbetweenDutyFreeandLegg Y Masonatall,andcertainlynonefromwhichaconfidentialrelationshipcouldbesaidtohave %!  beenestablished.LeggMasonneverpurportedtoactoradvisewithDutyFreesinterestin "" mindandDutyfreenever reposeditsconfidenceinLeggMason ѴѴ.Thus,whetherthetort $X $ ofbreachof#Ѵ Ѵz`#aconfidentialrelationship ѴѴԀexistsinMaryland,therearenofactsallegedthat &$"& couldsupportabreachbyLeggMasonofanyconfidenceitowedtoDutyFree.Therefore, U(#( CountIIIforbreachofaconfidentialrelationshipwillbedismissed.#Ѵ Ѵa# ѴѴ  !*%*  h(80;23456789:! !"d3"   Xd3&c2  C  .3  0 `   COUNTIVBREACHOFCONTRACTd3&cgc݌e` (#` (# Ќ  #Ѵ ѴPb# XYc ѴѴ  Finally_Legg_ԀMasonarguesthatCountIV,breachofcontract,mustbedismissed 1 becausetherearenoallegationsfromwhicha_factfinder_Ԁcouldfindthat_Legg_ԀMasonhada  contractwithDutyFree.#Ѵ ѴZd# ѴѴAcomplaintforbreachofcontractmustallege factsshowinga  d contractualobligationowedbythedefendanttotheplaintiffandabreachofthatobligation  0 bythedefendant.#Ѵ Ѵe# ѴѴContinentalMasonryCo.,v._Verdel_ԀConstr.Co.,Inc.,#Ѵ Ѵg# ѴѴԀ279Md.476,480 a   (1977).  -  #Ѵ Ѵg# ѴѴ  DutyFreearguesthatacontractwasformedwhen_Legg_ԀMasonacceptedthe   ConfidentialMemorandum.ThelanguageoftheMemorandumdoesnotsupportthis ` argument.Itprovidesthat: ByacceptingthisMemorandum,therecipient...agreesthat:#Ѵ Ѵ