In Re WorldCom, Inc.

OPINION REGARDING CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BROUGHT SEPARATELY BY MICHAEL JORDAN AND WORLDCOM, INC.

INTRODUCTION

Before the Court are cross-motions for summary judgment separately brought by Michael Jordan (“Jordan”) and WorldCom, Inc. (hereafter referred to as the “Debtors” or “MCI”).

BACKGROUND

On or about July 10, 1995, Jordan and the Debtors entered into an endorsement agreement (the “Agreement”). At that time, Jordan was considered to be one of the most popular athletes in the world. The Agreement granted MCI a ten-year license to use Jordan’s name, likeness, “other attributes,” and personal services to advertise and promote MCI’s telecommunications products and services beginning in September 1995 and ending in August 2005. The Agreement did not prevent Jordan from endorsing most other products or services, although he could not endorse the same products or services that MCI produced. In addition to a $5 million signing bonus, the Agreement provided an annual base compensation of $2 million for Jordan. The Agreement provided that Jordan would be treated as an independent contractor and that MCI would not withhold any amount from Jordan’s compensation for tax purposes. The Agreement provided that Jordan was to make himself available for four days, not to exceed four hours per day, during each contract year to produce television commercials and print advertising and for promotional appearances. The parties agreed that the advertising and promotional materials would be submitted to Jordan for his approval, which could not be unreasonably withheld, fourteen days prior to their release to the general public. From 1995 to 2000, Jordan appeared in several television commercials and a large number of print ads for MCI.

On July 1, 2002, MCI commenced a case under chapter 11 of title 11 of the United States Code (the “Bankruptcy Code”) in the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. On January 16, *680 2008, Jordan filed Claim No. 11414 in the amount of $2 million plus contingent and unliquidated amounts allegedly due under the Agreement. On July 18, 2003, the Debtors rejected the Agreement as of that date, pursuant to § 365(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. Following that rejection of the Agreement, Jordan filed Claim No. 36077 (the “Claim”) in the amount of $8 million — seeking $2 million for each of the payments that were due in June of 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005. MCI does not object to the Claim to the extent Jordan seeks $4 million for the 2002 and 2003 payments under the Agreement. As of the rejection in July 2003, two years remained under the Agreement.

The Parties’ Contentions 1

MCI asserts two bases for disallowance of the Claim. One, MCI contends that the Agreement is an “employment contract” within the meaning of section 502(b)(7) of the Bankruptcy Code and that Jordan’s claim is “capped” pursuant to that section. Second, MCI argues that Jordan had an obligation to mitigate his damages and failed to do so. MCI argues that these two bases entitle it to summary judgment with respect to its objection to the Claim, and assert that either under section 502(b)(7) or as a result of Jordan’s failure to mitigate damages following the Debtors’ rejection, the Claim should be reduced to $4 million. MCI argues that it is under no obligation to pay Jordan for contract years 2004 and 2005.

Jordan argues for summary judgment allowing the Claim in full and overruling and dismissing MCI’s objections to the Claim. Jordan argues that because he was not an “employee” of MCI and because the Agreement was not an “employment agreement,” section 502(b)(7) does not apply to cap his claim. Regarding MCI’s mitigation argument, Jordan argues that the objection should be overruled and dismissed for three independent reasons (1) Jordan was a “lost volume seller” and thus mitigation does not apply, (2) there is no evidence that Jordan could have entered into a “substantially similar” endorsement agreement, and (3) Jordan acted reasonably when he decided not to pursue other endorsements after MCI’s rejection of the Agreement.

DISCUSSION

A. Summary Judgment Standard

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c), made applicable to this proceeding by Federal Rule of Bankruptcy 7056, summary judgment is only appropriate where the record shows that “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” See Fed. R. Civ. 56(c); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2552, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). A genuine issue of material fact exists, where “there is sufficient evidence favoring the nonmoving party for a jury to return a verdict for that party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2511, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). In determining whether such an issue exists, “the court is required to resolve all ambiguities and draw all permissible factual inferences in favor of the party against whom summary judgment is sought.” Stern v. Trustees of Columbia Univ., 131 F.3d 305, 312 (2d Cir.1997). The court’s role is “not to weigh the evidence or make determinations of credibility but to ‘determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial.’” Village of Kiryas *681 Joel Local Dev. Corp. v. Ins. Co. of N. America, 996 F.2d 1390, 1392 (2d Cir.1993) (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249, 106 S.Ct. at 2511). It is well established that a party opposing a motion for summary judgment “may not rest upon mere conclusory allegations or denials.” See Colavito v. N.Y. Organ Donor Network, Inc., 438 F.3d 214, 222 (2d Cir.2006) (quoting Markowitz v. Republic Nat’l Bank of N.Y., 651 F.2d 825, 828 (2d Cir.1981)). When cross-motions for summary judgment are made, as here, courts use the same standard as for individual motions for summary judgment — each motion must be considered independently of the other and the court must consider the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party for each. See Heublein, Inc. v. United States, 996 F.2d 1455, 1461 (2d Cir.1993). In such a situation, the court is not required to grant judgment as a matter of law for one side or the other. See id.

B. Application of Section 502(b)(7)

Jordan argues that section 502(b)(7) does not apply to his claim because he was an independent contractor and not an employee of MCI. MCI argues that section 502(b)(7) does apply to the Claim because the Agreement was an Employment Contract and Jordan was an “employee” within the meaning of that statute.

Section 502(b)(7) provides

(b) [T]he court, after notice and a hearing, shall determine the amount of ... [a] claim ... as of the date of the Sling of the petition, and shall allow such claim in such amount, except to the extent that....

(7) if such claim is the claim of an employee for damages resulting from the termination of an employment contract, such claim exceeds -

(A) the compensation provided by such contract, without acceleration, for one year following the earlier of—

(i) the date of the Sling of the petition; or

(ii) the date on which the employer directed the employee to terminate, or such employee terminated, performance under such contract; plus

(B) any unpaid compensation due under such contract, without acceleration, on the earlier of such dates;

11 U.S.C. § 502(b)(7).

This section caps an employee’s claim for damages resulting from the termination of an employment agreement when the employer has Sled for bankruptcy to (1) one year’s compensation provided by such agreement measured from the earlier of the date of the Sling of the bankruptcy petition or the date of termination, plus (2) any unpaid compensation due on such date. See, e.g., In re Protarga, Inc., 329 B.R. 451, 465 (Bankr.D.Del.2005). The statutory language shows Congress’s intent to limit the amount of damages that are recoverable from a debtor employer when each of two conditions is present — -the claim must be that of an “employee” and the damages sought are for the termination of an “employment contract.” See In re Lavelle Aircraft Co., No. 94-17496DWS, 1996 WL 226852, at *3 (Bankr.E.D.Pa. May 2, 1996). Neither “employee” nor “employment contract” is deSned in the statute or legislative history. See id., at *4.

When originally enacted, subsection (b)(7) did not contain the phrase “of an employee.” That language was added in 1984. 2 See In re Continental Airlines, 257 *682 B.R. 658, 665 (Bankr.D.Del.2000). One commentator has stated that the 1984 addition was made to eliminate the possibility of third parties, such as third party contractors, asserting a claim against the estate. See id. (citing Norton Bankruptcy Code Pamphlet, 1994-95 Edition (Revised) § 502(b), Editor’s Comment at 379 (1995)).

The cases that have discussed the issues of whether a person was an “employee” and whether the parties had an “employment contract” pursuant to section 502(b)(7) have considered a varied, non-exhaustive list of factors. The factors evidencing an employment contract include (a) how the agreement is entitled, (b) if the agreement identifies job responsibilities, (c) if the agreement provides the terms for compensation and benefits, (d) if withholding taxes and social security benefits are deducted from pay, (e) if the agreement constrains the “employee” from certain other activities, (f) if the agreement is not assignable, (g) if the debtor had the right to control the activities of the “employee,” 3 and (h) the amount of hours the “employee” needed to devote to the debt- or’s business per year. 4 Another case stated that factors showing that a person was not an employee included that (i) the “employee” ran his own business, and (j) the “employee” provided services from a location far from the debtor. 5

The majority of these factors favor Jordan. First, the Agreement 6 explicitly stated that “Jordan shall be treated as an independent contractor under the terms of this Agreement” and that the Debtors would not withhold taxes. On the federal tax Form 1099 that MCI provided to Jordan, MCI identified Jordan’s compensation as “non-employee compensation.” See Jordan’s Statement of Uncontested Material Facts In Support of Mot. Summ. J., Ex. 11. The Agreement did not provide that the Debtors would furnish Jordan with health insurance or pension benefits, and MCI has not shown that it did provide Jordan with those benefits. The Agreement did not provide the Debtors with substantial rights to control Jordan’s activities; in fact, under the Agreement, Jordan retained substantial rights over his activities for the Debtors. For example, MCI agreed to submit copies of “all packaging, advertising and/or promotional materials” to Jordan for his approval before releasing them to the general public. The Agreement also provided that the timing of Jordan’s work for MCI would be subject to Jordan’s schedule. The hours worked under the Agreement strongly favor Jordan. In Bergh, the court noted that the agreement limited the party’s consulting services to a maximum of 120 hours per year. Bergh, 141 B.R. at 416 (finding that the limit on the hours was one of the agreement’s “significant differences” from factors “which evidence an employment contract”). Here, Jordan was required to work a maximum of sixteen hours per year.

MCI points out that in In re Wilson Foods Corp., 182 B.R. 278 (Bankr.D.Kan.1995), the court found the consultant, a party designated as an “independent eon- *683 tractor,” to be an employee under section 502(b)(7). The claimant there had been a party to a three-year “Employment Agreement” with the debtor, with the possibility of renewal for a like term. When her term was not renewed, the Employment Agreement provided that the claimant was to serve as a consultant for seven years. After the debtor filed for bankruptcy, the court found that the “terms contained in the written contract, delineated an ‘Employment Agreement,’ evidenced an employment relationship between” the debtor and the claimant. Wilson Foods, 182 B.R. at 283. Some of the factors in that case admittedly do not favor Jordan — there the claimant had to pay her own taxes, the Employment Agreement was assignable only under limited circumstances, 7 and had a non-compete clause. The Agreement contains similar provisions. However, the Wilson Foods court considered that because the consulting contract was contained in the same Employment Agreement under which the claimant served as executive vice president, the “situation is not so far removed from the general statement that the purpose of § 502(b)(7) was to ‘limit the claims of key executive-employees, who for one reason or another, were able to exact long-term contracts calling for substantial remuneration.’ ” Wilson Foods, 182 B.R. at 288 (citation omitted). See also Russell Cave, 253 B.R. at 823 (“the critical difference ... [in] Wilson Foods ... is that her consulting contract was part and parcel of the employment contract”).

As shown by Russell Cave’s distinction of Wilson Foods, the policy considerations behind section 502(b)(7) favor Jordan. Section “502(b)(7) serves a ... purpose by limiting employee damage claims, especially those of officers, owner-managers and other key-executives who had been able to exact favorable long term contracts calling for substantial remuneration.” Lavelle Aircraft, 1996 WL 226852, at *5 (emphasis added); see also In re Prospect Hill Res., Inc., 837 F.2d 453, 455 (11th Cir.1988) (“One purpose of section 502(b)(7) was to relieve bankrupt employers of the continuing duty to pay high salaries to officers and owners-managers who had been able to exact favorable terms of tenure and salaries while the business prospered.”). Here, Jordan was not an officer, an owner-manager, or a key executive of MCI. He was a popular athlete whose image MCI wished to license to sell its services and products. Section 502(b)(7)’s envisioned harm of high-level corporate insiders negotiating a long-term deal has no application to Jordan, whose main duty to the company was showing up for sixteen hours a year at photo and commercial shoots that were presumably far from MCI’s corporate offices. See, e.g., In re Cincinnati Cordage & Paper Co., 271 B.R. 264, 269 (Bkrtcy.S.D.Ohio 2005) (“This code section was designed to limit the claims of key executives who had been able to negotiate contracts with very beneficial terms.”).

As pointed out in In re U.S. Truck Co., Inc., 89 B.R. 618, 627 (E.D.Mich.1988), the Report of the Commission on the Bankruptcy Laws of the United States, which originally proposed this exception and whose draft was adopted almost word-for-word, explained the rationale for this section: “This clause is intended principally to apply to long-term contracts providing substantial compensation to management *684 executives of corporate debtors. It also applies to the termination of contracts obligating payment for future athletic, entertainment, or other services.” Commission Report, H.R. Doc. 137, 93rd Cong., 1st Sess., Part II at 106 (1973), reprinted in Collier on Bankruptcy, Appendix B, Part 4-674 (15th Ed. Rev.2006).

Based upon a review of aforementioned, most specifically the factors cited in the case law, the Court finds that Jordan was not an “employee” and the Agreement was not an “employment contract” pursuant to section 502(b)(7). Therefore, there being no genuine issue of material facts as to Jordan’s status, the Court grants summary judgment to Jordan on this point and holds that this basis for MCI’s objection to the Claim is overruled and denied.

C. Mitigation

The doctrine of avoidable consequences, which has also been referred to as the duty to mitigate damages, “bars recovery for losses suffered by a non-breaching party that could have been avoided by reasonable effort and without risk of substantial loss or injury.” Edward M. Crough, Inc. v. Dep’t of Gen. Servs. of D.C., 572 A.2d 457, 466 (D.C.1990). The burden of proving that the damages could have been avoided or mitigated rests with the party that committed the breach. See Obelisk Corp. v. Riggs Nat’l Bank of Washington, D.C., 668 A.2d 847, 856 (D.C.1995); see also Norris v. Green, 656 A.2d 282, 287 (D.C.1995) (“The failure to mitigate damages is an affirmative defense and the [breaching party] has the burden of showing the absence of reasonable efforts to mitigate”). The efforts to avoid or mitigate the damages do not have to be successful, as long as they are reasonable. See Edward M. Crough, 572 A.2d at 467.

Jordan argues that as a “lost volume seller” he was under no obligation to mitigate damages. Alternatively, Jordan argues that MCI failed to establish that Jordan could have entered a “substantially similar” endorsement contract and that Jordan acted reasonably in not entering another endorsement agreement after MCI’s breach. MCI counters that Jordan is not a lost volume seller and that MCI has shown that Jordan failed to take reasonable steps to mitigate damages.

The damages for a contract’s rejection are determined in accordance with the law that would govern the value of the claim outside the context of bankruptcy. See, e.g., R & O Elevator Co. v. Harmon, 93 B.R. 667, 669, 672 (D.Minn.1988) (discussing mitigation theory under applicable state law); see also In re Dabrowski, 257 B.R. 394, 414 n. 40 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.2001) (state law determines consequences of breach deemed rejection under § 365); In re Mitchell, 249 B.R. 55, 58 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.2000) (to determine the effect of rejection under § 365, “we look to state law”).

The Court will look to the District of Columbia (“D.C.”) as the applicable state law for mitigation and other consequences of MCI’s rejection of the Agreement. The parties, under Section 16 of the Agreement, “Arbitration; Governing Law,” provided that any controversy would be submitted to arbitration to be governed in accordance with D.C. law. This is the only choice of law provision in the Agreement. MCI has asserted that the Agreement was negotiated between “WorldCom in Mississippi and Michael Jordan’s agent in Washington, D.C. with input from Michael Jordan, a resident of Illinois.” New York’s choice-of-law rules would require application of D.C. law under a “center of gravity approach” as D.C. was where one party negotiated from and *685 was the location specified in the only-choice of law provision. See Beth Israel Med. Ctr. v. Horizon Blue Cross & Blue Shield of N.Y., 448 F.3d 573, 583 (2d Cir.2006) (stating factors, including place of negotiation, considered under “center of gravity” analysis); see also Cargill, Inc. v. Charles Kowsky Res., Inc., 949 F.2d 51, 55 (2d Cir.1991) (“New York courts generally defer to the choice of law made by the parties to a contract”).

The Court was not furnished nor did research reveal D.C. cases precisely on point. Therefore, the Court will discuss and rely on cases from other jurisdictions where needed.

1. Whether Jordan Was a “Lost Volume Seller ”

Jordan argues that MCI’s mitigation defense does not apply here because Jordan is akin to a “lost volume seller.” Jordan points to testimony demonstrating that he could have entered into additional endorsement contracts even if MCI had not rejected the Agreement. Thus, he argues, any additional endorsement contracts would not have been substitutes for the Agreement and would not have mitigated the damages for which MCI is liable.

“A lost volume seller is one who has the capacity to perform the contract that was breached in addition to other potential contracts due to unlimited resources or production capacity.” Precision Pine & Timber, Inc. v. United States, 72 Fed.Cl. 460, 490 (Fed.Cl.2006). A lost volume seller does not minimize its damages by entering into another contract because it would have had the benefit of both contracts even if the first were not breached. See Jetz Service Co. v. Salina Props., 19 Kan.App.2d 144, 865 P.2d 1051, 1055-56 (1993). The lost volume seller has two expectations, the profit from the breached contract and the profit from one or more other contracts that it could have performed at the same time as the breached contract. See Snyder v. Herbert Greenbaum & Assocs., 38 Md.App. 144, 380 A.2d 618, 624 (1977). “The philosophical heart of the lost volume theory is that the seller would have generated a second sale irrespective of the buyer’s breach” and that “[i]t follows that the lost volume seller cannot possibly mitigate damages.” D. Matthews, Should the Doctrine of Lost Volume Seller Be Retained? A Response to Professor Breen, 51 U. Miami L.Rev. 1195, 1214 (July 1997); see also Snyder, 380 A.2d at 625 (under this theory, “the original sale and the second sale are independent events”).

The lost volume seller theory is recognized in the Restatement (2d) of Contracts, §§ 347, 350 (1981) (the “Restatement (2d)”). 8 The lost volume seller theo *686 ry applies to contracts for services as well as goods. See Restatement (2d), § 347, ill. 16; see also Jetz Service, 865 P.2d at 1055-56 (applying theory to seller of services); Gianetti v. Norwalk Hosp., 64 Conn.App. 218, 779 A.2d 847, 853 (2001) (applying theory to provider of medical services), aff'd in part, rev’d in part, 266 Conn. 544, 833 A.2d 891 (2003). 9

This case offers a twist on the typical lost volume seller situation. In what the Court regards as the typical situation, the non-breaching seller has a near-inexhaustible supply of inventory. See, e.g., Katz Commc’ns, Inc. v. Evening News Ass’n, 705 F.2d 20, 26 (2d Cir.1983). In the typical situation, when a buyer breaches an agreement to buy a good or service from the seller, the item is returned to inventory and the lost volume seller continues in its efforts to sell its goods or services. However, the transactions that occur following the breach are not necessarily the result of the breach but fundamentally the result of the seller continuing efforts to market its goods and services. It is this continuous effort coupled with a virtually limitless supply that warrants the lost volume exception to mitigation. As stated above, the transactions that may occur after the breach would in the context of the lost volume seller have occurred independent of the breach. Here, Jordan lacked a nearly limitless supply and had no intention of continuing to market his services as a product endorser. 10

Although not addressed by a D.C. court, the majority of cases hold that Jordan bears the burden of proving that he is a lost volume seller. See generally Precision Pine, 72 Fed.Cl. at 495 (“The case law demonstrates that ... plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that it should be compensated as a lost volume seller”); Snyder, 380 A.2d at 624; Ullman-Briggs, Inc. v. Salton, Inc., 754 F.Supp. 1003, 1008-09 (S.D.N.Y.1991); R.E. Davis Chemical Corp. v. Diasonics, Inc., 826 F.2d 678, 684 (7th Cir.1987); Green Tree Fin. Corp. v. ALLTEL Info. Servs., Inc., No. Civ. 02-627 JRTFLN, 2002 WL 31163072, at *9 (D.Minn. Sept. 26, 2002).

To claim lost volume seller status, Jordan must establish that he would have had the benefit of both the original and subsequent contracts if MCI had not rejected the Agreement. See Ullman-Briggs, 754 F.Supp. at 1008. Although there is no definitive set of elements that the non-breaching party must show, many cases seem to follow the language from the Restatement (2d), Section 347, that the non-breaching party must show that it “could and would have entered into” a subsequent agreement. See, e.g., Donald Rubin, Inc. v. Schwartz, 191 A.D.2d 171, 172, 594 N.Y.S.2d 193, 194-95 (1st Dep’t 1993); Precision Pine, 72 Fed.Cl. at 496-97; Gianetti, 833 A.2d at 897; Jetz Ser *687 vice, 865 P.2d at 1056; see also Green Tree Financial, 2002 WL 31163072, at *9 (“[t]o recover lost profits under this theory, a non-breaching party must prove three things: (1) that the seller of services had the capability to perform both contracts simultaneously; (2) that the second contract would have been profitable; and (3) that the seller of service would have entered into the second contract if the first contract had not been terminated”).

In his arguments, Jordan focuses primarily on his capacity to enter subsequent agreements, arguing that the loss of MCI’s sixteen-hour annual time commitment hardly affected his ability to perform additional endorsement services. On this prong alone, Jordan likely would be considered a lost volume seller of endorsement services because he had sufficient time to do multiple endorsements. Although he does not have the “infinite capacity” that some cases discuss, a services provider does not need unlimited capacity but must have the requisite capacity and intent to perform under multiple contracts at the same time. See Gianetti, 266 Conn. at 561-62, 833 A.2d 891 (plastic surgeon could be considered a lost volume seller if it were determined that he had the capacity and intent to simultaneously work out of three or four hospitals profitably).

Contrary to Jordan’s analysis, courts do not focus solely on the seller’s capacity. The seller claiming lost volume status must also demonstrate that it would have entered into subsequent transactions. See Diasonics, 826 F.2d at 684; Green Tree Financial, 2002 WL 31163072, at *9; Gianetti, 779 A.2d at 853 (“for sellers of personal services to come within the purview of the Restatement’s lost volume seller theory ..., they must establish,” in addition to capacity, that additional sales would have been profitable and that they would made the additional sale regardless of the buyer’s breach). Jordan has not shown he could and would have entered into a subsequent agreement. Rather, the evidence shows that Jordan did not have the “subjective intent” to take on additional endorsements. See Ullman-Briggs, 754 F.Supp. at 1008. The testimony from Jordan’s representatives establishes that although Jordan’s popularity enabled him to obtain additional product endorsements in 2003, Jordan desired to scale back his level of endorsements. Jordan’s financial and business advisor, Curtis Polk (“Polk”), testified that at the time the Agreement was rejected, Jordan’s desire was “not to expand his spokesperson or pitchman efforts with new relationships.” See Debtors’ Mot. Summ. J., App. 5, at 32. Polk testified that had Jordan wanted to do additional endorsements after the 2003 rejection, he could have obtained additional deals. See id. at 64-65. Jordan’s agent, David Falk (“Falk”), testified that “there might have been twenty more companies that in theory might have wanted to sign him” but that Jordan and his representatives wanted to avoid diluting his image. See Debtors’ Mot. Summ J., App. 6, at 24. Jordan’s Memorandum for Summary Judgment stated that at the time the Agreement was rejected, Jordan had implemented a strategy of not accepting new endorsements because of a belief that new deals would jeopardize his ability to achieve his primary goal of National Basketball Association (“NBA”) franchise ownership.

In a district court case in the Southern District of New York, the court held that the test of whether a plaintiff has established lost volume seller status has both subjective and objective components. See Ullman-Briggs, 754 F.Supp. at 1008-09. That case involved the breach of a sales distribution agreement; the plaintiff was a sales representation company that had *688 represented the defendant, a manufacturer of small electrical appliances. Id. at 1004. After the defendant terminated the contract, the plaintiff took on seventeen new lines of products to represent. Id. at 1006. The plaintiff argued that its damages award should not be offset by the commissions it earned from these new lines. Id. at 1008. The court disagreed, finding that the plaintiff failed to show it had the subjective intent to take on these accounts even if the defendant had not terminated their agreement. Id. at 1009 (plaintiffs “own proof refuted that intent as to many of the additional lines”). The court stated that the plaintiffs “admission that it would not have had the subjective intent to take on many of the additional lines if Saltón had not terminated the contract” was “fatal to Ullman-Briggs’ claim that it may be properly be regarded as a lost volume seller.” Id. Here, although the situation is not strictly parallel because there were no subsequent deals by Jordan, the testimony by Jordan’s agent and advisor shows he lacked the subjective intent to take on additional endorsement opportunities regardless of MCI’s rejection of the Agreement.

Jordan’s situation is akin to that of the plaintiff in Samaritan Inns, Inc. v. District of Columbia, 114 F.3d 1227 (D.C.Cir.1997). In that case, Samaritan Inns, the plaintiff, provided below-market rental housing to recovering substance abusers. Id. at 1229. It successfully sued the District of Columbia and District officials for violations of the Fair Housing Act, such as unlawfully enforcing a stop-work order and initiating proceedings to revoke the plaintiffs construction permits. At issue on appeal, and of relevance here, was a portion of the damages award. The defendants appealed the award of more than $2 million in damages for potential contributions the plaintiff claimed it lost because of the defendants’ conduct. Id. at 1229, 1232. Once the controversy began, Samaritan Inns had chosen not to begin a planned fundraising campaign and argued that its damages included the lost contributions from this campaign. Id. The court analogized the plaintiffs argument to the lost volume seller theory, as the plaintiff claimed that charitable contributions are given on a regular basis. Id. at 1236. “[I]f a charity solicits money on an annual basis, a donation in one year will not compensate the charity for a donation ‘lost’ in a prior year.” Id. If not for the disruption of an annual fundraising drive, “the charity would have received contributions in both years.” Id. The problem with the damages award, according to the district court, was that the fundraising campaign was of “limited duration” and not an annual program. Id. The district court noted that if the fundraising program had been an annual event, a fact-finder could reasonably conclude that the plaintiff irretrievably lost the contributions, but it was unexplained under the circumstances — circumstances that included the “limited” duration of the campaign — why the plaintiff could not “simply make up the ‘lost’ contributions in later years and still achieve the goals of the [fundraising] campaign.” Id. Here, if Jordan had been seeking additional endorsement agreements independent of the Agreement’s rejection, the Court could conclude that Jordan was a lost volume seller and irretrievably lost the money from the MCI Agreement. However, given Jordan’s planned limitation on his endorsement activity based upon a desire to cultivate an image he perceived more compatible with that of an owner of an NBA team, rather than to continue to market his celebrity athlete image, the Court cannot