Seventh Circuit -- Dynegy Marketing and v. Multiut Cor

Dynegy Marketing v. Multiut Corp.

Merely naming an amount for counterclaim damages insufficient after several motions to compel - underlying rationale must be shown.

Without specific agreement, vague, general understanding of MFN pricing is not a contract.

"We'll work on it" does not create a contract for lock-in pricing.

Not invoicing interest payments does not create a contract that interest will not be paid.

Alleged manipulation of gas price indices does not vitiate damages claim.

Signatories personally liable as third-party guarantors despite partial noncompliance of coparties.

Where one party later does a deal with a competitor of a company with which it had a confidentiality agreement, breach of the CA may be too speculative for even the inevitable disclosure doctrine to apply.

No proof of ultimate harm in Robinson-Patman Act challenge.