Blgh Holdings LLC, Plaintiff Below, Appellant v. Enxco Lfg Holding, LLC, Defendant Below, Appellee

Summary

The Court held that BLGH was entitled to the contractual bonus because the UPA did not require the final agreement between enXco and Shell to be materially or substantially identical to the terms in the incorporated letter of intent. The letter of intent expressly permitted the parties to modify, delete, or add to its indicative terms, and the required transaction was ultimately consummated while the letter remained in force. The Court reversed the summary judgment for enXco and remanded for further proceedings, including determination of the bonus amount.