2007 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 2-9-2007 

# B uck C ons ul Inc v

. Gle np ointe As so c P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 05-4685

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2007 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " B uck C on s ul Inc v

. Gle npo int e As s oc " (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1638. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/1638NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

_______________ N o. 05- 4685

_______________ BUCK CONSULT ANTS , I NC.

v. G LEN PO I N TE A SSO CI A TES, D efe ndant/ T hi r d- Par tyPl ai nt i ff

v. M E L L ON F I NANC I AL CO RP OR AT I ON, T hi r d- Par tyD efe ndant G l enp oint e A ssoci at es, A ppel l ant

_________________ A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt forthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s ey (D . C . C ivil N o . 0 3 -00 4 5 4 ) D i s tr i ctJ udge: J os e L. L i nar es

_________________________ A r gued N ovember28, 2006 B efor e: R E N D E L L and A M B R O , C i r cui tJ udges

PR A T T E R , * D i s tr i ctJ udge ( Fi l ed February9, 2007)

____________________ *H onor abl e G ene E. K . Pr att er , U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctJ udge forthe East ern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on.2

John J. G i bb on s [ ARGUE D] G ib b o n s , D e l D e o , D o la n , G i r ffi nger& V ecc hi one O ne R i ver fr ontPl aza N ew ark, N J 07102- 5497 M i chae l S. M ei s el D avi d M . K ohane C le, S ch o tz, M eisel, F o rm an & L eo n ard 2 5 M ian S tre e t - C o u rt P laz a N o rth P. O . B ox 800 H acke ns ack, N J 07601 C ouns el f orAppel lant B . J o h n P e n d le to n , J r. [ ARGUE D] M cC art er & E ng l i sh 100 M ul berr ySt r eet FourG at ew ayC ent er N ew ark, N J 07102- 0652 C ouns el f orAppel l ees

_______________

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

_______________ PR A T T E R , D i s tr i ctJ udge. G lenp o inte A sso ciates (“G lenp o inte”) h as a p p ea led th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s su m m ary j udgm enti n favorof G l enpoi nt e’ s t enant , B uck C ons ul t ant s , I nc. ( “B uck”) , i n w hi ch the D istri ct C o u rtfo u n d that G lenp o inte u n rea so n ab ly , an d in b ad fa ith , ref u sed B u ck ’s r eques tthatG l enpoi nt e cons entt o a pr opos ed s ubl eas e betw een Buck and Ei s ai C o rpo rati o n o f N o rth A m erica (“ E isai ”). Forthe r eas ons di s cus s ed bel ow , w e w i l l r ever s e the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s fi ndi ng thatG le n p o in te W e s t is a 3 3 0 ,0 0 0 s q u a re f o o t, s e v e n -s to ry o f

f ic e b u ild in g . 1 3 G l enpoi nt e ac t ed i n bad fa i th. W e al s o fi nd thati tw as err orforthe D i s tr i ctC our tt o or der th a t th e le a s e in q u e s tio n w a s te rm in a te d in its e n tir e ty. I . F ACT UAL BA CKGROUND O n N o v e m b e r 1 8 , 1 9 9 8 , G len p o in te le a se d 7 0 ,0 0 0 sq u a re f e e t o f o f f ice sp a c e to P ric e W a ter h o u se C o o p e rs, L L P (“ P W C ” ) a t G len p o in te C e n tre W e st (“ G len p o in te W es t ”) , i n T eane ck, N ew J er s ey( the “Leas e”) . T he Leas e t erm ext ended t o February28, 1 2 0 0 9 . I n J a n u a r y2 0 0 2 , wi th th e c o n s e n to f Gl e n p o i n t e , P W C a s s i g n e d th e Le a s e t o EBS A cqui s i t i on C orpor at i on ( “EB S”) , a w hol l yow ned s ubs i di aryof M el l on Fi nanci al C orpor at i on ( “M el l on”) . Si x m onths l at er , E B S as s i gned the Leas e t o B uck, another M e llo n a f

f ilia te . U n d e r th e ter m s o f

th e L e a se , B u c k w a s re sp o n sib le f o r a n n u a l f

ix e d re n t p a ym e n ts i n the amountof $1, 992, 777 forthe fi r s tfi ve y ear s of the Leas e, and $2, 272, 465 annual fi xed r entther eaf

t er . I n addi t i on, B uck w as r es pons i bl e fori t s pr opor t i onat e s har e of o p e ra tin g e x p e n se s a n d re a l es tate tax e s. A c c o rd in g ly , B u c k m a d e m o n th lyre n t p a ym e n ts t ot al i ng $173, 377. 79, i ncl udi ng $166, 044. 75 i n fi xed r entand $7, 313. 04 i n addi t i onal r ent ob l i gati on s. T h e L ea se c o n tai n s m u lt iple p rov isi o n s tha t, w h en take n tog ethe r, g o v ern B u ck ’s abi l i tyt o as s i gn ors ubl eas e the pr emi s es . Par agr aph 11 of the Leas e s t at es , i n pert i nent p a rt:4 ( A ) T enant , fori t s el f . . . s ucce s s or s and as s i gns , expr es s l ycovena nt s that itsh all n o t assign , m o rt g ag e o r en cu m b er this L ea se, no r un d erlet, o r suf fe r or perm i tthe d em i sed prem i ses of anypartthereof to be u sed byother s, w i thoutthe pr i orw r i t t en cons entof Landl or d i n eac h i ns t ance , as her ei naft ers etfor th. P a ra g ra p h 2 7 (J) o f

th e L e a se p ro v id e s th e g u id e lin e s f o r G len p o in te’ s c o n se n t: ( 1) ( a) W heneve rL andl or d’ s cons entorappr oval i s r equi r ed underthe L eas e, L andl or d agr ees thats uch cons entorappr oval s hal l notbe unr eas onabl yw i thhel d ordel ay ed ats uch t i m es as T enanti s not i n d efau l ti n the perform ance o f anyof it s obli gati on s und er this L ease aft ernot i ce a nd the expi r at i on of anyappl i cabl e cur e per i ods pr ovi ded herei n. T his subsect i on J( 1) shal l no tapp l yt o an yprovis i on i n thi s L ease w hich exp res sl yperm i t s L and l ord t o arbi trar i l yw i thh old i t s c o n s e n t o r a p p ro v a l. (2 ) If in th is L e a se , itis p ro v id e d th a t L a n d lo rd ’s c o n se n t o r a p p ro v a l as t o anym att erw i l l notbe unr eas onabl yw i thhel d, and i ti s es t abl i s hed bya courtorbodyhavi ng fi nal j ur i s di ct i on ther eoverthatL andl or d has b e e n u n re a so n a b le, th e o n lye f f e c t o f su c h f in d in g sh a ll b e th a t L a n d lo rd sh a ll b e d e e m e d to h a v e g iv e n its c o n se n t o r a p p ro v a l; i t b e in g u n d e rsto o d a n d a g re e d th a t in n o e v e n t . . . sh a ll L a n d lo rd b e liab le to T e n a n t in a n yre sp e c t f

o r m o n e yd a m a g e s b yre a so n o f w ith h o ld in g its co n sen t, u n less su ch co u rto r bo d ysp ec ifi ca ll yd eterm ines that L an d lord had ac t ed i n bad fa i th orm al i ci ous l y. . . and i n no events hal l L andl or d be l i abl e forcons equent i al orpuni t i ve damages ( i ncl udi ng, w ith o u t l im it ati o n , lost pro fit s). ( 4) L andl or d and Tenanteac h agr ee t o per form al l of thei rr es pect i ve obl i gat i ons her eunderi n good fai th. T hus , underthe bar gai ned- fort erm s of the Leas e, ( a) G l enpoi nt e’ s cons entt o a pr opos ed su b lea se is re q u ire d , (b ) G len p o in te’ s c o n se n t m a yn o t b e u n re a so n a b lyw ith h e ld , (c) if G l enpoi nt e w i thhol ds cons entunr eas onabl y , B uck’ s onl yr emedyi s thatcons entw oul d be deem ed g i ven , un l ess ( d) G l enp oint e act s i n “b ad fa i th o r m al i ci ou sl y , ” i n w hich caseU n d e r th is p ro p o sa l, E isa i w o u ld h a v e m o v e d a ll o f its o p e ra tio n s f

ro m G len p o in te 2 W es tt o the new bui l di ng, and w oul d have oc cupi ed nea r l ythe ent i r e new bui l di ng. T he R ecor d r efl ect s thatthe fi r s texcha nge of w r i t t en pr opos al s betw een Buck and 3 E isai too k p lace o n S ep tem b er 3 , 2 0 0 2 . S ev era l r o u n d s o f c o u n ter-pro p o sals w ere excha nged unt i l the t erm s of the tr ans act i on beca m e fi nal i n O ct ober2002. 5 G len p o in te is su b

jec t to m o n e tar yd a m a g e s f o r w ith h o ld in g c o n se n t. In D e c e m b e r 1 9 9 6 , E isa i en ter e d in to a lea se w ith G len p o in te f o r a p p ro x im a tely 50, 000 s quar e fe eti n G l enpoi nt e W es tw i th a February28, 2007 expi r at i on dat e ( the “Ei s ai L eas e”) . E i s ai obt ai ned addi t i onal s pace i n G l enpoi nt e W es tthr ough a s er i es of s ubl et s fr om ot herG l enpoi nt e W es tt enant s , eac h t i m e w i th the cons entof G l enpoi nt e, and ea ch t i m e ext endi ng the s ubl eas es bey ond the l eas e t erm i nat i on dat es of the s ubl andl or d t o be cot erm i nous w i th the expi r at i on of the Ei s ai L eas e. B y2002, E i s ai appr oxi m at el ydoubl ed i t s occupa ncyi n G l enpoi nt e W es t , and cont i nued t o s eek f ur ther e x p a n s io n . O n M a y3 0 , 2 0 0 2 , E isa i ap p ro a c h e d G len p o in te w ith a re q u e st f o r a p ro p o sa l to l eas e appr oxi m at el y160, 000 s quar e fe eti n a di ffe r entbui l di ng ow ned byG l enpoi nt e, not f a rf r o m Gl e n p o i n t e W e s t . Ho we v e r , Gl e n p o i n t e r e s p o n d e d t o th e r e q u e s twi th t e r ms 2 thatE i s ai found unac cept abl e, and af t err ej ect i ng the pr opos al , E i s ai began ne got i at i ons w i th B uck t o s ubl eas e appr oxi m at el y50, 000 s quar e fe etof B uck’ s s pace ( the “s ubj ect s p a c e ” ). H avi ng l earned of the negot i at i ons betw een Buck and Ei s ai , G l enpoi nt e w as not 3 t o be def eat ed; i tcont i nued i t s att empt s t o s ol i ci ta di r ectl eas e w i th E i s ai . C i t i ngA s r equi r ed bythe Leas e, on D ece m ber4, 2002, B uck’ s br oker s faxe d G l enpoi nt e a 4 copyof the s i gned Let t erof I nt entbetw een Buck and Ei s ai , as w el l as E i s ai ’ s curr ent fi nanci al s t at ement s . A tthi s t i m e, nei therB uck norE i s ai w as i n defa ul tof i t s r es pect i ve l ease ob l i gati on s. 6 conce rns aboutw hathad bec om e Ei s ai ’ s pat chw or k qui l tof s hor tt erm l eas es , al l of w hi ch w er e t o expi r e i n February2007, on Sept ember25, 2002, G l enpoi nt e made a s econd pr opos al t o E i s ai . G l enpoi nt e bas ed the t erm s of thi s pr opos al on thos e Ei s ai had i ncl uded i n i t s i ni t i al r eques tt o G l enpoi nt e fora pr opos al , offe r i ng E i s ai a t ot al of appr oxi m at el y150, 000 s quar e fe etof new s pace . G l enpoi nt e w oul d di r ect l yl eas e 99, 000 s quar e fe etof thi s s pace t o E i s ai , and w oul d pr eappr ove Ei s ai ’ s s ubl eas e w i th B uck. T he pr opos al w oul d ext end the Ei s ai L eas e fora t erm 15 y ear s bey ond the curr entexpi r at i on dat e. G l enpoi nt e al s o w arned Ei s ai thati n the abs ence of a “ l ong t erm ‘ game pl an’ ” of expans i on, G l enpoi nt e w as unw i l l i ng t o cons entt o a s i tuat i on w her e nea r l yhal f of the b u ild in g w o u ld v a c a te “ in o n e f e ll s w o o p ” in th e n e a r t e rm . D es pi t e the new offe r , on O ct ober16, 2002, B uck and Ei s ai agr eed on the t erm s of th e su b lea se . B u c k w a s to su b lea se 5 1 ,9 2 2 sq u a re f e e t o f sp a c e to E isa i, fo r a ter m to comm ence D ece m ber1, 2002 and t erm i nat e on February28, 2007, the s ame dat e of the e x p i r a t i o n o f

th e E i s a i L e a s e a n d o f

a l l o f E i s a i ’ s s u b l e a s e s i n Gl e n p o i n t e We s t . On N o v e m b e r 1 1 , 2 0 0 2 , B u c k g a v e G len p o in te N o tice o f th e In ten tio n o f

B u c k a n d E isa i to e n ter in to th e su b lea se , req u e stin g G len p o in te’ s c o n se n t to th e tra n sa c tio n . In re sp o n se to 4 the N ot i ce, on D ece m ber10, 2002, G l enpoi nt e s entE i s ai anotherr evi s ed pr opos al w i th aJe rryB a rta , V ice P re sid e n t & D ire c to r o f L e a sin g a n d M a rk e tin g a t G len p o in te 5 t es t i fi ed thatthe Ei s ai L eas e di d notcont ai n a gene r al pr ohi bi t i on agai ns texec ut i on of a su b lease fo r ad d it ion al sp ac e in th e b u il d ing . (a 3 1 2 -31 3 . ) 7 r educe d t erm ext ens i on t o s i x y ear s bey ond the expi r at i on of the Ei s ai L eas e, y etE i s ai r emai ned uni nt er es t ed. O n D e c e m b e r 3 0 , 2 0 0 2 , G len p o in te p ro v id e d B u c k w ritten n o tice o f its re f u sa l to c o n se n t to th e B u c k /E isa i su b lea se . G len p o in te e x p lain e d to B u c k th a t u n f o rtu n a telyit coul d notpr ovi de cons entt o t he tr ans act i on beca us e the Ei s ai L eas e cont ai ned a pr ovi s i on

“ p ro h ib iti n g it fro m su b lea sin g o r o th e rw ise o c c u p y in g a n ysp a c e in [ G len p o in te W e st] otherthan i t s pr emi s es . ” H ow ever , i n fac tthe Ei s ai L eas e di d notcont ai n s uch a pr ovi s i on. 5 S h o rtlya f

terc o m m u n ica tin g its re f u sa l to B u c k , o n Ja n u a ry7 , 2 0 0 3 , G len p o in te s enta l ett ert o E i s ai m aki ng a thi r d pr opos al fora l ong- t erm l eas e and pr ovi di ng a d if f e re n t r e a s o n th a n th a t p ro f f e re d to B u c k f

o r r e je c tin g th e p ro p o s e d s u b le a s e . G l enpoi nt e expl ai ned t o E i s ai thati t“fe l ti tnece s s ary ” t o r efus e cons ent“bec aus e t oo m uch s pace i n t he bui l di ng m i ghtbe vac at ed i n t oo s oon a per i od of t i m e. ” N ot i ng that G len p o in te c o u ld n o t at th a t ti m e m e e t E isa i’s im m e d iate sp a c e re q u ire m e n ts in G l enpoi nt e W es t , G l enpoi nt e off er ed Ei s ai 190, 000 s quar e fe eti n anothernearbybui l di ng th a t a t th e tim e w a s n o t yet re a d yf o r o c c u p a n c y . O n J anuary15, 2003, B uck, di s s at i s fi ed w i th G l enpoi nt e’ s r ej ect i on of the pr opos ed s ubl eas e and a nxi ous t o r et ai n the dea l i thad w or ked har d t o obt ai n, demandedIn th e lett er to G lenp o inte B u ck w arn ed G lenp o inte that itb eli ev ed G lenp o inte’s 6 re f u sa l to b e ill e g iti m a te:

Y ouri ns i s t ence , as s etfor th i n the D ece m ber30 l ett er , thaty ou us ed ‘ good fai th’ eff

or t s t o ‘ negot i at e ar ound’ the pr ohi bi t i on on s ubl eas i ng i n E i s ai ’ s exi s t i ng l eas e s eems di s i ngenuous gi ven thats uch a pr ovi s i on ( t o th e e x t e n ti ta c tu a l l y e x i s t s ) i s p u r e l y f o ryo u rp r o t e c t i o n . A c c o r d i n g l y, y o u c o u ld re a d ily w a iv e it w ith o u t a n y‘n e g o tia tio n s .’
8 that G lenp o inte rev erse it s p o sit ion . N ev erthe less, o n Jan u ary2 0 , 2 0 0 3 , G lenp o inte’s 6 couns el s enta l ett ert o B uck r ei t er at i ng the r eas ons fori t s r ej ect i on, namel y , the “pr ohi bi t i on agai ns ts ubl ett i ng s pace ” i n the Ei s ai L eas e, and as s ert i ng G l enpoi nt e’ s r i ght t o r efus e t o cons entt o t he B uck/ E i s ai s ubl eas e bec aus e “the l andl or d i n thi s i ns t ance has everyr i ghtt o be conc erned abouti t s economi c s el f- i nt er es tand w el l - bei ng i n the cont ext of the pr opos ed s ubl ett i ng. ” The l ett eral s o s etfor th a more det ai l ed expl anat i on of the b u sine ss co n ce rns, fo rm erlyex p resse d to E isai alon e, th at su p p o rt ed G lenp o inte’s d e c is io n . Speci fi cal l y , G l enpoi nt e expl ai ned thati t s fi r s tconce rn had t o do w i th the e x p ira tio n d a te o f

th e su b lea se . G len p o in te in f o rm e d B u c k th a t it s typ ica l p ra c tice w a s to stag g er the ex p ir ati o n o f lea se term s in o rde r t o av o id large v ac an cies. If G lenp o inte w ere t o co nsent t o the B uck / E i sai subleas e, E i sai cou l d v acat e i t s 106 , 00 0 squ are foot pr em i ses, as w el l as i t s subl etfrom B uck , atthe sam e t i m e. W i th n earl yhalf of G l enp oint e W est pot ent i al l ybecomi ng vaca ntatthe s ame t i m e, G l enpoi nt e expl ai ned thati thad l earned fr om pas tdeal i ngs thati tw oul d fac e a “ danger ous ci r cumst ance ” i n fi ndi ng both new9

te n a n ts a n d n e w le n d e rs . S e c o n d , G len p o in te e x p lain e d th a t th e tim in g o f th e p ro p o se d su b lea se w o u ld p it B u c k a n d G len p o in te a g a in st e a c h o th e r a s d ire c t co m p e tit o rs, a s o f F e b ru a ry2 8 , 2 0 0 7 , to fi nd t enant s t o occupythe 106, 000 s quar e footvaca ncycr eat ed byE i s ai , and the 51, 922 sq u a re f o o t v a c a n c yc re a ted b yth e e x p ira tio n o f th e B u c k /E isa i su b lea se . N o t o n lyd id G l enpoi nt e gene r al l ypr efe rnott o compet e w i th i t s t enant s t o l eas e s pace , i tfel tthatt he c o m p e tit io n w o u ld b e u n f a ir. G len p o in te w o u ld c o m p e te a t a s e v e re d isa d v a n tag e to B uck s i nce the Leas e w as a “s unk cos t , ” and Buck coul d pot ent i al l ys ubl eas e the 51, 922 s q u a re f e e t a t a f ir e s a le p ri c e to re c a p tu re w h a te v e r p o rt io n o f its o b lig a tio n w a s p o s s ib le . Fai l i ng t o obt ai n G l enpoi nt e’ s cons ent , B uck and Ei s ai ’ s deal fel l apart . E i s ai obt ai ned s pace el s ew her e, and B uck’ s s pace r emai ned vac ant . O n J anuary31, 2003, B uck comm ence d t hi s act i on i n t he D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s ey , as s ert i ng cl ai m s forbr eac h of c o n tra c t, br e a c h o f

d u tyo f g o o d f a ith a n d f

a ir d e a lin g , an d to rtio u s in ter f e re n c e w ith c o n tra c t. B u c k a lso so u g h t a d e c lar a to ryju d g m e n t th a t (1 ) G len p o in te’ s re f u sa l to cons entt o t he pr opos ed s ubl eas e w as unr eas onabl e; ( 2) G l enpoi nt e’ s unr eas onabl e r efus al cons t i tut ed a mat er i al br eac h of the Leas e; and ( 3) B uck w as j us t i fi ed i n w i thhol di ng any and al l r entdue on the s ubj ects pace i tpr opos ed t o s ubl eas e t o E i s ai fr om February1, 2 0 0 3 . O n F e b ru a ry1 , 2 0 0 3 , B u c k c e a se d p a y in g re n t to G len p o in te o n th e sp a c e it w o u ld h a v e su b lea se d to E isa i, an d o n F e b ru a ry5 , 2 0 0 3 , G len p o in te n o tifie d B u c k th a t itw a s in10

defa ultof it s l ease ob l i gati on s and d em and ed im m ediat e pay m ent of the b al ance o f base r entand addi t i onal r ent . T her eaf t er , G l enpoi nt e fi l ed a c ount er cl ai m i n the l i t i gat i on for w i thhel d r ent , a del i nquencys ervi ce c har ge, and al l r eas onabl e expe ns es i ncurr ed by G l enp oint e i n the act i on . G l enp oint e al so assert ed a T hir d P artyC om plai nt agai nst M e llo n F in a n c ia l a s g u a ra n to r o f B u c k ’s o b lig a tio n s . G l enpoi nt e and Buck fi l ed cr os s m ot i ons fors um m aryj udgm ent . T he D i s tr i ct C our tgr ant ed B uck’ s m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm entas t o br eac h of contr actand br eac h of dutyof good fa i th and fa i rdeal i ng, and di s m i s s ed G l enpoi nt e’ s count er cl ai m and the T hi r d Par tyC om pl ai nt . T he D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant ed s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof G l enpoi nt e on B uck’ s cl ai m fort or t i ous i nt er fer ence , and, hence , found both part i es t o be prevai l i ng part i es ent i t l ed to at t orney s’ fees. B oth G l enpoi nt e and Buck m oved forr econs i der at i on. B uck as ked for r econs i der at i on of the aw ar d of att orney s ’ fee s t o G l enpoi nt e as a pr evai l i ng partyon B uck’ s t or t i ous i nt er fer ence cl ai m and of the dec i s i on t o gr ants um m aryj udgm enton that c laim . G len p o in te s o u g h t re c o n sid e ra tio n o f th re e iss u e s: (1 ) w h e th e r th e c o u rt e rre d in fi ndi ng atthe s um m aryj udgm entphas e thatG l enpoi nt e had a ct ed i n bad fa i th; ( 2) w hetherthe courterr ed i n fi ndi ng thatB uck w as ent i t l ed t o w i thhol d the r enti tw as r equi r ed t o payunderthe Leas e, compar ed t o the l ow err enti tw oul d have r ece i ved under the p rop o sed su b lease ; and (3) w h ethe r B u ck o r G lenp o inte w as re q u ir ed b ythe c o u rt ’s o rde r t o m it igate d am ag es (b ysee k ing a n ew su b tena n t) .11

T h e D istric t C o u rt g ra n ted B u c k ’s m o tio n f o r re c o n sid e ra tio n a n d h e ld th a t o n lyit w as ent i t l ed t o an aw ar d of att orney s ’ fee s underthe Leas e as a pr evai l i ng party . T he D istric t C o u rt re

jec ted G len p o in te’ s re q u e st to re th in k its d e ter m in a tio n th a t G len p o in te act ed i n bad fa i th, and r efus ed t o cons i derthe cont our s and adj us t m ent s of m i t i gat i on, re a so n in g th a t G len p o in te m a yn o t u se a m o tio n f o r re c o n sid e ra tio n a s a n o p p o rtu n ityto ra is e n e w is s u e s . O n A pr i l 29, 2005, B uck fi l ed i t s fi nal m ot i on befor e the D i s tr i ctC our tfor r epl evi n of ce r t ai n offi ce f urni tur e thatr emai ned i n the s ubj ects pace . O n O ct ober17, 2 0 0 5 , the D istric t C o u rt d e n ied th e m o tio n , b u t o rd e re d G len p o in te to c o m p lyw ith Par agr aph 29 of the Leas e, and make a pr operr eques tthatB uck r etr i eve i t s furni tur e fr om the a b an d o n ed su b

ject spa ce (i . e., G lenp o inte w as p rec lud ed fro m d ispo sing o f B u ck ’s f u rn itu re ). A lth o u g h B u c k c o n tin u e d to o c c u p ya n d p a yre n t o n th e p o rtio n o f its l eas ehol d otherthan the pr emi s es ati s s ue, the D i s tr i ctC our tfur theropi ned that“i tw as uncont es t ed” thatthe Leas e had t erm i nat ed as of the i s s uance of the O pi ni on and O r der gr ant i ng B uck’ s s um m aryj udgm entm ot i on, as aff i r m ed bythe C our t ’ s R econs i der at i on O r der . T he D i s tr i ctC our tfound thatthe “e ffe ct i ve[] t erm i nat [i on] ” of the Leas e w as t he onl yl ogi cal offs pr i ng of i t s centr al concl us i on, thatupon r efus i ng cons entt o the B uck/ E i s ai tr ans act i on, G l enpoi nt e had mat er i al l ybr eac hed the Leas e. T her efor e, the D i s tr i ctC our tfound thatexce ptforthe purpos es of the r epl evi n act i on, the dat e of the R e p lev in O rd e r w o u ld se rv e a s th e e f f e c tiv e d a te o f

th e ter m in a tio n o f

th e L e a se . T h isT h e L e a se p ro v id e d th e o p tio n , b u t d id n o t re q u ire , tha t th e p a rties m a ya rb itrate th e ir 7 d is p u te s . T h e re f

o re , ju d ic ia l in te rv e n tio n w a s a n a p p ro p ri a te c o u rs e o f a c tio n . 12 appea l fol l ow ed. I I . LE GAL S TA NDARD W e exe r ci s e de novo r evi ew overthe D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm ent on an i s s ue of s t at e l aw , Pi t t s t on C o. U l tr amarA m . v. A l l i anz I ns . C o. , 124 F. 3d 508, 5 1 5 - 1 6 ( 3 d Ci r . 1 9 9 7 ) , a n d we a p p l yth e s a me l e g a l s t a n d a r d a s th e tr i a l c o u r tt o th e s a me rec o rd. O m n ipo int C o m m c’n s E n ters. , L . P . v . N ew tow n T w p . , 2 1 9 F . 3 d 2 4 0 , 2 4 2 (3d C ir . 2000) . V i ew i ng the under l y i ng fac t s cont ai ned i n the evi dent i arys our ces s ubm i t t ed t o t he D istri ct C o u rtin the li g h t m o st fav o rab le t o the p artyo p p o sing the m o ti o n , w e w il l aff irm the g rantof sum m aryj ud gm ent “i f t he p l eadings, dep osi t i on s, answ ers t o int err og at ori es, and admi s s i ons on fi l e, t ogetherw i th the af fi davi t s , i f any , s how thatther e i s no genui ne i s s ue as t o anym at er i al fac tand thatthe movi ng partyi s ent i t l ed t o j udgm entas a mat t er of l aw . ” C et el v. K i r w an Fi n. G r oup, I nc. , 460 F. 3d 494, 506 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( ci t i ng Fed. R . C iv. P. 56 (c)). I I I . DI S CU S S I ON A . W h e th e r G len p o in te ’s W ith h o ld in g o f C o n se n t w a s U n r e a so n a b le 7 T h e L e a se b e tw e e n B u c k a n d G len p o in te p ro v id e s th a t B u c k m u st o b tain G lenp o inte’s prior w ri tt en co n sen t t o su b lease an yp art of it s p rem ises (L ea se ¶ 1 1 (A )), w hi ch cons entG l enpoi nt e mustnotunr eas onabl yw i thhol d. ( L eas e ¶ 27( J ) ( 1) ( a) . ) T heI nas m uch as thi s i s a di ver s i tycas e, the C our tl ooks t o the l aw of the s t at e of N ew 8 J er s eyt o r es ol ve the contr over s ybetw een the part i es . R os ado v. For d M ot orC o. , 337 F .3 d 2 9 1 , 2 9 3 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). 13 D i s tr i ctC our thel d t hatG l enpoi nt e vi ol at ed thi s aff i r m at i ve cove nantbyw i thhol di ng for p u re ly ec o n o m ic m o tiv e s its c o n s e n t to B u c k ’s p ro p o s e d s u b le a s e w ith E is a i. I n N ew J er s ey , few cas es have de al tw i th the appl i cat i on of a l i m i t at i on on a la n d lo rd ’s a b ility to re f

u s e c o n s e n t to a te n a n t’ s p ro p o s e d s u b le a s e o r a s s ig n m e n t. H ow ever, un der N ew Jer seyl aw , a “reasonable consen t ” cl ause i n a co m m erci al l ease 8 “i s forthe pr ot ect i on of the l andl or d i n i t s ow ner s hi p and oper at i on of the part i cul ar pr operty– notfori t s gener al economi c pr ot ect i on. ” K r i egerv. H el m s l eySpear , I nc. , 302 A . 2d 129 ( N . J . 1973) . T her efor e, i n w i thhol di ng cons entt o a pr opos ed s ubl eas e, i f a l andl or d cons i der s m att er s ( even i f l egi t i m at e) thatar e unr el at ed t o the ow ner s hi p and oper at i on of the “pa r t i cul arpr operty , ” i t s “dec i s i on t o r efus e an a s s i gnm enti s m ade w i thoutfai r , s ol i d and s ubs t ant i al caus e orr eas on. ” R i ngw ood A s s ocs . L t d. v. J ack’ s of R o u te 2 3 , In c ., 3 7 9 A .2 d 5 0 8 , 5 1 2 (N .J. S u p e r. C t. L a w D iv . 1 9 7 7 ) a f f ’d in re lev a n t p a rt, 3 9 8 A .2 d 1 3 1 5 (N .J. S u p e r. C t. A p p . D iv . 1 9 7 9 ). It is th e ten a n t’s b u rd e n to p ro v e th a t a la n d lo rd ’s c o n d u c t is u n re a s o n a b le . Id . A compar i s on t o t he fa ctual ci r cumst ance s i n both R i ngw ood and i n K r i egerl eads u s to c o n c lu d e th a t th e D istric t C o u rt c o rre c tlyd e ter m in e d th a t G len p o in te’ s re f u sa l to c o n se n t w a s u n re a so n a b le. In R in g w o o d , the ten a n t, a re tail c lo th in g p u rv e y o r, so u g h t to as s i gn i t s l eas ehol d i n a s hoppi ng compl ex t o a companythats ol d and r epai r edH er e, the Leas e enumer at ed s peci fi c s i tuat i ons w her e G l enpoi nt e’ s r efus al t o cons ent 9 w as pers e r eas onabl e. Forexampl e, G l enpoi nt e coul d pr oper l yw i thhol d cons enti f B uck pr opos ed a s ubl eas e t o a t enant , s ubt enantorotheroccupa ntof G l enpoi nt e W es toran 14 appl i ance s . 379 A . 2d at510. T he l eas e cont ai ned s i m i l arpr ovi s i ons t o the G len p o in te/B u c k L e a se : to a ss ig n o r su b lea se th e p re m ise s, th e ten a n t w a s re q u ire d to obt ai n the pr i orcons entof the l andl or d, w hi ch cons entthe l andl or d coul d not unr eas onabl yw i thhol d. I d. A s i s the ca s e her e, the l andl or d had no qual m s aboutthe s ui t abi l i tyof the pr opos ed as s i gnee t o the pr emi s es , orthe pr opos ed t enant ’ s fi nanci al s ecur i ty . Fur therm or e, the pr opos ed t enantguar ant eed pe r form ance of al l t enant covena nt s , i d. at511, s i m i l art o B uck’ s guar ant ee t o r emai n l i abl e forr entand al l other ten a n t co v e n a n ts. N o tw ith sta n d in g th e se f a c ts, th e lan d lo rd o b

jec ted to th e a ss ig n m e n t, and i ns t ead i nform ed the t enantthati tw oul d onl yacc epta di r ectl eas e w i th the pr opos ed s u b te n a n t a t a h ig h e r r e n t. I d . a t 5 1 2 . T he N ew Jer seycou rtheld that the landl ord’s refusal w as unreasonab l e. In so h o ld in g , the c o u rt se t o u t a n o n -e x h a u stiv e , y e t in stru c tiv e list o f th e f a c to rs r e late d to o w n e rsh ip a n d o p e ra tio n o f a p ro p e rty , u p o n w h ich a lan d lo rd m a yre a so n a b lyg ro u n d h is r efus al t o cons ent : ( a) the fi nanci al s ol vencyof the pr opos ed s ubt enant ; ( b) the natur e and s ui t abi l i tyof the pr opos ed s ubt enant ’ s bus i nes s forthe pr emi s es and the bus i nes s ar ea; ( c) the pr opos ed s ubt enant ’ s w i l l i ngnes s t o guar ant ee the paym entof r entand per form ance of a ll o th e r te n a n t co v e n a n ts u n d e r th e lea se ; an d (d ) th e n e c e ss ityo f a lterin g th e p re m ise s to s ui tthe s ubt enant ’ s bus i nes s . I d. H ow ever , the courtfound thatR i ngw ood’ s conce rns 9ent i tyw i th w hom G l enpoi nt e w as al r eadynegot i at i ng, and forw hom G l enpoi nt e had

com parabl e space to m ake av ai l able ( L ease ¶ 11 (C )( 1). ) G l enp oint e cou l d als o r eas onabl yw i thhol d cons entt o a pr opos ed s ubl eas e i f ther e w er e more than thr ee s ubt enant s i n t he pr emi s es atanyone t i m e, ori f i n the “r eas onabl e j udgm ent ” of G l enpoi nt e, the bus i nes s of the pr opos ed s ubt enantw as notcompar abl e w i th the type of occupa ncyfound i n fi r s t - cl as s offi ce bui l di ngs . ( L eas e ¶ 11( C ) ( 1) ( i i ) . ) A s the D i s tr i ct C o u rt n o ted , b o th p a rties a g re e d th a t n o n e o f th e se b a rg a in e d -f

o r te rm s is a p p lica b le to the pr es entdi s put e. A s s uch, and as ur ged bythe part i es , the C our tl ooks t o N ew J er s ey l aw t o det erm i ne w hetherG l enpoi nt e’ s act i ons w er e mani fes t l yr eas onabl e des pi t e the f a c t th a t th e yw e re n o t sp e c if ica llyc o n tem p late d b yth e c o n tra c t.

15 r el at ed t o s ecur i ng hi gherr ent s ar e gene r al economi c conc erns thatdo notamount t o a re a s o n a b le re f

u s a l to c o n s e n t to a p ro p o s e d a s s ig n m e n t o r s u b le a s e . Id . A lon g the s am e li n es, i n K ri eg er the N ew Jerse yco u rth eld th at th e lan d lord ’s r efus al t o cons entw as unr eas onabl e w her e the s ol e obj ect i on m ade bythe l andl or d t o a pr opos ed s ubl eas e w as thatthe pr opos ed s ubt enantw as then a t enanti n anotherbui l di ng ow ned bythe l andl or d. 302 A . 2d 129. T he l andl or d ar gued thati tw i thhel d cons ent r eas onabl ybeca us e the pr opos ed tr ans act i on w oul d di s advant age the l andl or d bycr eat i ng a vac ancyi n t he l andl or d’ s ot herpr operty . I d. H ow ever , the courtr eas oned thatthe lan d lo rd ’s a c tiv ityin v y in g f o r p ro f it an d g a in w a s e x a c tlyth e typ e o f g e n e ra l ec o n o m ic h a rm th a t th e re a s o n a b le c o n s e n t c o v e n a n t w ith in a le a s e d o e s n o t p ro te c t. I d . G l enpoi nt e ar gues thatunderR i ngw ood and K r i eger , i tdi d notr efus e t o cons ent to th e su b lea se f

o r im p ro p e r, se lf

-in ter e ste d re a so n s, b e c a u se its c o n sid e ra tio n s c lea rly r egar ded the ow ner s hi p and oper at i on of G l enpoi nt e W es t . Fi r s t , G l enpoi nt e expl ai ns t hat B u c k ’s p ro p o se d su b lea se c re a ted a sig n if ica n t ti m in g p ro b lem . B e c a u se E isa i w o u ld16

v a c a t e b o th i t s c u r r e n tl e a s e h o l d a n d i t s s u b l e a s e h o l d wi th Bu c k s i mu l t a n e o u s l y , s o me 158, 000 s quar e fe etoutof the t ot al 330, 000 s quar e fe etatG l enpoi nt e W es t( r oughl yhal f) w oul d become vaca nti n February2007, al m os tfi ve y ear s befor e G l enpoi nt e’ s m or t gage o n th e p ro p e rtyw a s to e x p ire . T o c re a te a v a c a n c yo f th is s ize , G len p o in te a rg u e s, is a k in t o for ci ng i tt o acc eptadmi s s i on t o the bui l di ng of a c r edi tw or thybutuns ui t abl e t enant b e c a u se c o m m e rc ial b u ild in g s w ith lar g e a m o u n ts o f v a c a n t sp a c e a re v e ryd if f icu lt t o le a s e . Second, and compoundi ng the pr obl em of t he l ar ge vac ancy , G l enpoi nt e expl ai ns th a t th e tim in g o f

th e p ro p o s e d s u b le a s e w o u ld f o rc e it in to d ir e c t c o m p e titio n w ith B u c k . In F e b ru a ry2 0 0 7 , w h e n E isa i’s s u b lea se w ith B u c k , an d d ire c t lea se w ith G len p o in te w e re to e x p ir e , b o th B u c k a n d G le n p o in te w o u ld s e e k te n a n ts to o c c u p yth e s p a c e s . H o w e v e r, sin c e B u c k ’s o v e rle a se is a su n k c o st, B u c k w o u ld b e a b le to o u tb id G len p o in te f o r p ro p o se d ten a n ts w ith e a se . T h e c o m b in a tio n o f th e lar g e v a c a n c ya n d th e u n f a ir compet i t i on G l enpoi nt e ar gues , w oul d thr eat en i t s abi l i tyt o m eetthe ca rry i ng cos t s and debts ervi ce of

i t s m or t gage. M or eover , J erryB art a, G l enpoi nt e’ s V i ce Pr es i dentand D i r ect orof Leas i ng, cert i fi ed thathad Ei s ai agr eed t o a di r ectl eas e w i th an ext ended t erm , i n combi nat i on w i th t he s ubl eas e, thes e doubt s aboutcarry i ng cos t s w oul d have been a l l evi at ed bec aus e “[ r ] efi nanci ng w oul d i n al l l i kel i hood have t aken pl ace . ” G len p o in te h a s n o t p e rsu a d e d u s th a t it s ra tio n a le w a s a n yth in g b u t ec o n o m ic in natur e. M uch l i ke the l andl or d i n R i ngw ood, G l enpoi nt e r epea t edl yatt empt ed t o extr act17

hi gherpr ofi t s fr om E i s ai byoffe r i ng t o excha nge i t s cons entt o the s ubl eas e foran e x ten d e d a n d e x p a n d e d d ire c t lea se w ith h ig h e r re n ts. A lth o u g h G len p o in te a rg u e s th a t, u n lik e th e lan d lo rd in K rie g e r, it s c o n c e rn s w e re n o t ex trin sic to G len p o in te W e st, G l enpoi nt e count er ed the B uck/ E i s ai pr opos al w i th one t o l eas e l ar ge amount s of s pace , forr ent s hi gherthan B uck w as t o char ge Ei s ai , i n a new pr opertyG l enpoi nt e w as then d e v e lo p in g . Fur therm or e, G l enpoi nt e’ s court s hi p of Ei s ai occurr ed i n the mi ds tof i t s w r i t t en re f u sa l o f c o n se n t to B u c k . In th e D e c e m b e r 3 0 , 2 0 0 2 lette r to B u c k , G len p o in te pr es ent ed an e nt i r el ydi ffe r entr eas on fordeny i ng cons entt o the s ubl eas e than the r eas ons i thad pr evi ous l ygi ven t o E i s ai , namel ythatthe Ei s ai L eas e pr ohi bi t ed exe cut i on of the s ubl eas e w i th B uck. G l enpoi nt e knew thatthe Ei s ai L eas e di d notcont ai n thi s bl anket pr ohi bi t i on s i nce Ei s ai had r epea t edl ys ubl eas ed s pace i n G l enpoi nt e W es t . Fur therm or e, G l enpoi nt e had pr evi ous l yoffe r ed t o cons entt o the B uck/ E i s ai s ubl eas e as l ong as E i s ai s uppl ement ed the dea l w i th a l onger , l ar gerand more expens i ve di r ectl eas e. A s the D istri ct C o u rtco rrectl yd eterm ined fro m N ew Jerse yp rec ed en t, “itis un rea so n ab le fo r a lan d lo rd to w ith h o ld c o n se n t to a su b lea se so lelyto e x tra c t an e c o n o m ic c o n c e ss io n o r to i m pr ove i t s economi c pos i t i on. ” B uck C ons ul t ant s , I nc. v. G l enpoi nt e A s s ocs . , N o. 03- 45 4, sl i p o p. at13 (D . N . J. Jul . 23 , 20 04 ) ( qu oti ng 10 10 P otom ac A ssoc. v. G roceryM frs . o f A m erica, Inc . , 4 8 5 A . 2 d 1 9 9 , 2 1 0 (D . C . 1 9 8 4 ). A s G l enpoi nt e corr ect l yar gues , nei therR i ngw ood norK r i eger“s tr ai ght j acke t s ” aA ts om e poi nt , l i kel yi n t he r eal m of s ever e l os s , economi c conc erns m us tm eetand 10 over l ap w i th t hos e conc erns germ ane t o ow ner s hi p. T hi s cas e does notpr es ents uch a factual s cenari o an d, as such, w e refr ai n from reachi ng the m eri t s of t hat s etof f act s. 18 lan d lo rd ’s r ig h t to c o n sid e r its b ro a d e r in ter e st in th e o w n e rsh ip a n d o p e ra tio n o f a m u lti ten a n t b u ild in g . N e w Je rse ylaw d o e s n o t ig n o re th e o b v io u s n e c e ss ityo f a lan d lo rd to c o n sid e r th e su itab ili tyo f a p ro p o se d ten a n t f

o r a p a rticu lar lea se h o ld in th e c o n tex t o f its op erat i on of the enti re pr op erty . R i ng w oo d, 37 9 A . 2d at51 2 (the landl ord’s i nter est ext ends t o hi s “i nt er es ti n t he oper at i on of the s hoppi ng cent er , ” as oppos ed t o the lan d lo rd ’s in ter e st in th e o p e ra tio n o f th e sin g u lar lea se h o ld (sto re f ro n t)). It is n e c e ss a rily true thati f G l enpoi nt e ca nnotoper at e the ent i r e bui l di ng, i tcert ai nl ycannotoper at e the l eas ehol d. I n s uch a c as e w her e a t enantr eques t s the l andl or d t o cons entt o a tr ans act i on thatcoul d expos e the l andl or d t o a l evel of r i s k thatthr eat ens i t s ow ner s hi p of the b u i l d i n g , i tm a y b e th e c a s e th a ta l a n d l o r d i s n o ta c t i n g w i th u n r e a s o n a b l e , a rb i tr a ry, pr ofi t - dr i ven mot i ves i n r efus i ng t o cons entt o the tr ans act i on. 10 N everthel es s , w e do nots ee thatG l enpoi nt e as s ert ed s uffi ci entfac t s t o s uppor tt hat i t s oper at i on of the bui l di ng w as actual l yendange r ed byB uck’ s pr opos ed tr ans act i on and, hence , thati t s w i thhol di ng of cons entw as r eas onabl e. W hi l e i tm aybe true that G l enpoi nt e off

er ed an e xpertopi ni on thatthe pr opos ed s ubl eas e w oul d cr eat e a “ci r cumst ance ” that“put s a l andl or d ata di s advant age, ” and thatG l enpoi nt e had “ a p a in f u l h isto ryo f

tw o v e rylar g e ten a n ts v a c a tin g sp a c e a n d lea v in g th e m in d if f icu lt s tr ai t s , ” nothi ng i n ourr eadi ng of the expe r t ’ s t es t i m onyi ndi cat es thati n the r el evant19

m arket , gi ven the s tructur e of the mort gage a nd the pr opers t at i s t i cs ( e. g. , cap r at e, new hous i ng s al es ) , G l enpoi nt e coul d l egi t i m at el yw orrythati tw oul d defa ul ton i t s m or t gage a n d lo s e th e b u ild in g d u e to th is p ro p o s e d tr a n s a c tio n . T he fa ctthatG l enpoi nt e w as w i l l i ng t o r e- l eas e up t o 240, 000 s quar e fe ett o E i s ai t o vaca t e i n 2010, butr emai ned s tr ongl yconce rned aboutthe r i s k t o i t s ow ner s hi p of al l ow i ng E i s ai t o vaca t e 150, 000 s quar e fe eti n 2007, i s i ncons i s t entw i th anys er i ous fea r s r egar di ng G l enpoi nt e’ s ow ner s hi p of G l enpoi nt e W es t . M r . B art a’ s cert i fi cat i on th a t G len p o in te lik e lyw o u ld h a v e re f in a n c e d its m o rtg a g e in th e y e a rs a f ter 2 0 0 7 , co u ld it o n lysu rv iv e p a st th e d o o m sd a yv a c a n c ylef t b yB u c k a n d E isa i, i s n o th in g m o re th a n h is o w n p re d ic tio n . O n the re co rd b ef

o re the C o u rt , the f

ac ts l en d them selv es to the D istri ct C o u rt ’s concl us i on thatG l enpoi nt e w i thhel d cons entt o pos i t i on i t s el f m or e fortui t ous l y , i . e. , t he verytype of ge ner al economi c conc ern w hi ch i s cons i der ed unr eas onabl e underN ew J e r s e yl a w. B . W h eth er G len p o inte W it h h eld C o n sen t i n B a d F a it h H avi ng det erm i ned thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tcorr ect l ydeemed G l enpoi nt e t o have act ed unr eas onabl yi n w i thhol di ng cons entt o the B uck/ E i s ai s ubl eas e, w e now turn t o the qu est i on of w hetherG l enp oint e act ed in bad fai th. T he D i stri ctC ou rtfou nd that, as a m att erof l aw , G l enpoi nt e br eac hed the i m pl i ed cove nantof good fa i th and fa i rdeal i ng a risin g o u t o f

P a ra g ra p h 2 7 (J) (2 ) o f

th e L e a se , an d , thu s, a llo w e d B u c k th e se lf -h e lp20

r emedyof w i thhol di ng the amountof r enti tw oul d have r ece i ved fr om E i s ai had G len p o in te f

u lf ill e d its o b lig a tio n to g iv e c o n se n t. T he D i s tr i ctC our tr el i ed on W i l s on v. A m er ada H es s C orp. , 773 A . 2d 1121, 1130 (N .J . 2 0 0 1 ), t o f

in d th a t G le n p o in te ’s a c tio n s a m o u n te d to b a d f a ith c o n d u c t. I n W ils o n , a p r i c e - s e t t i n g c a s e , th e N e w J e r s e y S u p r e m e C o u r th e l d th a ta p a r ty

breaches t he d utyof g oo d faith an d fairdeali ng i f t hat par tyexerci ses i t s di s cr et i onaryauthor i tyarbi tr ar i l y , unr eas onabl y , orcapr i ci ous l y , w i th the o b jec tiv e o f

p re v e n tin g th e o th e r p a rtyf ro m re c e iv in g its re a so n a b ly expec t ed frui t s underthe contr act . . . I n thats ett i ng, an al l egat i on of bad fai th orunfai rdeal i ng s houl d notbe perm i t t ed t o be adva nced i n the abs tr actand abs enti m pr operm ot i ve. W i thoutbad mot i ve ori nt ent i on, d isc re tio n a ryd e c isio n s th a t h a p p e n to re su lt i n e c o n o m ic d isa d v a n tag e to the otherpartyar e of no l egal s i gni fi canc e. 77 3 A . 2d at11 30 . S ee al so S ei den berg v. Sum m i tB ank , 79 1 A . 2d 10 68 , 10 78 -79 (N . J. S u p er. A p p . D iv. 20 0 2 ) (ex tend ing the W il so n fo rm u la fo r ba d fa ith to o ther d iscreti o n ary deci s i ons ) . U s i ng the verys ame anal y s i s i templ oy ed t o det erm i ne unr eas onabl enes s , t he D i s tr i ctC our tfound thatG l enpoi nt e ac t ed i n bad fa i th beca us e “i t s r efus al t o cons entw as m ot i vat ed byeconomi c cons i der at i ons nots peci fi cal l yr el at ed t o ow ner s hi p and oper at i on of the part i cul arpr operty . ” I n part i cul ar , beca us e G l enpoi nt e’ s pr offe r ed r eas ons for w i thhol di ng i t s cons entw er e pr et extfori t s r eal r at i onal e, namel y , t o w i thhol d i t s “cons ent forthe s ubl eas e hos t age” t o t he r enegot i at i ng of the Ei s ai L eas e, the onl yfai ri nfer ence f ro m th e re c o rd , th e D is tr ic t C o u rt c o n c lu d e d , w a s th a t G le n p o in te a c te d in b a d f a ith . E v e n if , as th e D istric t C o u rt c o n c lu d e d , G len p o in te’ s c o n f lictin g re sp o n se s to B uck and t o E i s ai i n r efus i ng t o cons entt o the s ubl eas e demonstr at ed pr et extforP a ra g ra p h 2 7 (J) (4 ) o f th e L e a se c o n tain s a n e x p licit c o v e n a n t o f g o o d f a ith a n d f

a ir 11 deal i ng: “Landl or d and Tenantagr ee t o per form al l of thei rr es pect i ve obl i gat i ons her eunderi n good fai th. ” H ow ever , underW i l s on, a br eac h of the i m pl i ed cove nantof g o o d f a i th a n d f

a i rd e a l i n g , s i mi l a rt o a c t i o n s c o mmi t t e d i n b a d f a i th , r e q u i r e s th e s a me f in d in g s o f

ill w ill a n d im p ro p e r m o tiv e . 7 7 3 A .2 d a t 1 1 3 0 . 21 unr eas onabl e ec onom i c mot i ves , ther e i s nothi ng i n the r ecor d thatenabl ed the D i s tr i ct C our tt o concl ude as a mat t erof l aw thatG l enpoi nt e ac t ed w i th the obj ect i ve of p r e v e n t i n g B u c k f

r o m r e c e i v i n g i t s “ r e a s o n a b l ye x p e c t e d f ru i t s u n d e rth e c o n tr a c t . ” We fi nd the conc l us i on unavoi dabl e thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tbl urr ed t o the poi ntof no nex i st ence the fi ne li ne b et w een u nreasonab l e and bad fai th acti on s. 11 T o f in d th a t G len p o in te a c ted in b a d f a ith , as a m a tter o f

law , as se t f

o rth in W i l s on, r equi r es thatB uck s how thatG l enpoi nt e ac t ed w i th the mot i vat i on of depr i vi ng B u c k o f its “ re a s o n a b ly ex p e c te d f ru its u n d e r t h e c o n tr a c t.” W ils o n , 7 7 3 A .2 d a t 1 1 3 0 . T o act i n b ad fa i th is a m at t er of subject i ve, w rongf ul i ntent : bad fai th “co ntem plat es a s t at e of mi nd aff

i r m at i vel yoper at i ng w i th a furt i ve des i gn ors om e mot i ve of i nt er es tor i l l w i l l , ” and “ cont ai ns an el ementof i nt entt o do w r ong i n s om e degr ee. ” B r ow ni ng v. F id e lity T ru s t C o ., 2 5 0 F . 3 2 1 , 3 2 5 (3 d C ir . 1 9 1 8 ) c e rt . d e n ie d , 2 4 8 U .S . 5 6 4 (1 9 1 8 ). To actunr eas onabl y , how ever , onl yr equi r es thatB uck s how thatG l enpoi nt e deni ed cons ent t o the s ubl eas e w i th onl yi t s ow n gener al economi c cons i der at i ons i n m i nd. R i ngw ood, 37 9 A . 2d at51 2. B uck po i nts t o n othi ng i n the r ecord, asi de from G l enp oint e’s vari ou s, a lb e it ev o lv in g , rea so n s f o r re f u sin g to c o n se n t to th e su b lea se , to s h o w th a t G len p o in te act ed w i th t he r equi s i t e s ubj ect i ve, i m pr operm ot i vat i on of depr i vi ng B uck the bene fi tofT h e D istric t C o u rt’s O rd e r sta ted : 12 I ti s notcont es t ed thatthe Leas e w as t erm i nat ed w hen thi s C our trul ed on

the part i es ’ cr os s - m ot i ons fors um m aryj udgm entbyO pi ni on and O r der dat ed J ul y23, 2004. T her e the C our tcl ar i fi ed the part i es ’ obl i gat i ons and r es pons i bi l i t i es w i th r es pectt o the B uck- G l enpoi nt e l eas e, rul i ng that G l enpoi nt e’ s act i ons w er e unr eas onabl e, and thus , r es ul t ed i n a mat er i al br eac h of the Leas e. A s s uch, the C our teff ect i vel yrul ed thatthe Leas e w as t erm i nat ed. 22 its b a rg a in . Q ues t i ons of i nt entar e “f actual det erm i nat i ons thats houl d notbe made on a m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm ent , ” G i l l m an v. W at er es , M cPher s on, M cN ei l l , P. C . , 271 F. 3d 131, 140 ( 3d C i r . 2001 ( quot i ng Shebarv. Sany o B us . Sy s . C orp. , 544 A . 2d 377, 384 ( N . J . 1988) ) . A ccor di ngl y , w e conc l ude that , i n addi t i on t o i nvoki ng the w r ong l egal sta n d a rd , the D istric t C o u rt h a d a n in su f f icie n t f a c tu a l re c o rd u p o n w h ich to b a se its j udgm entof G l enpoi nt e’ s i nt entatthi s j unctur e. C . T erm i n ati on of t h e L ease W e ar e fa ced w i th t he pot ent i al t as k of unr avel i ng a s om ew hatconvol ut ed r emedy t o G l enpoi nt e’ s m at er i al br eac h of the Leas e, a r ol e thatw e es chew exce ptt o obs erve the fol l ow i ng. Fi r s t , t o t he ext entthatthe D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s O ct ober17, 2005 O r dert erm i nat ed the Leas e i n t ot o, thatO r deri s r ever s ed. T her e i s nothi ng i n the r ecor d thati ndi cat es t hat 12 e ith e r p a rtyd e sire d to ter m in a te th e L e a se in its e n tirety . F u rth e rm o re , the re is n o th in g in l aw thatr equi r es thatthi s L eas e t erm i nat e, part i cul ar l yi n l i ghtof the fa ctthatboth par t i es cont i nued t o per form obl i gat i ons underthe Leas e w i th r egar d t o the appr oxi m at el y20, 00023

s q u a re f e e t o f s p a c e n o t to u c h e d b yth e p ro p o s e d s u b le a s e tr a n s a c tio n . Second, i n vi ew of ourdeci s i on, w e l eave t o the D i s tr i ctC our ta furthereval uat i on o f w h e th e r, a n d to w h a t e x te n t, th e is s u e o f m itig a tio n is a p p ro p ri a te . W e af fi r m the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s fi ndi ng w i th r es pectt o the unr eas onabl enes s of G len p o in te’ s w ith h o ld in g o f its c o n se n t b u t re v e rse th e D istric t C o u rt’s d e c isio n w ith r egar d t o bad fa i th and the t erm i nat i on of the Leas e.