It seems like a terribly difficult task to calculate the profits lost to Main Line Pictures in this case. Kim Basinger, a famous and very respectable actress, walked out of a movie contract causing Main Line Pictures to lose money. The amount of Main Line's loss can never be determined with pinpoint accuracy, and Main Line would not have made the profit it had indicated. However, is the plaintiff right and are his claims reasonable? First, Main Line's maximum and minimum lost profit amounts should not be revised downwards. The $3 million represents an estimate of expected future cash flows from domestic distribution. Failure to conclude the agreement does not change the situation in any way. There are those who say yes, but I say that's a ridiculous argument because movie producers need to be able to predict future cash flows in advance, before a movie is even released. They need to be able to determine whether the films are worth getting “credit,” because they need to be able to pay that money back to their financiers. Main Line also claims they are entitled to $800,000 in foreign pre-sales, and I believe they have a legitimate claim here too for the same reason listed above. The $800,000 is an estimate of future cash flows from potential customers in foreign markets. While Kim Basinger is responsible for the lost amount listed above, is he also responsible for the $2.1 million lost because the filmmakers cast Fenn over Basinger? When did he walk away from the deal? Let's look at it from this perspective. Would Main Line produce a film on which they expected to lose a large amount of money? I think not. And, as the figure shows… halfway through the document, they would have essentially dispelled any doubt that they would have proceeded with the construction of Boxing Helena expecting to lose $2 million. Finally, is it reasonable to assume that Main Line's pre-tax cash would have increased by $3 million or would some of this have been paid to others? The first question that must be answered to make this assumption is: Are there any contractual claims against profits in this case? The answer is yes. Main Line, however, never includes any deductions for claims made on these profits. Evidently they should have done so. In my opinion, if the jury in this case had subtracted the contractual claims from the profits, they would have arrived at different damages/rights amounts. My guess is that Main Line would have been entitled to much less than was awarded in this case.