
    PEAKER ENERGY GROUP, L.L.C.; Energy Coast Logistics Terminal, L.L.C., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CARGILL, INCORPORATED; Louisiana Sugar Refining, L.L.C., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 17-30031
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Filed December 13, 2017
    Benjamin Dox Reichard, James Richard Swanson, Attorney, Fishman Haygood, L.L.P., New Orleans, LA, Harvey Sylva-nous Bartlett, III, Gladstone Nathaniel Jones, III, Esq., Attorney, Lynn Elizabeth Swanson, Attorney, Jones, Swanson, Hud-dell & Garrison, L.L.C., New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants
    Aaron Daniel Van Oort, Jeffrey Just-man, Faegre Baker Daniels, L.L.P., Minneapolis, MN, Thomas More Flanagan, Camille Elise Gauthier, Flanagan Partners, L.L.P., New Orleans, LA, for Defendant-Appellee Cargill, Incorporated
    Stephen Henry Kupperman, Esq., Michael Anthony Balascio, Barrasso, Usdin, Kupperman, Freeman & Sarver, L.L.C., New Orleans, LA, for Defendant-Appellee Louisiana Sugar Refining, L.L.C.
    Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and' HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

The plaintiffs sued under various state-law theories after negotiations for a lease were unsuccessful. The district’ court granted summary judgment to the defendants, concluding that the plaintiffs could not prove lost profits or lost business value with reasonable certainty. The court issued a concise but adequate “Order and Reasons,” explaining that “Plaintiffs have failed to put forth evidence sufficient to prove with reasonable certainty that Plaintiffs’ venture, but for Defendants’ allegedly wrongful conduct, would have been successful and generated profits.” The court reasoned that “the combination [of seven specified factors] pushes the speculative and uncertain nature of the success.”’ •

We have reviewed the briefs, pertinent parts of the record, and the applicable law and have heard the helpful arguments’ of counsel. The summary judgment is AFFIRMED, essentially for the reasons given by the district court. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R, 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     