Philadelphia, PA — Prysm Group, LLC (“Prysm”) recently scored a decisive victory in federal court after the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied a motion for summary judgment filed by UPenn’s Wharton School of Business in a dispute dealing with the development of online executive education courses, clearing the path for Prysm to present its case to a jury. The Court also rejected Wharton’s attempt to exclude Prysm’s damages expert, confirming that Prysm may seek its full $37 million damages  at trial.

The case arose from Wharton’s failure to perform its duties under a contract between the parties for the creation and sale of various online courses examining topics on the cutting edge of technology. While Prysm undertook these additional responsibilities in exchange for the promise of additional payment, Prysm alleges Wharton ultimately reneged on its earlier agreement and tried to terminate the engagement entirely.

Wharton had asked the Court to dismiss Prysm’s claims outright, arguing—despite a deeply contested factual record—that Prysm’s case should never reach a jury. The Court flatly rejected that request, holding that Wharton’s defenses hinge on disputed facts that must be resolved at trial. In particular, the Court found that a reasonable jury could conclude Wharton’s alleged justifications for termination were pretextual, and “[a]lthough Wharton’s termination letter concluded that the breach could not be cured, a reasonable jury could find otherwise.” 

Equally significant, the Court denied Wharton’s motion to exclude Prysm’s expert witness, James T. O’Brien, rejecting Wharton’s effort to foreclose  Prysm’s damages claim before trial. The Court held that Prysm’s expert testimony satisfied Rule 702 and the Daubert standard, and that Wharton’s criticisms go to weight—not admissibility—underscoring again that these issues are for the jury to decide after full cross-examination. As a result, Prysm will be permitted to present evidence supporting over $37.5 million in damages, including lost profits.   

Prysm alleges that Wharton secretly planned to terminate their agreement while continuing to accept Prysm’s expanded performance, then invoked pretextual justifications to walk away once Prysm sent the bill. In particular, Prysm relied on a key email from the head of Wharton Online sent months before the termination letter claiming that it may end its relationship with Prysm if Wharton’s in house counsel “can find a defensible reason for doing so.” This, and other attached discovery materials, obviously proved persuasive to the Court.

With these rulings, the case now proceeds toward trial, where Prysm will present the full scope of evidence to a jury and seek complete recovery for the harm it alleges were caused by Wharton’s actions.

Prysm is represented by Gavin P. Lentz and Ryan T. Kirk in this matter. 

About Prysm Group, LLC

Prysm Group is a research-driven consulting firm at the cutting edge of emerging technologies.

About Bochetto & Lentz, P.C.

Bochetto & Lentz is a Philadelphia law firm specializing in complex commercial litigation and business break-ups. For more information, please contact rkirk@bochettoandlentz.com.