OPINION AND ORDER On September 7, 2023, plaintiff, Prospect Capital Corporation, and defendant, Credito Real USA Finance LLC, cross-moved for summary judgment on the only claim in this action. See PI. Mem. of Law in Supp. of Mot. for Summ. J (“PI. Mem.”), ECF No. 30; Def. Mem. of Law in Supp. of Mot. for Summ. J. (“Def. Mem.”), ECF No. 31. After full consideration of the parties’ written submissions and oral argument, the Court granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment by “bottom-line” order dated October 25, 2023. This Opinion sets forth the reasons for that ruling. I. Factual and Procedural Background1 On June 6, 2022, plaintiff and defendant entered a contract in contemplation of plaintiff evaluating the purchase of an equity interest in defendant. Burton Decl., Ex. 1, ECF No. 27-1. Pursuant to this agreement, defendant agreed to “wire to [plaintiff] a fully-earned, non-refundable work fee in the amount of $150,000. in connection with [plaintiff's] accounting, consulting, travel, due diligence, internal and external legal and tax, and other expenses (collectively, ^Expenses’) incurred, being incurred and to be incurred in connection with evaluating the” potential transaction. Id. In accordance with the agreement, defendant wired $150,000 to plaintiff. PI. Rule 56.1 Statement of Material Facts (“PI. 56.1 Statement”), 2, ECF No. 29. Then, on July 12, 2022, plaintiff and defendant entered an amended and restated agreement. PI. 56.1 Statement, 3; Burton, Decl., Ex. 3, ECF No. 27-3. This amended agreement provided that defendant will “wire to [plaintiff] a fully-earned, non-refundable work fee in the amount of $150,000,” defined as the “Initial Work Fee,” “in connection with [plaintiff's] accounting, consulting, travel, due diligence, internal and external legal and tax, and other expenses,” defined as “Expenses,” “incurred, being incurred and to be incurred in connection with evaluating the Transaction and preparing documentation related to the Transaction.” Burton Decl., Ex. 3. The day after entering into this agreement, defendant wired another $150,000 to plaintiff. Pl. 56.1 Statement, 13. In addition, the amended agreement provided that: “At [plaintiff's] written request (which may be delivered by email), the Company agrees to promptly wire additional deposits to [plaintiff] (each, an ‘Additional Deposit’, and together with the Initial Work Fee, the ‘Deposits’) against Expenses in excess of the Initial Work Fee.” Burton Decl., Ex. 3. However, when plaintiff made written requests for an additional $150,000 deposit pursuant to this provision on August 1, 2022 and August 8, 2022, defendant refused to pay. See PI. 56.1 Statement,
15, 19, 21-22; Burton Decl., Ex. 5, at 6, ECF No. 27-5; Burton Decl., Ex. 11, ECF No. 27-11 (an August 1, 2022 email from plaintiff to defendant stated, “Please let me know on the incremental $150k work fee deposit that we discussed,” and an August 8, 2022 email from plaintiff to defendant asked, “Any word on the work letter deposit?”). Specifically, on August 8, 2022, defendant informed plaintiff that the request had been refused, “the liquidator would not allow additional work fees to be paid,” and that the $300,000 that plaintiff had already received should “mitigate” the “dry hole risk” that plaintiff faced. PI. 56.1 Statement, 22; Burton Decl., Ex. 11. Plaintiff did not respond. Def. Rule 56.1 Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (“Def. 56.1 Statement”),
