("To recover on a cause of action for tortious interference with a prospective business relationship, the plaintiff must show: (1) there was a reasonable probability that he would have entered into a business relationship .... ”); see also Verkin v. Melroy, 699 F.2d 729, 733 (5th Cir.1983) (requiring knowledge of prospective relationship). 17 . See CF & I Steel Corp., 623 S.W.2d at 715 ("Interference with a business relationship is similar to the tort of contract interference. It is not necessary to establish the existence of a valid contract, but the interference with a general business relationship is actionable only if the defendant’s interference is proven to be motivated by malice.”); see also Deauville Corp. v. Federated Dep’t Stores, Inc., 756 F.2d 1183, 1196 (5th Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>); Verkin, 699 F.2d at 733 (requiring intent to
recognizing the tort of interference with prospective contractual relations as a subspecies of the broader tort of interference with prospective economic advantage holding that the difference between interference with contract and prospective relations is that second tort requires showing of malice holding that under colorado law tjortious interference with a prospective business relation requires a showing of intentional and improper interference preventing formation of a contract recognizing the tort of wrongful interference with anothers business relations holding that sovereign immunity applies to claims alleging tortious interference with business relations because the tort requires proof of malice