(“[L]ost profits ... looks to what the plaintiff would have earned in the future but for the breach.”). ALLTEL also relies on the Eleventh Circuit’s decision in McMillian. However, in holding that severance pay is recoverable under § 1821(e)(3), McMillian reiterates the view that the statute limits damages to those “flowing directly from the repudiation, which make one whole, as opposed to those which go farther by including future contingencies such as lost profits and opportunities or damages based on speculation.” 81 F.3d at 1065. See also Resolution Trust Corp. v. Management, Inc., 25 F.3d 627, 632 (8th Cir.1994) (noting that neither severance penalties nor liquidated damages for future lost profits are recoverable under § 1821(e)(3)); Lawson v. FDIC, 3 F.3d 11, 15 (1st Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the ascertainable nature of
holding that the plaintiffs attempted to recover lost profits which under the facts of the case were consequential damages holding that damages for loss of favorable interest rate on oneyear certificate of deposit were excluded because they constituted lost profits or opportunities holding that severance payments are compensable as actual damages and not speculative in nature like damages for lost opportunities and profits holding that lost profits were covered where the insureds product a motor used in a treadmill was defective and caused lost profits on the sale of the treadmills holding that a business owners testimony was insufficient to establish lost profits where he was not able to specify which contracts they lost how many they lost how much profit they would have had from the contracts or who would have awarded them contracts and explaining that the plaintiffs could have supported their lost profits with testimony that they had lost out on specific contracts but failed to do so