Our Stout expert issued a damages opinion in a matter involving allegations of theft of trade secrets, tortious interference, and unfair competition in the specialty printer industry. The plaintiff claimed that a former employee had misappropriated a preliminary business plan for a prospective new product line and had used that information to help another company enter the market for “food safety terminal” printers. We identified errors in the plaintiff’s damages claim, including methodological flaws, unreasonable and unfounded assumptions, and unrealistic projections of plaintiffs’ future revenues and profits as employed by plaintiff’s damages expert, a Ph.D. economist, whose damages calculation approached $100 million. Our critiques were based on independent research, market share evidence, and analysis of financial information produced by the parties. We also identified inconsistencies in a regression model that the plaintiff’s expert used as the basis for his calculations of lost sales and profits from companion / convoyed products. Because of our critiques the plaintiff’s expert was forced to substantially revise his opinion, producing three revised claim calculation scenarios at his deposition. After the plaintiff’s expert’s deposition, the case settled for less than 4% of the plaintiff’s original claim.