This case involves a company that provides a range of electronic payment services solution to a variety of merchants. The defendant alleged that plaintiff breached their agreement of revenue sharing that the plaintiff entered into with defendant. Defendant also alleged that plaintiff continued to unlawfully solicit defendant’s merchant clients after plaintiff’s contract was terminated for cause by defendant. Dr. Steward calculated for two different time periods. In the first time period, defendant’s pre-termination for cause economic damages was calculated from the date of termination for cause of the Agreement. During this time period, defendant’s economic damages were calculated as the difference between the business income defendant could have been reasonably expected to receive from the Agreement had the breaches not occurred to the business income that defendant actually received from the Agreement. The business income that defendant could have been reasonably expected to receive from the Agreement had the breaches not occurred is referred to as the but-for business income during this time period. Defendant received a 40 percent share of certain credit and debit card processing revenue generated from Partner Merchants under the Agreement during this time period. During this time period, Defendant but-for income is first calculated using Defendant financial records regarding Partner Merchant accounts. Generally, Defendant financial records are used to project the number of Partner Merchant accounts and business account income that defendant could have expected to receive had the breaches not occurred. In Dr. Steward’s analysis, Defendant but-for income and actual income are net of expenses. In the second time period, Defendant post-termination for cause economic damages are calculated from December 11, 2010, the day after termination for cause, into the future. During this time period, Defendant economic damages are calculated by comparing the business income that defendant could have been reasonably expected to earn from Partner Merchants had ADP not continued to unlawfully solicit Partner Merchants after the Agreement was terminated for cause by defendant. The post-termination for cause business income that defendant could have been reasonably expected to receive had defendant not continued to unlawfully solicit Partner Merchants is referred to as the but-for business income during this time period. Defendant was to receive a 100 percent share of certain credit and debit card processing revenue generated from Partner Merchants after the Agreement was terminated for cause by defendant. Dr. Steward calculated the business losses by using a five year future damage period. Dr. Steward’s analysis can be used to calculate Defendant lost business income for any given number of years into the future.