Extract to table

Moreover, any true volume shortfall analysis for CY3 must account for the fact that the termination itself cut short the year, and any prorated obligations should be calculated accordingly

My analysis incorporates the following adjustments, each of which is necessary to produce a damages figure that reflects economic reality: (i) Realistic volume projections accounting for VTS's actual performance trajectory and the likelihood that VTS's deteriorating SLO compliance would have resulted in reduced freight volume even in the absence of termination; (ii) Appropriate margin assumptions based on VTS's audited financial statements and industry benchmark data, rather than unverified self-reported account-level margins; (iii) Offsets for SLG's own volume shortfall claims that VTS would assert are owed under the ACV commitment, ensuring that damages are not inflated by volume projections that VTS itself alleges were not being met; (iv) Mitigation credit for revenue that VTS could have reasonably earned through diligent mitigation efforts, given the favorable freight market conditions prevailing in 2022; and (v) Present value discounting to reflect the time value of money, as future lost profits must be reduced to their present value at the time of breach