## 1. Review standards and reversal consequences

| Issue | Review standard | Consequence of reversal |
|---|---:|---|
| **A — dismissed rebate claim** | De novo. | Reversal restores the dismissed claim for remand. It does **not** establish liability or damages. The existing $2.1M judgment is unaffected. |
| **B — excluded lost-profits expert** | Abuse of discretion, plus prejudice/harmfulness. | Reversal restores the lost-profits claim for remand. Helix still must prove damages. The existing $2.1M judgment is unaffected. |
| **C — comparative-fault instruction** | De novo on instruction error, then material-likelihood harmfulness. | Reversal vacates the entire $2.1M judgment and requires a new liability and damages trial. Helix could win less, or nothing, at retrial. |

---

## 2. Issue A — expected incremental value

\[
EV_A = P(\text{reversal}) \times P(\text{recovery on remand}) \times \text{recovery}
- P(\text{reversal}) \times \text{remand cost}
- \text{appellate cost}
\]

Step by step:

\[
0.70 \times 0.60 \times \$2,000,000 = \$840,000
\]

\[
0.70 \times \$300,000 = \$210,000
\]

\[
EV_A = \$840,000 - \$210,000 - \$90,000 = \boxed{\$540,000}
\]

---

## 3. Issue B — expected incremental value

\[
EV_B = 0.35 \times 0.55 \times \$4,000,000
- 0.35 \times \$450,000
- \$60,000
\]

Step by step:

\[
0.35 \times 0.55 \times \$4,000,000 = \$770,000
\]

\[
0.35 \times \$450,000 = \$157,500
\]

\[
EV_B = \$770,000 - \$157,500 - \$60,000 = \boxed{\$552,500}
\]

---

## 4. Issue C — expected incremental value relative to keeping the existing judgment

If Helix does **not** appeal C, it keeps the collectible $2.1M judgment.

If Helix appeals C:

\[
0.75 \times \$3,000,000 = \$2,250,000
\]

is the expected retrial award if reversal occurs.

The existing judgment is placed at risk only if the appeal succeeds:

\[
\Delta EV_C =
0.60 \times (\$2,250,000 - \$2,100,000 - \$500,000)
- \$50,000
\]

\[
\Delta EV_C =
0.60 \times (-\$350,000) - \$50,000
\]

\[
\Delta EV_C =
-\$210,000 - \$50,000 = \boxed{-\$260,000}
\]

So appealing Issue C is expected to destroy **$260,000** of client value compared with keeping the existing judgment.

---

## 5. Why reversal probability alone does not determine priority

Reversal probability is only one input.

- Issue A has the highest reversal probability: **70%**.
- Issue B has the lowest reversal probability: **35%**.
- Yet Issue B has the highest expected incremental value.

Issue C has the second-highest reversal probability: **60%**, but it has **negative** expected value because it risks a collectible $2.1M judgment and requires a costly retrial. The “jury already gave us $3 million” argument confuses gross damages with a guaranteed net recovery. At retrial, Helix has only a 75% chance of winning, and the expected retrial award is $2.25M—only $150,000 above the current judgment, before retrial costs.

---

## 6. Ranking by expected client value

| Rank | Issue | Expected incremental value | Briefing cost |
|---|---:|---:|---:|
| 1 | B | **+$552,500** | $60,000 |
| 2 | A | **+$540,000** | $90,000 |
| 3 | C | **-$260,000** | $50,000 |

---

## 7. Budget fit

The $150,000 cap applies to appellate briefing costs:

- A + B = $90,000 + $60,000 = **$150,000** → fits exactly.
- A + C = $140,000 → fits.
- B + C = $110,000 → fits.
- A + B + C = $200,000 → does **not** fit.

Best feasible package:

\[
A + B: \$540,000 + \$552,500 = \boxed{\$1,092,500}
\]

This is materially higher than:

- A + C: $280,000
- B + C: $292,500

---

## 8. Concrete appeal recommendation

**Appeal Issues B and A. Omit Issue C.**

Use the full $150,000 briefing budget on A and B. That package has the highest expected incremental value: **$1,092,500**.

Omit Issue C because it has negative expected value. It is the only issue that places the existing $2.1M judgment at risk, and its expected retrial outcome does not compensate for the $500,000 retrial cost and $50,000 appellate cost. Omitting C does not waive the current judgment, and because there is no cross-appeal, the existing judgment remains secure if C is not appealed.