Proof that a company had certain knowledge prior to its employees' contrary statements is insufficient to state a fraud or fraud-adjacent claim under the state's heightened pleading rules.
Evidence that work stopped after a certain meeting can't speak to the mindset of statements made at that meeting. Evidence of a contrary financial interest is at most only a factor, as is the amount of work that it would have taken to accomplish the task.
Expert testimony on ambiguity of contract terms is inadmissible, as ambiguity is a legal conclusion.
Given testimony that the overruns were paid to preserve the business relationship, there was no question for trial on the reliance on the underlying representations. Under state law, the counterparty's expectations of the plaintiff's reliance are insufficient to establish the plaintiff's reliance.