Defendant attorney’s threats to reveal plaintiff’s alleged crimes to a merger partner when coupled with a demand to settle the defendant’s client’s employment claims constituted extortion. Extortion is the threat to reveal damaging information if money isn’t paid. There is no need to prove that the threat has been carried out. Extortion is not protected speech. Flatley v. Mauro (2006) 39 Cal.4th 299. So, defendant’s Anti-SLAPP motion was properly denied on plaintiff’s extortion claim. However, the motion should have been granted on the intentional interference with economic advantage claim because actually revealing the accusations of crime to the merger partner was not illegal, and the disclosure was made in the course of pre-litigation settlement negotiations that were privileged under Civ. Code 47(b).