Contract analysis

I. PURPOSE AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this memorandum is to recommend the formal closure of the Calderwood & Harkness LLP matter file for the above-captioned case, Darren K. Maciejewski v. Nexford Industrial Holdings Inc., Case No. 2022-L-002847, pending in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, County Department, Law Division. This recommendation is made in light of the expiration of the one-year stat

1. Close the Calderwood & Harkness matter file for Maciejewski v. Nexford Industrial Holdings Inc., Case No. 2022-L-002847, and release the engagement team from the matter.

2. Release the litigation hold that has been in place since April 1, 2022, subject to specified retention periods for certain key documents and categories of electronically stored information ("ESI") through at least September 24, 2029.

3. Notify Verdant Mutual Insurance Company to close the employment practices liability insurance ("EPLI") claim under Policy No. EPLI-VM-2021-04782 and provide a summary of final defense costs incurred.

4. Submit a final litigation report to Harborview Partners, in accordance with Veltrano's portfolio company reporting requirements, confirming the conclusion of this matter.

5. Refrain from affirmatively seeking dismissal with prejudice or recovery of fees and costs from Plaintiff or Plaintiff's counsel, for the strategic reasons discussed in Section V.E below.

6. Maintain passive monitoring through September 24, 2026, including a calendared statute of limitations reminder and a courtesy final docket check by Calderwood & Harkness at that time. Each of these recommendations is discussed in detail in the sections that follow.

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND CURRENT STATUS A. Case Background On March 15, 2022, attorney Gerald P. Hess of the law firm Hess & Loughlin, P.C., located at 3412 Harlem Avenue, Suite 205, Berwyn, Illinois 60402, filed a three-count complaint in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, County Department, Law Division, on behalf of Plaintiff Darren K. Maciejewski against Nexford Industrial Holdings Inc. The complaint w

III. ANALYSIS OF RESIDUAL RISK Although the DWP is now final and the original case cannot be reinstated, the dismissal was entered without prejudice, which means that Plaintiff retains the theoretical ability to file a new complaint asserting any claim for which the applicable statute of limitations has not yet expired. This section analyzes each of the three original counts to assess the residual risk of re-filing.

1. Complete Disengagement of Plaintiff's Counsel. Gerald P. Hess has not communicated with Calderwood & Harkness, the Court, or (so far as we are aware) his client since October 2022 — a period of nearly two years. He failed to appear at four consecutive court hearings, failed to respond to a rule to show cause, and failed to take any action whatsoever to prevent or vacate the dismissal of his client's case. This lev

2. Failure to Prosecute. Plaintiff failed to respond to Nexford's discovery requests, failed to appear at scheduled court dates, failed to move to vacate the DWP within the one-year window provided by the Court, and took no steps to engage substitute counsel. The complete absence of prosecutorial activity over a period exceeding twenty months is a strong indicator that Plaintiff does not intend to pursue this matter

3. OSHA Closure with No Citations. OSHA's closure of Complaint No. 1734892 on August 18, 2021, with no citations and no findings of violation, substantially undermines the factual basis of Plaintiff's retaliation claims. The protected activity at the core of Plaintiff's case — his internal safety reports and OSHA complaint regarding Building C chemical storage conditions — was investigated by OSHA and found not to ha

4. Nexford's Strong Progressive Discipline Record. Nexford's defense is supported by contemporaneous documentation of Maciejewski's attendance violations and the application of progressive discipline in accordance with the Employee Handbook. The first written warning, final written warning, and termination were each documented in writing, acknowledged by Maciejewski, and consistent with the Handbook's prescribed disc

5. Practical Difficulty of Securing New Counsel. Given the procedural history of this case — including the abandonment by original counsel, the failure to respond to discovery, the failure to appear at multiple court dates, and the two-year period of inactivity — it would be practically difficult for Maciejewski to locate new counsel willing to undertake representation in a re-filed action. The case's history would r

Section 11(c) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, 29 U.S.C. § 660(c), prohibits retaliation against employees who exercise rights protected by the Act, including the right to file complaints with OSHA. However, Section 11(c) does not create a private right of action. Rather, a complainant must file a complaint with the Secretary of Labor within thirty (30) days of the alleged retaliatory action, and enforcemen

IV. FEES AND BUDGET SUMMARY The following is a summary of the fees and costs incurred by Calderwood & Harkness in connection with the defense of Maciejewski v. Nexford Industrial Holdings Inc. through the active litigation period: Total Fees Incurred: $62,322.50 The fees break down by timekeeper as follows: A detailed fee summary broken down by timekeeper, activity category, and billing period is attached hereto as A

V. RECOMMENDATIONS A. Formal Closure of Calderwood & Harkness Matter File We recommend that Calderwood & Harkness formally close its matter file for Maciejewski v. Nexford Industrial Holdings Inc., Case No. 2022-L-002847. Upon closure, the engagement team — Bernard Crawford (Responsible Partner), Renata Vasquez (Billing Partner), Nadia Petrov (Lead Associate), and James Underwood (Junior Associate) — will be released

1. Darren K. Maciejewski's complete personnel file, including all employment application materials, performance reviews, compensation records, and separation documentation.

2. All attendance and progressive discipline records related to Maciejewski, including the first written warning dated May 24, 2021, the final written warning dated August 2, 2021, the documentation of the unexcused absence on September 20, 2021, and the termination documentation dated September 24, 2021.

3. The EHS Department's May 3, 2021 report on Building C chemical storage conditions at the Elgin Facility.

4. All correspondence with OSHA regarding Complaint No. 1734892, including the initial complaint notification, the inspection report and findings from the July 12, 2021 inspection, and the August 18, 2021 closure letter.

5. All internal communications regarding Maciejewski's termination, including emails, memoranda, and notes of meetings among Frank Bosch, Catherine Donnelly, Liam Gallagher, and other personnel involved in the termination decision.

6. The relevant portions of Employee Handbook § 4.3 (Attendance and Tardiness Policy) as in effect during Maciejewski's employment, including any revisions or amendments to that section during the relevant period. Other custodial documents and ESI not specifically identified above — including documents held by custodians who were identified in the litigation hold but whose documents are not within the categories list

1. Risk of Re-Engaging a Dormant Adversary. Filing any motion in Case No. 2022-L-002847 would require service on Plaintiff and Plaintiff's counsel and would necessarily draw attention to the case at a time when inaction serves Nexford's interests. The current posture — a DWP with an expired vacatur period and a dormant opponent — is highly favorable to Nexford. Any affirmative action by Nexford risks prompting Plaint

2. Disproportionate Cost Relative to Potential Recovery. The cost of preparing and litigating a motion for dismissal with prejudice or a fee petition — including the briefing, the court appearance, and any subsequent proceedings — would likely exceed any realistic recovery of fees from Plaintiff or Plaintiff's counsel. Gerald P. Hess practices with a small firm in Berwyn, Illinois, and Maciejewski is a former hourly

3. Sufficiently Low Residual Risk. As analyzed in Section III above, the residual risk from the case in its current posture is sufficiently low that the strategic risk of stirring the matter is not justified. Only one count remains theoretically viable for re-filing, the factual foundation for that claim is weak, and the practical likelihood of re-filing is assessed as very low.

4. Risk of Prompting Counsel Re-Engagement or Referral. ARDC records confirm that Gerald P. Hess maintains an active law license despite his prolonged non-participation in this matter. Service of any motion on Hess could prompt him to re-engage with the case or, alternatively, to refer the matter to another attorney. Either outcome could lead to the filing of a new complaint on Count I before the statute of limitatio

VI. MONITORING THROUGH STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRATION Although the matter file will be formally closed, Calderwood & Harkness recommends that Nexford's General Counsel maintain a calendared reminder for September 24, 2026, the date on which the five-year statute of limitations for the Illinois common law retaliatory discharge claim expires. Until that date, Nexford should remain passively aware of the possibility

VII. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth in this memorandum, Calderwood & Harkness respectfully recommends the following actions in connection with Maciejewski v. Nexford Industrial Holdings Inc., Case No. 2022-L-002847:

1. Close the Calderwood & Harkness matter file and release the engagement team from the matter.

2. Release the litigation hold that has been in place since April 1, 2022, subject to the specified retention periods through at least September 24, 2029, for the categories of documents identified in Section V.B above.

3. Notify Verdant Mutual Insurance Company to close the EPLI claim under Policy No. EPLI-VM-2021-04782, providing the final defense cost summary and residual risk analysis.

4. Deliver a final litigation report to Harborview Partners, confirming the conclusion of this matter and removing it from Nexford's quarterly litigation exposure reports going forward.

5. Refrain from affirmatively seeking dismissal with prejudice or recovery of fees and costs from Plaintiff or Plaintiff's counsel, for the strategic reasons discussed herein.

6. Maintain passive monitoring through September 24, 2026, including a calendared statute of limitations reminder and a courtesy final docket check by Calderwood & Harkness at that time. We believe these recommendations appropriately balance the need for administrative closure and cost efficiency against the low but non-zero residual risk of re-filing on the common law retaliatory discharge claim. The overall outcome