Elaine,
I am writing to provide you with a high-level summary and our recommended path forward following Calderwood & Harkness's review and analysis of the redline of Draft 1 of the Executive Employment Agreement with Marcus Elliot Harding, received from Hargrove & Liddell LLP on August 5, 2024 (Matter No. 1022-00004 — Northgate Telecommunications PLC CEO Employment Agreement). The redline contained 88 comments and proposed changes across the full agreement. James Underwood has prepared a detailed issue-by-issue analysis memorandum dated August 7, 2024, which is attached for your review. The purpose of this email is to distill the key themes, quantify the financial gaps between the parties, and recommend next steps for the Board and Remuneration Committee's consideration.
**I. TRIAGE OF THE 88 COMMENTS**
We have organized H&L's 88 comments into three categories:
**Category A — Acceptable / Non-Material (~35 comments)**
Approximately 35 of the 88 comments relate to clarifications of defined terms, formatting corrections, refinements to notice mechanics, adjustments to representations and warranties language, and minor modifications to the descriptions of benefits and perquisites. These are non-substantive or non-material in nature and carry no financial impact. We recommend accepting these, or accepting them with minor modifications, without the need for Board input. James's memorandum flags the handful where we would propose slight modifications to H&L's language rather than wholesale acceptance.
**Category B — Negotiable (~11 comments)**
Approximately 11 comments fall within a range that we believe can be negotiated to resolution with moderate concessions. These include:
- Adjustments to the pro-rata bonus calculation methodology upon various termination scenarios; - Refinements to equity vesting schedule language and treatment of equity upon death or disability; - Modifications to the indemnification and D&O coverage provisions (we note for reference that the applicable policy is the Ashdown Surety & Insurance Co. D&O policy, policy number ASI-D&O-NTP-2024-4471, carrying $50M per occurrence and $100M aggregate limits — H&L's proposed language is largely protective of their client's coverage position but does not materially alter Northgate's obligations beyond those already contemplated); - Garden leave compensation — Harding seeks full compensation (base salary plus pro-rata bonus) during any garden leave period rather than base salary only, as provided in Draft 1; - Section 409A compliance language adjustments to ensure the agreement satisfies the short-term deferral and separation pay exemptions.
We are comfortable that these issues are within a negotiable range and recommend authorizing us to work toward resolution on these points as part of Draft 2.
**Category C — Board-Level Decisions Required (~42 comments)**
The remaining approximately 42 comments are concentrated in two sections of the agreement — Section 7 (Change in Control) and Section 9 (Restrictive Covenants) — and represent the core impasses in this negotiation. These require Board and Remuneration Committee direction before we can proceed. I address each in detail below.
---
**II. CRITICAL IMPASSE #1: CHANGE IN CONTROL PROVISIONS (SECTION 7)**
The CIC provisions present four discrete areas of disagreement:
**A. CIC Severance Multiplier**
- *Northgate's position (Draft 1):* 2.5x (base salary + target annual bonus) = 2.5 × $4,812,500 = **$12,031,250** - *Harding's demand (H&L redline):* 3x (base salary + target annual bonus) = 3 × $4,812,500 = **$14,437,500** - *Cash gap:* **$2,406,250**
H&L's cover letter emphasizes that Harding's existing employment agreement at Marlowe Asset Management Digital Holdings provides for 3x base plus bonus with full vesting acceleration upon a qualifying CIC termination, and that Harding views 3x as his floor — i.e., he is unwilling to accept a package that represents a step backward from his current protections.
**B. Section 280G Tax Treatment**
This is, in our view, the most contentious single issue in the negotiation.
- *Northgate's position (Draft 1):* Best-net cutback — parachute payments would be reduced to the safe harbor limit of $23,519,999 if the cutback yields a better after-tax result for the executive than receiving the full payment and bearing the 20% excise tax. No gross-up. - *Harding's demand (H&L redline):* Full Section 280G excise tax gross-up — Northgate would reimburse Harding for any excise tax imposed under Section 4999, plus additional amounts to cover taxes on the gross-up itself. - *Estimated gross-up exposure to Northgate:* **$4.2M–$6.8M**, depending on the final composition of parachute payments at the time of a qualifying event.
For context, Devon Archer's July 25, 2024 memorandum analyzing the 280G mechanics under Harding's proposed terms calculated the following: Harding's base amount (average W-2 compensation at Marlowe Asset Management Digital Holdings, 2019–2023) is $7,840,000; the safe harbor limit is accordingly $23,519,999 (3x base amount less $1); estimated total parachute payments under Harding's proposed terms are approximately $38.2M; excess parachute payments are therefore approximately $30.36M; and the estimated 20% excise tax is approximately $6,072,000.
It is worth noting, however, that the preliminary analysis prepared by Whitmore Hobson LLP suggests that the best-net cutback and the full-payment-plus-excise-tax scenarios produce roughly equivalent after-tax outcomes for Harding, with the cutback actually slightly favored in most modeled scenarios. This means Harding's demand for a full gross-up is largely a matter of principle and optics — a signal about perceived status and the employer's commitment — rather than a question of material economic substance to the executive.
That said, we must flag the governance dimension. ISS policy generally treats excise tax gross-ups as "problematic," and Sandra Kolb at Veltrano Proxy Advisors flagged this issue specifically in her July 2024 analysis of Northgate's anticipated CEO compensation package as likely to draw negative attention from proxy advisory firms. I address the shareholder context further below.
**C. CIC Definition — Board Turnover Trigger**
H&L's redline adds a fourth trigger to the change in control definition: a change in Board composition where a majority of directors are replaced within any 12-month period. Both sides have agreed on the other three triggers: (a) acquisition of more than 50% of voting securities; (b) merger or consolidation where Northgate shareholders hold less than 50% of the combined entity post-transaction; and (c) sale of substantially all assets.
The Northgate Board's position, as previously communicated to us by Geoffrey Stanton, is that the Board turnover trigger represents overreach and is inconsistent with UK corporate governance norms. We concur. Board turnover triggers are becoming less common in market practice, even in the U.S. They create governance complications — potentially entitling a CEO to severance protections triggered by the normal operation of shareholder democracy — and are likely to be viewed negatively by institutional shareholders. Northgate's significant holders, including Caledonian Asset Management (8.3%), Pemberton Capital Group (6.7%), and Thornbury Investment Trust (5.1%), among others, are known to scrutinize CIC definitions closely, and a Board turnover trigger could invite unwelcome attention.
**D. PSU Treatment on CIC**
Harding demands full acceleration of all outstanding performance share units at target performance level upon a qualifying CIC termination. Northgate's Draft 1 position is that PSUs vest at actual performance through the date of the CIC event or, if the performance period is incomplete, at target on a pro-rata basis. This is a meaningful economic difference — potentially several million dollars depending on the number and value of outstanding PSU awards at the time of a triggering event — but we view it as secondary to the multiplier and gross-up disputes and a likely candidate for compromise once the larger issues are resolved.
---
**III. CRITICAL IMPASSE #2: RESTRICTIVE COVENANT PROVISIONS (SECTION 9)**
The restrictive covenant provisions present five areas of disagreement:
**A. Non-Compete Duration**
- *Northgate (Draft 1):* 24 months post-termination - *Harding (H&L redline):* 12 months post-termination
Harding's current non-compete at Marlowe Asset Management Digital Holdings is 12 months with a U.S. geographic scope, and H&L argues that he should not be required to accept a longer restrictive period than his current arrangement.
**B. Non-Compete Geographic Scope**
- *Northgate:* Worldwide - *Harding:* Limited to North America and Western Europe
**C. Non-Compete Activity Definition**
- *Northgate:* Employment by or provision of services to any company deriving more than 15% of revenue from telecommunications services, telecommunications infrastructure, or enterprise SaaS platforms serving telecom operators - *Harding:* Limited to "direct competitors" listed on a schedule of 8 named companies, to be updated annually by mutual agreement
**D. Garden Leave**
- *Northgate (Draft 1):* 6 months paid garden leave at base salary only ($1,750,000 ÷ 12 × 6 = $875,000) - *Harding (H&L redline):* 12 months garden leave at full compensation (base salary + pro-rata bonus), with garden leave running concurrently with the non-compete period
The concurrent structure Harding proposes is critical to understand: if the non-compete is 12 months and garden leave is also 12 months running concurrently, the effect is that the entire non-compete period is served during paid garden leave. There would be no unpaid restrictive period whatsoever. This fundamentally changes the economics and practical impact of the non-compete from Northgate's perspective.
**E. Non-Solicitation**
- *Northgate:* 24 months, covering both employees and customers - *Harding:* 18 months, employees only (no customer non-solicitation)
**F. Enforceability Considerations**
I want to reiterate a point from our earlier internal analysis: a 24-month worldwide non-compete under a New York-governed agreement faces meaningful enforceability risks. New York courts apply a reasonableness analysis that considers duration, geographic scope, and the breadth of restricted activities, and a 24-month worldwide restriction would be at the outer edge — or beyond — what New York courts have historically been willing to enforce. Additionally, there is pending New York legislation that would impose a broad ban on non-compete agreements; while the likelihood and timing of enactment remain uncertain, the risk is non-trivial and should factor into our analysis.
Our recommended fallback position — consistent with the internal strategy memorandum we prepared earlier in this engagement — is an 18-month non-compete with geographic scope limited to North America and Western Europe, a narrower activity definition, paired with a 6-month garden leave period at base salary running concurrently with the first 6 months of the non-compete. This structure would leave 12 months of unpaid post-employment restriction, which we believe is enforceable and commercially defensible.
---
**IV. NON-CIC SEVERANCE (SECONDARY ISSUE)**
I will note briefly the gap on non-CIC termination without cause / resignation for good reason severance, though both sides appear to have more flexibility here:
- *Northgate (Draft 1):* 2x (base + target bonus) = $9,625,000; 12 months accelerated equity vesting; 18 months COBRA continuation - *Harding (H&L redline):* 2.5x = $12,031,250; full acceleration of all unvested equity; 24 months COBRA continuation - *Cash gap:* $2,406,250
We believe this issue can likely be resolved if the CIC and restrictive covenant impasses are broken, and it should not be the focus of initial negotiations.
---
**V. FINANCIAL SUMMARY OF GAPS**
For ease of reference, the quantified gaps between the parties are as follows:
- CIC cash severance gap (2.5x vs. 3x): **$2,406,250** - 280G gross-up exposure (if accepted): **$4.2M–$6.8M** - Non-CIC severance gap (2x vs. 2.5x): **$2,406,250** - Non-compete duration gap: **12 months** - Aggregate potential additional cost exposure to Northgate if all Harding demands are accepted: estimated **$9M–$11.5M** (inclusive of gross-up, incremental severance across both CIC and non-CIC scenarios, and extended benefit continuation)
---
**VI. GOVERNANCE AND SHAREHOLDER CONTEXT**
Before turning to recommendations, I want to underscore the governance environment in which these decisions will be made:
- Northgate received **87.4% say-on-pay support** at the April 18, 2024 AGM. While solid, this is not an overwhelming margin, and any erosion would be significant. - The new CEO compensation package will be subject to a **binding remuneration policy vote at the 2025 AGM** under the UK regulatory framework. - Veltrano Proxy Advisors' assessment is that a 3x CIC multiplier combined with a full excise tax gross-up would **likely trigger a negative say-on-pay recommendation from ISS** and potentially from Tarrant Partners LLC as well. - **UK Corporate Governance Code 2024, Provision 40** limits notice periods to 12 months or less. While CIC severance and notice periods are distinct concepts, CIC severance of 2.5x–3x significantly exceeds UK market norms of 1x–2x and will be evaluated in that context by UK institutional shareholders. - Geoffrey Stanton's previously expressed view that shareholder concerns must take priority is well-founded given these dynamics, and we support that position.
---
**VII. RECOMMENDED PATH FORWARD**
**A. If Board Direction Remains Unchanged** (i.e., hold at 2.5x CIC multiplier, best-net cutback with no gross-up, rejection of the Board turnover trigger, and maintenance of a meaningful non-compete):
We recommend preparing Draft 2 reflecting the Board's authorized positions, incorporating the following potential concessions to demonstrate good-faith movement and attempt to bridge the gap on the restrictive covenant issues:
1. Reduce the non-compete from 24 months to **18 months**; 2. Narrow the geographic scope from worldwide to **North America and Western Europe**; 3. Narrow the activity definition to a more targeted formulation (we will propose specific language); 4. Maintain the **6-month garden leave at base salary**, running concurrently with the first 6 months of the non-compete period.
These concessions are consistent with our enforceability analysis and would present a commercially defensible and reasonable package. We would hold firm on the CIC multiplier (2.5x), the best-net cutback (no gross-up), and rejection of the Board turnover trigger.
**B. If These Concessions Prove Insufficient:**
Candidly, we expect that H&L will characterize the CIC multiplier and the gross-up as "non-negotiable" positions, as Martin Hargrove did during our July 30 call. If Draft 2 does not break the impasse, we recommend convening an **in-person principals meeting** with Dame Philippa Thornton-Hale, Geoffrey Stanton, yourself, and me on the Northgate side, and Harding and Hargrove on the candidate side. Direct engagement between the Board Chair, the Remuneration Committee Chair, and Harding may help determine whether there is genuine flexibility that has not been surfaced through counsel-to-counsel negotiations, or whether the gap is truly unbridgeable. If a principals meeting is authorized, we will prepare detailed talking points and pre-approved fallback positions for Board review in advance.
**Next Steps:**
We respectfully request that you bring these issues to the Remuneration Committee for direction before we proceed with the preparation of Draft 2. We are prepared to move immediately upon receiving Board guidance.
I do want to flag the **timeline pressure**. The proposed start date of October 1, 2024 is now approximately eight weeks away, and even the possible push to November 1, 2024 discussed during the July 19 call provides limited additional runway. Any further delay in reaching agreement compresses the transition window from Sir Alistair Kemble, whose retirement is effective December 31, 2024. A compressed transition carries its own risks, particularly given the operational and strategic priorities you have identified for Harding's first 90 days.
---
Please find attached James Underwood's memorandum dated August 7, 2024, titled "Analysis of H&L Redline of Draft 1 — Issue-by-Issue Response Recommendation," which provides our detailed treatment of all 88 comments and our recommended response to each.
I am available to discuss by phone at your convenience — please do not hesitate to reach out this evening or tomorrow. The full C&H team on this matter — Bernard Crawford, James Underwood, Devon Archer, and I — are prepared to move quickly once we have the Board's direction.
Best regards,
Renata Vasquez Partner Calderwood & Harkness LLP 299 Park Avenue, 42nd Floor New York, NY 10171 T: (212) 506-4100 E: rvasquez@calderwoodharkness.com
---
*CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message and any attachments are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law, including attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or other use of this communication or its contents is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply email and permanently delete the original message and all copies. Thank you.*