**PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL — ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION** C&H Matter No. 1022-00005 / Index No. 654321/2024
Dear Dominic,
I hope this finds you well. Please find attached the Draft Answer with Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaims — Version 2 (Redline) (answer-draft-v2-redline.docx), which incorporates the comments you and I exchanged on the first draft circulated on August 28. Jeffrey Park prepared the initial draft, and I have revised it substantially, particularly the counterclaim section, which reflects the strategic approach outlined in detail below.
As you know, our Answer is due to be filed on September 3, 2024, within the time to answer following service on NFA via the Secretary of State on August 5, 2024. I would ask that you provide your final review and sign-off by end of day Monday, September 2, so that we can file first thing Tuesday morning.
Given that this is our first comprehensive communication to you on the counterclaim posture, I have set out the full defense strategy below and flagged several points where I would welcome your input.
---
**A. Summary of Responses to Meridian's Four Counts**
The draft Answer responds to each of the four counts in Meridian's Verified Complaint (filed July 15, 2024) as follows:
**Count I — Wrongful Termination ($92.4 million):** Denied. Northgate's termination on April 1, 2024 was a valid termination for cause under MCA § 14.1, predicated on Meridian's material breach — specifically, persistent schedule delays across multiple milestones and Meridian's failure to cure after two formal Cure Notices (January 18, 2024 and February 19, 2024). Meridian is not entitled to the termination-for-convenience fee under MCA § 14.3 (8% of $630.3 million in unperformed value = $50.424 million) because the termination was for cause, not convenience. The lost-profits claim of $41.976 million is independently barred by the mutual consequential damages waiver in MCA § 20.1.
**Count II — Unpaid Invoices ($16.5 million):** Denied. The disputed Phase 3 payment applications were properly rejected on the basis of defective work and inflated unit counts. Of the $48.2 million in Phase 3 payment applications submitted by Meridian, only $31.7 million was approved — the $16.5 million balance was legitimately disputed and properly withheld.
**Count III — Wrongful Withholding of Retainage ($56,966,667):** Denied. Retainage of $56,966,667 (10% of $569,666,670 in gross certified work) is properly held under MCA § 18.1 and remains subject to Northgate's set-off rights for liquidated damages, excess completion costs, and remediation costs, as described further in the counterclaim discussion below.
**Count IV — Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing ($34,133,333):** Denied. This is a derivative claim that fails because the termination was justified under the express terms of the MCA. Moreover, the consequential and reputational damages Meridian seeks are barred by MCA § 20.1. We note that the $34,133,333 figure appears to be simply the residual amount needed to reach Meridian's $200 million headline demand.
---
**B. Affirmative Defenses**
The draft Answer asserts the following key affirmative defenses:
1. **Justified termination for cause** under MCA § 14.1 due to Meridian's material breach, including schedule delays on Milestones 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8; 287 non-conformance reports (including 43 classified as critical); and failure to cure within 30 days after written notice. 2. **Consequential damages waiver** under MCA § 20.1 bars Meridian's claims for lost profits and reputational harm. 3. **Failure to mitigate damages.** 4. **Comparative fault / Meridian's own breach.** 5. **Set-off rights** against any amounts found to be owed to Meridian.
These affirmative defenses are drafted to preserve all available grounds and can be refined as discovery develops. I do not anticipate any of these being controversial, but please let me know if you have questions on any particular defense.
---
**C. Proposed Counterclaims**
This is the portion of the filing I most want to discuss with you. We are proposing three counterclaims totaling $149 million, which I believe are well-supported and strategically important. I set out each below.
**Counterclaim I — Liquidated Damages ($49 million)**
Under MCA § 9.1, Northgate is entitled to liquidated damages of $175,000 per day per milestone for unexcused delay, subject to a cap of 10% of the milestone value per milestone and 5% of the total Contract Price ($1.2 billion × 5% = $60 million) in the aggregate.
The LD breakdown is as follows:
- Phase 1, Milestone 3: 47 days late × $175,000 = $8,225,000 (already deducted from payments per the November 5, 2021 LD assessment letter) - Phase 2, Milestone 5: 22 days × $175,000 = $3,850,000 - Phase 2, Milestone 6: 68 days × $175,000 = $11,900,000 - Phase 2, Milestone 7: 91 days × $175,000 = $15,925,000 - Phase 2, Milestone 8: 134 days of delay as of termination, calculated at $23,450,000 but capped at 10% of Milestone 8 value ($91 million × 10% = $9,100,000) - **Total: $49,000,000** (below the $60 million aggregate cap)
Approximately $8.225 million in Phase 1 LDs has already been offset against prior payments. The counterclaim seeks affirmative recovery of the remaining amounts and a judicial declaration confirming the propriety of all LD assessments, including the Phase 1 offset.
I should note that the enforceability of the LD clause under New York law is strong. The amounts represent a reasonable estimate of damages for delay at the time the MCA was executed, and actual damages from delay — including lost revenue from delayed network activation, reputational harm with enterprise customers, and regulatory compliance costs — would be difficult to calculate. This satisfies the well-established standard under New York precedent. I am confident the clause will withstand challenge.
**Counterclaim II — Excess Completion Costs ($81.7 million)**
Under MCA § 14.5, upon a valid termination for cause, Northgate may complete the remaining work using substitute contractors and charge the excess costs to Meridian.
As you know, NFA entered into a replacement contract with Crestline Construction Group Inc. on June 10, 2024, for the remaining Phase 2 (Milestone 8 completion) and full Phase 3 scope at a contract price of $712 million. The remaining unperformed value under the MCA was $630.3 million ($1.2 billion total contract price minus $569.7 million in earned value at termination). The excess cost is therefore $712 million − $630.3 million = **$81.7 million**.
I expect that the reasonableness of the Crestline contract price will be a significant point of contention for Meridian. I recommend that we prepare now to demonstrate the competitive procurement process Northgate conducted and to show that the $712 million price reflects current market conditions, including labor cost escalation and materials pricing. Frank DiBello, Crestline's CEO, may be deposed as a non-party witness on this topic, and we should consider reaching out to his counsel early to establish a cooperative relationship.
**Counterclaim III — Remediation of Defective Work ($18.3 million)**
This counterclaim is based on the 287 NCRs documented by Northgate's internal QA team during the course of the project:
- 43 critical NCRs (including splice loss exceeding specification, improper conduit depth, and unauthorized route deviations) at an estimated average remediation cost of $275,000 each = $11,825,000 - 244 non-critical NCRs at an estimated average remediation cost of $26,500 each = $6,466,000 - **Total estimated remediation: approximately $18.3 million**
Sean Calloway's records documenting the NCRs are thorough and well-organized, and they will be central to this counterclaim. Dr. Elinor Chazen, whom we retained on October 15, 2024 from Lakeview Consulting Group, will opine on the technical deficiencies and their causal connection to Meridian's workmanship. Meridian's work quality failed to conform to Northgate's Technical Specification NS-FIBER-2020 and applicable industry standards (ANSI/TIA-568, BICSI guidelines) as required by MCA § 12.4.
**Total Counterclaims: $149 million**
In sum, the combined counterclaims total **$149 million** ($49M + $81.7M + $18.3M). The strategic significance of this posture should not be underestimated. Against Meridian's $200 million in claims, Northgate's $149 million in counterclaims creates substantial offsetting exposure for Meridian and fundamentally alters the leverage dynamics in this case.
On this point, Meridian's financial capacity to absorb an adverse judgment is relevant context. Meridian's FY2023 EBITDA was approximately $58.9 million, and our early information suggests that its litigation costs are being funded by its PE sponsor, Ridgepoint Capital Group LP, with an estimated litigation war chest of approximately $12 million. A $149 million counterclaim judgment — or even a substantial fraction of it — would present existential financial risk for Meridian.
My recommendation is to assert the counterclaims aggressively to maximize leverage. That said, I want to ensure you and the broader Northgate leadership are aligned on this approach, as any eventual settlement discussion will need to account for the net exposure picture on both sides. I would welcome your thoughts on whether there are any business relationship considerations or other factors I should be aware of as we finalize the counterclaim posture.
---
**D. Meridian's Anticipated Defenses to Counterclaims**
Meridian's Reply to Counterclaims will be due approximately two weeks after we file the Answer. Based on our analysis of the Verified Complaint and Meridian's pre-litigation correspondence, I expect Meridian to advance the following arguments:
1. **Permitting delays:** Meridian will claim that delays were caused by Northgate's failure to timely obtain municipal permits, which Meridian characterizes as an Owner responsibility under MCA § 5.3. 2. **Unfformalized scope changes:** Meridian will point to 14 alleged Owner-directed scope changes that were never formalized as Change Orders under MCA § 16.1, arguing these altered the schedule and cost baseline. 3. **Force majeure:** Meridian will invoke COVID-19 aftereffects on labor supply and supply chain disruptions for fiber cable as excusable delay events. 4. **LDs as unenforceable penalty:** Meridian will challenge the liquidated damages clause as an unenforceable penalty. 5. **Pretextual termination:** Meridian will argue that the termination was pretextual — that Northgate's real motive was to bring fiber construction in-house or re-procure at lower cost given favorable shifts in construction pricing.
Our team is already preparing detailed analyses on each of these anticipated defenses. Priya Anand is leading the work on the permitting responsibility issue and the change order defense, and Jeffrey Park is developing our force majeure rebuttal analysis. We will be well-prepared to meet these arguments.
---
**E. Next Steps and Timeline**
1. **Draft Answer — Final Comments:** Please provide your final comments by **end of day Monday, September 2, 2024**. 2. **Filing:** We plan to file the Answer on **September 3, 2024**. 3. **Preliminary Conference:** The Preliminary Conference before Justice Ricci in Part 49 at 60 Centre Street is scheduled for **October 1, 2024**, at which the discovery schedule will be set. We will circulate a proposed conference order for your review in advance. 4. **Insurance Notifications:** These are in process. I have already sent a tender letter to Patricia Dwyer at Ironclad Surety Group regarding Meridian's April 15, 2024 demand on Performance Bond No. ISG-2020-NE-04417 ($120 million). We are also coordinating with Rachel Solomons at Pemberton Fox LLP on coverage under the Albion D&O policy and the Keystone National CGL policy. 5. **Litigation Hold:** The litigation hold notice was distributed to Northgate and NFA employees on August 21, 2024. Could you please confirm that **all custodians have acknowledged receipt**? This is important, and I want to ensure we have full compliance documented before the Preliminary Conference. 6. **Fact Witnesses:** I want to flag the importance of beginning to identify and prepare key fact witnesses. Renata Voss (VP of US Network Infrastructure, who oversaw the fiber build-out program) and Sean Calloway (Director of Construction Management, day-to-day contract administrator) will be primary deposition targets for Meridian's counsel. I would like to schedule initial witness preparation sessions with both of them in the coming weeks, and I will reach out to them directly once you give the green light.
---
I am available to discuss any of the above by phone at your convenience over the weekend or on Monday. Please do not hesitate to call my mobile if any questions arise as you review the draft.
Thank you, Dominic. I look forward to your comments.
Best regards,
**Linda Osei** Partner Calderwood & Harkness LLP 425 Park Avenue, 33rd Floor New York, NY 10022 T: +1 (212) 504-7830 E: losei@calderwoodharkness.com
---
*CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and any attachments are protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the work product doctrine. This communication is confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of this communication or any of its contents is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message and any attachments. Thank you.*