PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL — ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION / ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Carolyn Whitford, General Counsel & Executive Vice President, Quorum Insurance Holdings Corp. Gregory Stahl, Vice President, Legal Affairs, Quorum Insurance Holdings Corp.
FROM: Wendy Schultz, Associate, intellectual Property, Calderwood & Harkness LLP Patricia Heng, Senior Counsel, Technology Transactions, Calderwood & Harkness LLP
DATE: October 28, 2022
RE: Most Favored Nation Clauses in Enterprise Data-Licensing Transactions — Market Practice, Enforceability Under New York Law, and Evaluation of Quorum's Proposed MFN Clause in the Meridian Credit intelligence Data License
C&H Matter No.: 1025-00008
Right-click to update Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
Calderwood & Harkness LLP ("C&H") has been asked to survey market practice for most favored nation ("MFN") pricing clauses in enterprise data-licensing transactions and to analyze their enforceability under New York law in connection with Quorum Insurance Holdings Corp.'s ("Quorum" or the "Company") proposed five-year, $60,000,000 Master Data License Agreement ("MDLA") with Meridian Credit intelligence, Inc. ("Meridian"). This memorandum is prepared in advance of the comprehensive MDLA redline session currently scheduled for December 2, 2022, and is intended to equip Quorum's legal team with the analytical framework, market intelligence, and strategic recommendations necessary to advance Quorum's negotiating position on the MFN provision.
Quorum has proposed a most favored nation clause requiring that if Meridian offers any other insurance-industry licensee more favorable per-record pricing, volume discounts, or fee terms, Quorum's pricing will be automatically adjusted to match. The proposed MFN comparator class encompasses all U.S.-domiciled insurance carriers, managing general agents ("MGAs"), and insurtech firms with annual premiums written of $500 million or more. Meridian has categorically refused any MFN clause, citing confidentiality obligations, impracticability, IPO-related valuation concerns, and antitrust sensitivities.
This memorandum reaches the following principal conclusions:
• MFN clauses are used in approximately 15–25% of large-scale enterprise data-licensing transactions in the financial services and insurance sectors, though their prevalence has been declining in recent years as data vendors — particularly those backed by private equity sponsors contemplating near-term exit events — have pushed back with increasing success.
• MFN clauses are generally enforceable under New York law, provided they meet basic requirements of definiteness and consideration. New York courts have consistently held that sophisticated commercial parties may agree to MFN provisions, and such provisions will be enforced according to their terms. There is no per se prohibition on MFN clauses under New York contract law.
• Quorum's proposed MFN scope — defined by industry vertical and premium-volume threshold — is commercially reasonable, well-tailored, and defensible. The comparator class is narrow enough to limit administrative burden on Meridian while broad enough to capture Quorum's direct competitors and peers. However, the clause may face practical resistance from Meridian on both commercial and structural grounds.
• As a fallback position, Quorum has proposed an annual pricing audit right with a 110% ceiling — permitting an independent third-party auditor to verify that Quorum's effective per-record rate does not exceed 110% of the lowest rate charged to any comparable insurance-industry licensee. This mechanism is less intrusive than a full MFN clause, addresses several of Meridian's stated objections, and is broadly enforceable under New York law.
• We recommend that Quorum maintain the MFN as its primary position in the December 2, 2022 redline session, while preparing to pivot to the pricing audit right fallback if Meridian's resistance proves intractable.
A companion memorandum prepared by Wendy Schultz addresses the separate antitrust considerations associated with MFN clauses in credit-data markets and should be read in conjunction with this analysis.
II. Background and Transaction Context
A. The Parties
Quorum Insurance Holdings Corp. Quorum is a Delaware corporation publicly traded on the Nasdaq Stock Market (ticker: QIHC), with its principal executive offices located at 1200 Atlantic Street, Suite 3400, Stamford, Connecticut 06901. Quorum operates as a multi-line insurance carrier and insurance-technology platform operator, with business segments spanning property and casualty, life, and specialty insurance lines. For fiscal year 2023, Quorum reported consolidated revenue of approximately $4.18 billion and, as of the date of this engagement, had an approximate market capitalization of $8.9 billion. Quorum's technology-forward business strategy relies heavily on advanced data analytics, predictive modeling, and machine-learning-driven underwriting, making high-quality credit and alternative data an essential input to the Company's core operations and growth initiatives.
Meridian Credit intelligence, Inc. Meridian is a Georgia corporation, privately held, with its headquarters at 3300 Peachtree Road NE, Suite 2100, Atlanta, Georgia 30326. Meridian operates as a consumer and commercial credit bureau and data analytics company, offering a suite of credit-data products, alternative-data signals, and analytics solutions to financial institutions, insurance carriers, fintech companies, and other enterprise customers. For fiscal year 2023, Meridian reported revenue of approximately $1.42 billion and EBITDA of approximately $438 million. Meridian is majority-owned (62.5%) by Breckenridge Capital Partners Fund IV, L.P. ("Breckenridge"), a growth-equity fund with $3.8 billion in assets under management. The remaining equity is held by Meridian's founders and management team. Meridian is advised in connection with the MDLA by Kessler Pruitt & Ashe LLP (Graham Whitley, lead partner) and by Whitmore Zanthor & Co. (Rachel Ng-Castillo, managing director) in connection with a planned initial public offering currently targeted for the 2025–2026 timeframe.
The interplay between Meridian's ownership structure, its IPO timeline, and its legal and financial advisory relationships is highly relevant to the MFN negotiation, as discussed in greater detail in Sections IV.D, VI.G, and VIII.A below.
B. The Proposed Transaction
The MDLA contemplates a five-year enterprise data-licensing arrangement with a total deal value of $60,000,000 over the initial term, structured as follows:
Fee Structure. The annual license fees are structured with an implementation/ramp period in Year 1 and a stabilized rate for Years 2 through 5:
Reconciliation: $10,800,000 (Year 1) + $49,200,000 (Years 2–5, at $12,300,000/year × 4 years) = $60,000,000. Payment terms are quarterly in advance.
In addition, Meridian will charge a one-time implementation/integration fee of $1,500,000, billed separately and outside the $60 million license value, to cover technical onboarding, API configuration, data-mapping, and initial testing.
Data Products. The MDLA covers licenses to the following Meridian data products:
• MCI Consumer Credit File™: Approximately 310 million consumer records, available via daily batch delivery and real-time API access. This is Meridian's flagship consumer credit product and represents the largest component of the license by record volume.
• MCI CommercialView™: Approximately 42 million business records, available via weekly batch delivery. This product provides commercial credit and firmographic data on U.S. businesses.
• MCI AltSignal™: Approximately 85 million consumer alternative-data records, available via daily batch delivery. This product aggregates non-traditional data sources — including utility payments, rental history, and other alternative indicators — to supplement traditional credit scores.
The estimated combined monthly volume under the license is approximately 437 million records per month, representing approximately 87.4% of the 500 million records/month base tier. An overage rate of $0.003 per record applies to volumes exceeding the 500 million records/month base tier.
Business Purpose. Quorum intends to use Meridian's data products to enhance automated underwriting models, claims-fraud detection algorithms, and customer propensity scoring across its property and casualty, life, and specialty insurance lines. Of particular strategic significance, the Meridian data is a critical input for Quorum's proprietary QuorumScore™ predictive model, which is the subject of a pending USPTO trademark application (Serial No. 97/482,116) and is projected to generate business-to-business licensing revenue of $40–50 million annually by 2027. The QuorumScore™ model and the derived-data rights associated with it are the subject of a separate negotiation workstream and a parallel memorandum from this team.
C. The MFN Impasse
The MFN clause is one of two principal open issues that have created a negotiation impasse between the parties. (The other is the scope of Quorum's derived-data rights, which is addressed separately.) The negotiation history is as follows:
Quorum's proposed MFN clause was first included in the Quorum counter-term sheet dated September 30, 2022, which was transmitted to Kessler Pruitt & Ashe by C&H together with a comprehensive markup of the draft MDLA. Since that date, Meridian has categorically refused any MFN clause, citing the following grounds:
(a) Confidentiality obligations: Meridian asserts that it is bound by confidentiality obligations to its other licensees and that disclosing pricing information — even in the limited form required by an MFN clause — would breach those obligations.
(b) Impracticability: Meridian contends that cross-licensee price comparisons are impracticable because each data-licensing arrangement is bespoke, varying by data elements selected, refresh frequency, API versus batch delivery mode, permitted use, and volume commitment.
(c) IPO valuation concerns: Breckenridge Capital Partners (specifically, Elaine Drummond, Managing Partner, and Caleb Rourke, Principal) and Whitmore Zanthor & Co. (Rachel Ng-Castillo) have advised Meridian's management that an MFN clause could be viewed as a margin risk in IPO due diligence, potentially compressing Meridian's valuation narrative around data exclusivity and pricing power. This concern has been communicated to Quorum's team through informal channels.
(d) Antitrust sensitivities: Meridian has raised general concerns about antitrust implications of MFN clauses in credit-data markets, though it has not articulated a specific antitrust theory or identified particular regulatory risk.
In parallel with these negotiations, Quorum has retained Pinnacle Ridge Advisory LLC (Franklin Osei, Managing Director) to perform an independent pricing benchmark study of comparable credit-data licensing transactions in the insurance sector. That study, delivered on February 14, 2023, is a key input for Quorum's MFN negotiating position and is referenced at various points in this memorandum.
The governing law of the MDLA is New York, without regard to conflicts-of-law principles.
III. What Is a Most Favored Nation Clause in Data Licensing?
A. Definition and Core Mechanics
A most favored nation clause — sometimes referred to as a "most favored customer" clause, "price parity" clause, or "MFN" — is a contractual provision requiring the licensor or vendor to offer the licensee or customer pricing and/or commercial terms at least as favorable as those offered to any other similarly situated customer. The clause derives its name from the analogous concept in international trade law, where most favored nation status obligates a country to extend to a trading partner the best trade terms it offers to any other nation.
In the context of enterprise data licensing, MFN clauses serve a protective function for the licensee: they ensure that the licensee will not pay more — or receive less favorable terms — than its competitors or peers who are purchasing comparable data products from the same licensor. The fundamental economic rationale is straightforward: a major licensee making a substantial volume commitment expects that its pricing will be at least as favorable as that offered to any similarly situated customer, and the MFN clause provides a contractual mechanism to enforce that expectation.
The typical mechanics of an MFN clause involve four core elements:
1. Triggering event: The licensor enters into a license agreement with a comparator customer (as defined by the MFN clause's comparator class) on terms that are more favorable than those offered to the MFN beneficiary. The triggering event may be defined by reference to specific pricing metrics (e.g., per-record rate, aggregate annual fee) or more broadly to include any commercial terms.
2. Notification obligation: Upon the occurrence of a triggering event, the licensor is typically required to notify the MFN beneficiary within a specified period — commonly 30 to 60 days — of the existence of more favorable terms. Some MFN clauses require only periodic (e.g., annual) disclosure rather than event-driven notification.
3. Adjustment mechanism: The MFN clause specifies how the beneficiary's terms will be adjusted. There are two principal approaches: (a) automatic adjustment, under which the beneficiary's pricing is deemed to be retroactively or prospectively adjusted to match the more favorable terms without further action by either party; and (b) elective adjustment, under which the beneficiary is given the option — but not the obligation — to elect to receive the more favorable terms.
4. Temporal application: The clause specifies whether the adjustment applies retroactively (i.e., with a true-up or credit for the period during which the beneficiary was paying more than the comparator customer) or on a prospective-only basis (i.e., adjusting the beneficiary's pricing going forward from the date of the triggering event or notification).
A key distinction exists between two categories of MFN clauses:
• MFN-price clauses are limited to pricing and fee-related terms, including per-unit or per-record rates, aggregate license fees, volume discount structures, tiered pricing breakpoints, and other financial terms. These clauses ensure pricing parity without addressing other commercial terms.
• MFN-terms clauses (sometimes called "most favored terms" or "MFT" clauses) are broader in scope and cover not only pricing but also non-price commercial terms such as service level agreements, data scope and quality commitments, support levels, delivery specifications, and other operational terms.
Quorum's proposed clause is an MFN-price clause, limited to per-record pricing, volume discounts, and fee terms. It does not extend to non-price commercial terms such as SLAs, data delivery specifications, or support commitments. This is a deliberate scoping decision: Quorum's primary concern is pricing competitiveness, and a narrower MFN-price clause is both more likely to be accepted by Meridian and easier to administer and enforce.
Meridian's counter-proposal — which Meridian has offered as an alternative to any pricing-based MFN — is a "most favored terms" clause limited to data-delivery SLAs and uptime commitments only, explicitly excluding pricing. As discussed in Section VIII.B below, this counter-proposal is commercially inadequate for Quorum's purposes.
B. Relationship to Other Protective Mechanisms
MFN clauses are one of several contractual mechanisms available to licensees seeking pricing protection in data-licensing transactions. It is useful to situate the MFN clause within this broader toolkit, as the alternatives inform both Quorum's negotiating strategy and its fallback positions.
Pricing audit rights. Quorum's primary fallback position is a pricing audit right — the right to retain an independent third-party auditor to verify that Quorum's pricing is competitive relative to comparable customers. Unlike an MFN clause, a pricing audit right is reactive rather than proactive: it does not require the licensor to monitor and report triggering events, but rather permits the licensee to initiate an audit at specified intervals to verify pricing competitiveness. Pricing audit rights are generally less intrusive than MFN clauses and are more commonly accepted by data vendors. Quorum's proposed fallback — an annual audit right with a 110% ceiling — is discussed in detail in Section VII.
Price benchmarking clauses. A price benchmarking clause requires periodic comparison of the licensee's pricing against an external benchmark or index, such as a published data-industry pricing index, a basket of comparable public company data-licensing prices, or a third-party benchmarking service. These clauses are less common in data licensing than in IT outsourcing, where established benchmarking firms (e.g., Penmark Consulting Group, ISG) provide industry-standard pricing data. The bespoke nature of credit-data licensing makes external benchmarking difficult, and this mechanism is unlikely to be practical for the Quorum-Meridian transaction.
Price-cap and escalation-cap provisions. These clauses limit the licensor's ability to increase fees during the term or upon renewal, typically by tying fee increases to the Consumer Price Index ("CPI") or a fixed annual percentage cap (e.g., 3–5% per year). While price-cap provisions do not provide the same level of relative pricing protection as an MFN clause (they protect against absolute price increases, not against relative pricing disadvantage), they are a useful supplemental mechanism that Quorum should seek regardless of the outcome on the MFN issue.
"Meet-or-release" clauses. A meet-or-release clause provides that if the licensee can demonstrate that a third-party competitor of the licensor has offered comparable data products at more favorable terms, the licensor must match those terms or the licensee may terminate the agreement without penalty. This mechanism is most commonly seen in the outsourcing context and provides a form of competitive pricing protection tied to the licensee's actual market alternatives. We discuss a meet-or-release provision as a supplemental recommendation in Section X.C.
The following table summarizes the comparative characteristics of these mechanisms:
As discussed throughout this memorandum, we recommend that Quorum pursue a layered approach — seeking the MFN clause as the primary mechanism, the pricing audit right as the principal fallback, and supplemental price-cap and meet-or-release provisions as additional protective measures.
IV. Market Practice Survey: MFN Clauses in Enterprise Data-Licensing Transactions
A. Methodology
This market practice survey is based on three principal sources:
1. SEC filings. We reviewed publicly available data-licensing agreements filed as material exhibits to Form 10-K, 10-Q, 8-K, and S-1 registration statements with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Our review focused on agreements filed by or with financial services companies, insurance carriers, fintech firms, and data analytics providers during the period from January 2017 through September 2022. We identified and reviewed 87 enterprise data-licensing agreements with disclosed aggregate values of $10 million or more.
2. C&H proprietary deal database. We drew upon C&H's internal database of technology transactions and data-licensing agreements negotiated by the firm's Technology Transactions and intellectual Property practice groups. This database includes approximately 340 enterprise data-licensing transactions in the financial services and insurance sectors from the past five years, of which 142 involved aggregate deal values of $10 million or more. (Details of specific precedent transactions are provided on an anonymized basis in Appendix A.)
3. Pinnacle Ridge Advisory LLC benchmark study. We supplemented our legal analysis with the market intelligence and pricing data provided by Pinnacle Ridge Advisory LLC (Franklin Osei, Managing Director), which Quorum retained to perform an independent pricing benchmark study of comparable credit-data licensing transactions in the insurance sector. While the Pinnacle Ridge study focuses primarily on pricing levels rather than contract structures, its market observations regarding the prevalence and scope of MFN clauses in comparable transactions are incorporated herein.
In addition, the analysis below reflects the professional experience of Patricia Heng, who has advised on more than 200 enterprise data-licensing and technology transactions over the course of her 18-year career in the technology transactions practice, including numerous transactions involving credit bureaus, alternative-data providers, and financial-data aggregators.
Our survey was deliberately focused on enterprise-scale data licenses — those with aggregate values of $10 million or more — in the financial services, insurance, and fintech verticals, as these are the most relevant comparators for the Quorum-Meridian transaction.
B. Prevalence
Based on our survey, MFN clauses appear in approximately 15–25% of large-scale enterprise data-licensing transactions in the financial services and insurance sectors. This finding is consistent with the Pinnacle Ridge Advisory study's observation that "pricing parity protections, including MFN clauses and audit rights, are present in a meaningful minority of comparable transactions, though their prevalence varies significantly by data vendor and industry sub-sector."
Several factors influence the prevalence of MFN clauses in enterprise data licensing:
Bargaining power and volume commitment. MFN clauses are more common in agreements where the licensee has significant bargaining power, typically derived from a large volume commitment, anchor-tenant status, or strategic importance to the licensor's business. Licensees that represent a substantial portion of a data vendor's revenue or that provide a key reference-customer function are more likely to obtain MFN protections. Quorum's $60 million commitment over five years positions the Company as an anchor tenant, which supports its case for an MFN clause.
Data vendor characteristics. The prevalence of MFN clauses varies significantly by the type and market position of the data vendor. Large, established credit bureaus — including the three major national consumer reporting agencies and their smaller competitors — have historically resisted MFN provisions more vigorously than other categories of data vendors. This resistance stems from the highly bespoke nature of credit-data pricing (discussed further below) and from the cascading effect that a single MFN concession can have across a major bureau's licensee base. By contrast, newer alternative-data providers, particularly those seeking to establish market position, have been more willing to grant MFN protections to secure anchor-tenant relationships.
Credit-data licensing specifically. In the credit-data licensing sub-sector, MFN clauses are less prevalent than in the broader data-licensing market. Our survey found that MFN clauses appeared in only approximately 8–12% of credit-data licensing agreements with values of $10 million or more, compared to the 15–25% range across all data-licensing verticals. This lower prevalence is attributable to the structural characteristics of the credit-data market: bespoke pricing models that vary by data elements, refresh frequency, delivery mode, and permitted use make cross-licensee comparisons inherently difficult, and confidentiality norms in the credit-data industry make licensors particularly reluctant to disclose or benchmark pricing information.
Trend over time. We observe a declining trend in the prevalence of MFN clauses in enterprise data-licensing transactions over the past three to five years. This decline is attributable to several factors, including (a) the increasing concentration and market power of major data vendors, which has shifted bargaining leverage toward licensors; (b) the growing sophistication of data vendors' legal counsel in resisting MFN demands; and (c) the influence of private equity sponsors and investment bankers who advise portfolio companies against MFN commitments that could constrain pricing flexibility or complicate exit-event narratives. This last factor is directly relevant to the Meridian-Breckenridge-Whitmore Zanthor dynamic in the present transaction.
C. Typical Scope and Structure
Among the MFN clauses identified in our survey, we observe the following patterns in scope and structure:
Comparator class definitions. Most MFN clauses define the comparator class by reference to one or more of the following criteria: (a) industry vertical (e.g., "financial institution licensees," "insurance carrier licensees"); (b) volume tier (e.g., "licensees with comparable data volume commitments"); (c) geographic scope (e.g., "U.S.-based licensees"); and (d) revenue or size threshold (e.g., "licensees with annual revenue exceeding a specified amount"). Quorum's proposed comparator class — U.S.-domiciled insurance carriers, MGAs, and insurtech firms with annual premiums written of $500 million or more — combines industry-vertical, geographic, and size-threshold criteria in a manner that is well-tailored and industry-specific. This is narrower than the broadest MFN clauses we surveyed, which applied to "any licensee" without industry or size limitations, but broader than the most restrictive clauses, which limited comparisons to licensees receiving identical data products at identical volumes through identical delivery mechanisms. We view Quorum's comparator class as falling within the range of commercially reasonable practice.
Pricing metrics compared. The most common pricing metrics subject to MFN comparison in our survey were per-record or per-unit rates, aggregate annual license fees, volume discount structures, and tiered pricing breakpoints. Some broader clauses also encompassed implementation fees, overage rates, and other ancillary charges. Quorum's proposed MFN focuses on per-record pricing, volume discounts, and fee terms generally, which is consistent with prevailing market practice for MFN-price clauses.
Adjustment mechanisms. Approximately 60% of the MFN clauses in our survey utilized an automatic adjustment mechanism, under which the beneficiary's pricing is deemed adjusted (either retroactively or prospectively) upon the occurrence of a triggering event, without requiring affirmative election by the beneficiary. Approximately 40% used an elective mechanism, granting the beneficiary the option — but not the obligation — to elect reduced pricing upon notification of a triggering event. Quorum has proposed automatic adjustment, which provides the strongest protection but may also generate the strongest resistance from Meridian. As discussed in Section VI.C, we recommend that Quorum consider pivoting to an elective mechanism as a potential concession point.
Notification obligations. Most MFN clauses in our survey required the licensor to notify the beneficiary licensee of a triggering event within a specified period, typically 30 to 60 days of entering into the comparator agreement. A smaller number of clauses required only annual or semi-annual disclosure. Prompt, event-driven notification is preferable from the licensee's perspective, as it ensures timely price adjustment and prevents the accumulation of pricing disparities over extended periods.
Audit and verification rights. Approximately half of the MFN clauses in our survey included a verification or audit right permitting the beneficiary to confirm the licensor's compliance with the MFN obligation. These audit rights typically permitted the beneficiary to retain an independent third-party auditor — subject to appropriate confidentiality restrictions — to review the licensor's pricing records and verify that no triggering event had occurred (or, if one had occurred, that the required adjustment had been made). We view audit and verification rights as an essential supplement to any MFN clause, as they address the fundamental information asymmetry that makes MFN enforcement difficult in practice.
Exceptions and carve-outs. The following categories of exceptions and carve-outs appeared most frequently in the surveyed MFN clauses:
(i) Promotional and trial pricing: Licenses offered at introductory, promotional, or trial rates for a limited period (typically six months or less) were excluded from MFN comparisons in approximately 70% of clauses containing carve-outs.
(ii) Government and non-profit licensees: Licenses to government agencies, regulatory bodies, or non-profit organizations were excluded in approximately 55% of clauses.
(iii) Strategic transaction-related licenses: Data licenses entered as a component of a broader strategic transaction — such as a merger, acquisition, joint venture, or strategic partnership — were excluded in approximately 50% of clauses, on the rationale that the pricing in such transactions reflects the value of the broader relationship rather than a standalone data-licensing transaction.
(iv) Volume-based differences: Several clauses excluded comparator licensees whose data volume was materially different (typically defined as more than 150–200% or less than 50% of the beneficiary's volume), on the rationale that significant volume differences may justify genuine pricing differences reflecting economies of scale.
D. Market Observations Relevant to Quorum's Position
Several market observations from our survey are directly relevant to the Quorum-Meridian negotiation:
Quorum's anchor-tenant leverage. Quorum's $60 million deal value over five years represents a substantial financial commitment that positions the Company as an anchor tenant in Meridian's insurance-sector licensee base. Based on publicly available information regarding Meridian's revenue and customer concentration, we estimate that the MDLA would represent approximately 4.2% of Meridian's annual revenue (based on FY 2023 revenue of $1.42 billion). While this is not sufficient to create a single-customer dependency, it is large enough to constitute a commercially significant relationship that Meridian would be reluctant to lose. This anchor-tenant status provides meaningful leverage for Quorum's MFN demand, as data vendors are more willing to grant MFN protections to customers whose departure would have a material financial and reputational impact.
Credit-bureau resistance. As noted above, credit-data bureaus — including entities comparable to Meridian in size, data coverage, and market position — have historically resisted MFN clauses more vigorously than other categories of data vendors. This resistance is attributable to two structural factors. First, credit-data pricing models are highly bespoke: pricing varies by the specific data elements selected, refresh frequency (daily, weekly, monthly), delivery mode (API, batch file, SFTP), permitted use (underwriting, marketing, fraud detection, model development), and volume commitment. These variations make cross-licensee comparisons inherently complex and create opportunities for licensors to argue that no two license arrangements are truly "comparable." Second, MFN clauses in the credit-data sector tend to have a cascading effect: if one major licensee obtains an MFN, other large licensees quickly demand equivalent treatment, and the cumulative impact on the licensor's pricing flexibility can be significant.
Private equity and IPO dynamics. Our survey confirms that PE-backed data companies approaching an IPO or other exit event are particularly resistant to MFN clauses. The concern, articulated by both financial sponsors and investment banking advisors, is that MFN obligations constrain the data company's future pricing flexibility and can be characterized by underwriters and investors as a margin risk or revenue-growth impediment. In the context of S-1 disclosure, an MFN obligation to a major customer may be viewed as a material risk factor that could compress the company's valuation multiple. This dynamic is directly implicated in the Meridian transaction: Breckenridge Capital Partners (Elaine Drummond and Caleb Rourke) and Whitmore Zanthor & Co. (Rachel Ng-Castillo) have advised Meridian's management against accepting any MFN clause that could create complications for the planned 2025–2026 IPO. Quorum should be aware that this concern is not merely a negotiating tactic but reflects a genuine commercial consideration that Meridian's advisors take seriously.
V. Enforceability of MFN Clauses Under New York Law
A. General Enforceability
Most favored nation clauses are generally enforceable under New York law as a matter of freedom of contract. New York's well-established policy of enforcing the freely negotiated agreements of sophisticated commercial parties extends fully to MFN provisions. Courts applying New York law have consistently held that MFN clauses — provided they meet the basic requirements of definiteness and consideration — constitute binding contractual obligations that will be enforced according to their terms.
The enforceability of MFN clauses under New York law rests on several foundational principles. New York courts apply an objective theory of contract interpretation and seek to give effect to the plainly expressed intent of the parties. Where sophisticated commercial entities, represented by counsel, negotiate and agree to an MFN provision, New York courts are reluctant to decline enforcement absent a showing of unconscionability, indefiniteness, or illegality. The policy rationale is straightforward: MFN clauses represent a reasonable and well-understood allocation of economic risk between contracting parties, and there is no basis in New York law for treating them differently from any other pricing or commercial term.
The covenant of good faith and fair dealing, which is implied in every contract under New York law, supplements MFN obligations by requiring the licensor to perform in a manner consistent with the reasonable expectations of the beneficiary. This implied covenant is particularly relevant in the MFN context, as it addresses the risk that a licensor might attempt to circumvent the spirit of the MFN obligation through structural devices designed to avoid technical triggering while offering the economic substance of more favorable terms to a comparator customer.
There is no per se prohibition on MFN clauses under New York contract law. While certain categories of MFN clauses may raise antitrust concerns — which are addressed in the companion memorandum prepared by Wendy Schultz — the contract-law enforceability analysis is independent of the antitrust analysis, and the validity of an MFN clause as a matter of contract law does not depend on the absence of antitrust issues.
B. Requirements for Enforceability
To be enforceable under New York law, an MFN clause must satisfy the following requirements:
1. Definiteness. The MFN clause must be sufficiently definite in its material terms to permit a court to determine whether a breach has occurred and to fashion an appropriate remedy. New York law requires that a contractual provision be "sufficiently definite and explicit so that the intention of the parties may be ascertained to a reasonable degree of certainty." Joseph Martin, Jr., Delicatessen, Inc. v. Schumacher, 52 N.Y.2d 105, 109 (1981). An MFN clause that leaves material terms undefined or subject to future agreement may be deemed an unenforceable "agreement to agree." To satisfy the definiteness requirement, the MFN clause should clearly define: (a) the comparator class — i.e., the universe of comparator customers whose terms will serve as the benchmark; (b) the pricing metrics subject to comparison — i.e., the specific fee components that must be at least as favorable; and (c) the adjustment mechanism — i.e., how the beneficiary's pricing will be adjusted upon the occurrence of a triggering event. Vague or aspirational language — such as a commitment that the "licensor will offer competitive pricing" or that the licensee will receive "favorable terms" — is likely to be deemed insufficiently definite. By contrast, a clause that specifies a defined comparator class, identifies the pricing metrics to be compared, and sets forth a clear adjustment mechanism (whether automatic or elective) satisfies the definiteness standard.
Quorum's proposed MFN clause satisfies the definiteness requirement. The clause specifies the comparator class (U.S.-domiciled insurance carriers, MGAs, and insurtech firms with annual premiums written of $500 million or more), the pricing metrics (per-record pricing, volume discounts, and fee terms), and the adjustment mechanism (automatic adjustment). These terms are sufficiently definite to permit a court to determine whether a breach has occurred and to calculate the appropriate adjustment.
2. Consideration. Like any contractual obligation, an MFN clause must be supported by adequate consideration. In the context of a negotiated enterprise data-licensing agreement, the consideration requirement is readily satisfied: the licensee's agreement to pay the license fees, to commit to a specified term and volume, and to perform its other obligations under the MDLA constitutes adequate consideration for the licensor's MFN obligation. In the case of the Quorum-Meridian MDLA, the $60 million aggregate license commitment and the five-year term provide more than ample consideration to support the MFN clause. There is no plausible argument that the MFN clause lacks consideration in this context.
3. No conflict with other contractual obligations. An MFN clause that would compel the licensor to breach its confidentiality obligations to other licensees raises a distinct enforceability concern. If performance of the MFN obligation (e.g., disclosing the specific pricing terms of a comparator license) would necessarily require the licensor to violate a pre-existing confidentiality commitment, a court could find that the MFN clause is unenforceable as applied, or could decline to order specific performance on the ground that doing so would require the licensor to breach a duty owed to a third party. This is Meridian's principal legal objection to the MFN clause, and it is a concern that warrants careful attention in the drafting process.
The concern is addressable. A well-drafted MFN clause can be structured to avoid any conflict with third-party confidentiality obligations by incorporating one or more of the following mechanisms: (a) requiring the licensor to notify the beneficiary of the existence of a triggering event without disclosing the identity of the comparator licensee or the specific terms of the comparator license; (b) providing for verification through a mutually agreed independent third-party auditor who would review the licensor's pricing records under appropriate confidentiality restrictions and provide the beneficiary with a pass/fail conclusion and, if applicable, the amount of the required adjustment, without disclosing the identity or specific terms of the comparator agreement; and (c) requiring the licensor to use commercially reasonable efforts to structure its agreements with other licensees so as to preserve the licensor's ability to comply with the MFN obligation without breaching third-party confidentiality. As discussed in Section VI.D below, we recommend incorporating all three of these mechanisms into Quorum's proposed MFN clause.
4. Good faith performance. New York's implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing requires the licensor to perform its MFN obligations in good faith and to refrain from actions that would deprive the beneficiary of the fruits of the MFN bargain. In the MFN context, this implied covenant has particular significance because licensors have incentives — and opportunities — to structure competing license arrangements in ways that technically avoid MFN triggering while offering the economic substance of more favorable terms. Examples include bundling data-licensing fees within broader consulting or services agreements, providing non-cash consideration (such as marketing support, data-sharing, or co-development commitments) that effectively reduces the comparator licensee's cost, varying the data product scope to create nominal differences that mask economic equivalence, or routing transactions through affiliate entities that are not themselves licensors under the MDLA.
The implied covenant of good faith addresses these avoidance techniques by requiring the licensor to act consistently with the reasonable expectations of the MFN beneficiary. However, the implied covenant is a backstop, not a substitute for precise drafting. We recommend that Quorum's MFN clause include express anti-evasion provisions addressing the most common structuring techniques, as discussed in Section VI below.
C. Remedies for Breach
If Meridian were to breach an MFN clause in the MDLA, Quorum would have the following remedies available under New York law:
Specific performance. Specific performance — an equitable remedy requiring the breaching party to perform its contractual obligations — is available under New York law in appropriate circumstances. In the MFN context, a court may order Meridian to adjust Quorum's pricing to comply with the MFN clause, particularly where Quorum can demonstrate that monetary damages are inadequate to make it whole. The argument for inadequacy of monetary damages is strongest where the breach is ongoing (i.e., Meridian continues to charge Quorum more than the MFN-compliant rate), where the exact amount of the pricing disparity is difficult to determine without discovery into Meridian's other licensee agreements, or where the breach undermines Quorum's competitive position in ways that cannot be fully captured by a damages award. New York courts have awarded specific performance in the context of pricing and pricing-adjustment provisions in commercial contracts, and there is no reason to believe that a court would decline to do so in the MFN context. However, as a practical matter, specific performance is a discretionary remedy, and a court would consider whether alternative remedies (such as damages) are adequate before ordering specific performance.
Damages. The standard measure of damages for breach of an MFN clause is the difference between the amount the licensee actually paid and the amount it would have paid had the MFN clause been honored — i.e., the pricing differential for the period of the breach. Where the breach is prospective or ongoing, damages may include future overpayments for the remaining term of the agreement, subject to appropriate discounting. The damages calculation requires the court (or the parties) to determine the "MFN-compliant" rate — i.e., the rate Quorum would have been charged if the MFN clause had been performed — and to compute the difference between that rate and the rate Quorum actually paid or would pay. This calculation can be complex where the comparator license involves different data products, volumes, or delivery modes, which underscores the importance of drafting the MFN clause with a clear and administrable comparison methodology (such as the "effective per-record rate" approach recommended in Section VI.B).
Contractual termination right. Some MFN clauses include a contractual termination right in the event of a material breach of the MFN obligation — permitting the beneficiary to terminate the agreement without liability for early termination penalties. We recommend that Quorum's MFN clause include such a termination right, triggered by a material breach (defined, for example, as a pricing disparity exceeding 125% of the MFN-compliant rate) that remains uncured for a specified period after notice. This provides Quorum with a credible enforcement mechanism and creates meaningful incentives for Meridian to comply.
Audit rights and dispute resolution. Contractual provisions for periodic audit rights and expedited dispute resolution (such as expert determination or expedited arbitration on MFN-related disputes) enhance the practical enforceability of MFN clauses by providing an efficient mechanism for detecting and resolving potential breaches before they escalate to full-scale litigation. We recommend incorporating both mechanisms into the MFN clause.
D. Key Risks and Limitations
While MFN clauses are legally enforceable under New York law, several practical risks and limitations bear on Quorum's decision-making:
Practical enforceability challenges. Even where an MFN clause is legally valid and enforceable, it can be exceptionally difficult to enforce in practice because the beneficiary licensee typically lacks visibility into the licensor's other commercial arrangements. The licensee may never learn of a triggering event. In the data-licensing context, deal terms are highly bespoke and confidential, and licensors rarely publicize the specific pricing terms of their customer agreements. While the MFN clause imposes a notification obligation on the licensor, enforcement of that notification obligation depends on the licensor's good faith — the very thing the MFN clause is designed to protect against. Audit and verification rights mitigate this concern but do not eliminate it entirely.
Structuring around MFN. A sophisticated licensor — advised by experienced counsel — can structure competing deals to avoid triggering the MFN clause while delivering the economic substance of more favorable terms to the comparator customer. Common structuring techniques include: (a) bundling data-licensing fees within broader agreements (e.g., a consulting or professional-services engagement) so that the nominal per-record rate remains at or above the MFN threshold even though the blended effective cost to the comparator customer is lower; (b) providing non-cash consideration — such as marketing commitments, data-sharing arrangements, or co-development undertakings — that reduces the comparator customer's effective cost without affecting the stated license fee; (c) varying the data product scope, delivery mode, or permitted-use restrictions to create nominal differences between the comparator license and the beneficiary's license; and (d) routing transactions through affiliate entities or subsidiaries that are not parties to the MFN obligation. A well-drafted MFN clause must address these avoidance techniques through anti-evasion provisions, an "effective per-record rate" comparison methodology, and broad definitions of "affiliates" and "related transactions."
Scope creep and administrative burden. Broad MFN clauses can create significant administrative burden for the licensor, requiring ongoing monitoring of all new and amended license agreements to determine whether any triggering events have occurred. This burden is a legitimate concern for Meridian, which maintains licensing relationships with hundreds of enterprise customers across multiple industry verticals. The administrative burden can be mitigated through a narrowly defined comparator class (as Quorum has proposed), a clearly specified comparison methodology, and reasonable notification and verification procedures.
VI. Evaluation of Quorum's Proposed MFN Clause
A. Proposed Scope
Quorum's proposed MFN clause defines the comparator class as all U.S.-domiciled insurance carriers, managing general agents (MGAs), and insurtech firms with annual premiums written of $500 million or more.
This comparator class is well-defined and industry-specific. It limits the MFN to Quorum's direct competitors and peers within the insurance sector, avoiding the overbreadth of MFN clauses that apply to "any licensee" or "any financial institution licensee" without further qualification. The $500 million annual-premium-written threshold serves a dual function: it excludes small insurers, regional carriers, and most early-stage insurtech companies — whose pricing dynamics may differ significantly from Quorum's — while capturing the universe of large-scale insurance-sector data consumers whose purchasing power and negotiating leverage are comparable to Quorum's.
Based on publicly available premium data from the National Association of Insurance Commissioners' (NAIC) annual statements and supplemental data from Pinnacle Ridge Advisory LLC, we estimate that the proposed comparator class encompasses approximately 100 to 150 entities nationwide. This is a manageable pool from Meridian's administrative perspective and is significantly narrower than a comparator class defined by industry vertical alone (which could encompass thousands of insurance-sector entities). The comparator class is also sufficiently well-defined to satisfy the definiteness requirement under New York law, as discussed in Section V.B above.
We note one potential refinement: the current definition encompasses "insurtech firms with annual premiums written of $500 million or more." Because some insurtech firms operate as technology platforms rather than risk-bearing entities, they may not write premiums directly. Quorum may wish to consider whether the comparator class should be expanded to include insurtech firms with aggregate annual revenue (rather than premiums written) exceeding a specified threshold, to ensure that technology-platform insurtechs that are significant purchasers of credit data are captured within the comparator class.
B. Pricing Metrics
Quorum's proposed MFN clause encompasses per-record pricing, volume discounts, and fee terms generally. This scope is consistent with prevailing market practice for MFN-price clauses and captures the most material pricing variables in the Quorum-Meridian relationship.
We recommend one important enhancement: the comparison should be conducted on an "effective per-record rate" basis — defined as total fees paid divided by total records delivered, calculated on a monthly or quarterly basis. This approach accounts for differences in data product mix, refresh frequency, and delivery method between Quorum's license and any comparator license, and provides a single, administrable metric for determining whether a triggering event has occurred. Without an effective per-record rate methodology, Meridian could argue that any comparator license involving a different data product mix is not "comparable" and therefore does not trigger the MFN — even if the comparator licensee is paying a materially lower effective rate for substantially similar data access. The effective per-record rate methodology collapses these distinctions into a single metric that captures the true economic cost of the data, regardless of the specific product and delivery configuration.
We further recommend that the MFN clause specify that the effective per-record rate calculation should include all fees (including base license fees, overage charges, and any recurring service or support fees) but should exclude one-time implementation fees and out-of-pocket expenses, which are not reasonably comparable across licensees given differences in technical architecture and integration complexity.
C. Adjustment Mechanism
Quorum has proposed an automatic adjustment mechanism, under which Quorum's pricing would be deemed adjusted to match the more favorable rate offered to a comparator licensee, effective as of the date of the triggering event, without requiring affirmative election by Quorum. Automatic adjustment provides the strongest pricing protection, as it ensures that Quorum receives the benefit of the more favorable rate from the earliest possible date and eliminates any risk that Quorum might fail to exercise an elective right within a specified period.
However, automatic adjustment is also the most intrusive mechanism from Meridian's perspective. It creates an obligation that operates automatically and retroactively, potentially requiring Meridian to issue credits or refunds for overpayments made during the period between the triggering event and the price adjustment.
We recommend that Quorum consider whether an elective adjustment mechanism — under which Quorum would have the option, but not the obligation, to elect the more favorable pricing upon notification — might represent a reasonable concession point in the negotiation. An elective mechanism provides Quorum with substantially equivalent protection (assuming that Quorum will always elect the more favorable rate when notified of a triggering event) while being perceived as less intrusive by Meridian. This concession could be offered in exchange for other valuable terms, such as Meridian's acceptance of the MFN clause itself or enhanced audit and verification rights.
If Quorum elects to pursue an elective mechanism, we recommend that the clause provide for a 60-day election period following notification, with the adjusted pricing taking effect retroactively to the date of the triggering event if Quorum elects within the 60-day window. This retroactive application ensures that Quorum does not lose the benefit of the more favorable pricing for the period between the triggering event and the election.
D. Confidentiality Protections
Addressing Meridian's confidentiality concerns is essential to achieving acceptance of the MFN clause. We recommend incorporating the following confidentiality protections:
(a) Limited notification obligation: Meridian would be required to notify Quorum of the existence of a triggering event — i.e., that Meridian has entered into a license agreement with a comparator licensee at a more favorable effective per-record rate — without disclosing the identity of the comparator licensee, the specific terms of the comparator license, or any other information that would permit Quorum to identify the comparator.
(b) Third-party auditor verification: Verification of MFN compliance would be conducted by a mutually agreed independent third-party auditor — such as a national accounting firm or a specialized data-industry consulting firm — selected from a pre-approved list of three to five firms identified in the MDLA or agreed upon by the parties. The auditor would review Meridian's relevant pricing records under appropriate confidentiality restrictions (including a separate auditor confidentiality agreement) and would provide Quorum with a report stating only: (i) whether Quorum's effective per-record rate exceeds the most favorable effective per-record rate offered to any comparator licensee; and (ii) if so, the amount of the required adjustment. The auditor's report would not disclose the identity of the comparator licensee, the specific terms of any comparator license, or any other confidential information.
(c) Confidentiality undertaking: Quorum would agree that any information received from Meridian or the auditor in connection with the MFN clause — including the fact of a triggering event, the amount of any adjustment, and any related communications — would be treated as Confidential Information under the MDLA's confidentiality provisions and would not be disclosed to any third party except Quorum's directors, officers, employees, and professional advisors with a need to know.
These protections are designed to address Meridian's concern that MFN compliance would require disclosure of confidential pricing information. By interposing a neutral third-party auditor between Meridian's confidential records and Quorum's MFN rights, the structure preserves the confidentiality of Meridian's other licensee relationships while providing Quorum with a meaningful and practical verification mechanism.
E. Recommended Exceptions and Carve-Outs
We recommend that the following exceptions and carve-outs be included in the MFN clause. These exceptions are consistent with prevailing market practice and address legitimate pricing variations that should not trigger the MFN obligation:
(i) Promotional or trial pricing: Licenses offered at introductory, promotional, or trial rates for a period of six months or less would be excluded from the MFN comparison. This carve-out is standard and acknowledges that short-term promotional pricing is a common marketing tool that does not reflect a licensee's ongoing effective rate.
(ii) Government-mandated pricing: Licenses to government agencies or government-sponsored enterprises at pricing mandated by statute, regulation, or government contract requirements would be excluded. Data vendors are sometimes required to provide data to government entities at regulated rates, and these transactions do not reflect market pricing.
(iii) Strategic-transaction licenses: Data licenses entered in connection with mergers and acquisitions, joint ventures, strategic partnerships, or similar transactions where the data license is a component of a broader transaction would be excluded. In such transactions, the data-license pricing may reflect the overall value of the broader relationship rather than a standalone market-rate assessment.
(iv) Volume-based differences: Comparator licensees processing more than 200% of Quorum's monthly volume may be excluded from the MFN comparison, on the rationale that their pricing may reflect genuine volume-based economies of scale that are not available to licensees at Quorum's volume tier. This threshold should be revisited if Quorum's volume increases significantly during the term.
We note that these carve-outs should be narrowly drafted to prevent Meridian from using them as a means of circumventing the MFN obligation. For example, the promotional/trial pricing carve-out should include a limitation on the number of times a single comparator licensee may receive promotional pricing and should provide that any promotional arrangement that is extended beyond six months or converted to a standard license will be treated as a triggering event.
F. Strengths of Quorum's Position
Several factors support Quorum's position in seeking an MFN clause:
• Deal size and anchor-tenant status. The $60 million aggregate deal value over a five-year term represents a substantial financial commitment that positions Quorum as one of Meridian's largest insurance-sector licensees. This anchor-tenant status provides commercial justification for pricing protection and creates leverage for the MFN demand.
• Narrowly tailored comparator class. Quorum's proposed comparator class is well-defined, industry-specific, and limited to approximately 100–150 entities. This materially reduces the administrative burden on Meridian relative to a broader comparator class and demonstrates Quorum's willingness to structure the MFN in a commercially reasonable manner.
• Willingness to use third-party auditor. Quorum's openness to verification through a neutral third-party auditor — rather than direct access to Meridian's pricing records — addresses Meridian's principal confidentiality objection and demonstrates good faith.
• Independent pricing benchmark. The Pinnacle Ridge Advisory LLC pricing benchmark study will provide independent, third-party support for Quorum's position that its pricing should be competitive with comparable insurance-sector licensees. This evidence strengthens Quorum's negotiating position by establishing an objective factual basis for the MFN demand.
G. Weaknesses and Risks
Several factors weigh against Quorum's MFN position or create risks that should be considered:
• Meridian's categorical refusal. Meridian has not merely resisted the MFN clause — it has categorically refused any MFN provision. This posture suggests that the MFN may be a genuine deal-breaker for Meridian, particularly given the alignment of Meridian's management, its private equity sponsor (Breckenridge Capital Partners, through Elaine Drummond