NIU Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility Holdings, B.V. et al

FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------------------------
In re
NIU Holdings LLC,
Reorganized Debtor.
----------------------------------------------------------
x
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
x
Chapter 11
Case No. 15-10155 (SCC)
NIU Holdings LLC,
Plaintiff / Counterclaim Defendant,
v.
AT&T Mobility Holdings, B.V.; New Cingular
Wireless Services, Inc.; Nextel International
(Uruguay) LLC; and Comunicaciones Nextel
de México S.A. de C.V.,
Defendants / Counterclaim Plaintiffs
/ Third-Party Plaintiffs,
v.
NII Holdings, Inc.,
Third-Party Defendant.
--------------------------------------------------------
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
x
Adv. Pro. No. 19-01099
MEMORANDUM DECISION GRANTING MOTION OF NIU HOLDINGS LLC
AND NII HOLDINGS, INC. FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
19-01099-scc Doc 42 Filed 10/14/20 Entered 10/14/20 14:17:06 Main Document
Pg 1 of 36

- 2 -
A P P E A R A N C E S:
JONES DAY
250 Vesey St.
New York, New York 10281
By: Jane Rue Wittstein, Esq.
Thomas E. Lynch, Esq.
Andrew Butler, Esq.
Attorneys for Reorganized Debtors NIU Holdings LLC and NII Holdings, Inc.
SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
125 Broad Street
New York, New York 10004
By: James L. Bromley, Esq.
William B. Monahan, Esq.
Virginia R. Hildreth, Esq.
David Salter, Esq.
Ashley C. Lhérisson, Esq.
Attorneys for AT&T Mobility Holdings B.V., New Cingular Wireless Services, Inc., Nextel
International (Uruguay), LLC, and Comunicaciones Nextel de México, S.A. de C.V.
19-01099-scc Doc 42 Filed 10/14/20 Entered 10/14/20 14:17:06 Main Document
Pg 2 of 36

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
- i -
BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................................... 2
A. 	The Chapter 11 Cases and the Sale of the Telecommunications Business in
Mexico to New Cingular ........................................................................................ 2
B. 	Indemnification Obligations .................................................................................. 2
C. 	The Escrow Account .............................................................................................. 3
D. 	The Claim Notice ................................................................................................... 5
E. 	The Joint Release Notices ...................................................................................... 7
F. 	The Objection Notice ............................................................................................. 8
G. 	The Com Nextel 2010 and 2011 Tax Audits ......................................................... 9
H. 	The Adversary Complaint and the Counterclaims ................................................. 9
I. 	The Parties’ Arguments ....................................................................................... 11
DISCUSSION .............................................................................................................................. 13
A. 	Applicable Law .................................................................................................... 13
B. 	No Material Undisputed Facts Exist Which Preclude the Court from
Granting Summary Judgment .............................................................................. 14
1. 	In April 2017, AT&T Reserved $75.7 Million in Funds in the
Escrow Account for the 2010 and 2011 Com Nextel Tax Audits in
Accordance with the Escrow Agreement, and Such Audits Have
Been Finally Resolved ............................................................................. 15
2. 	The Escrow Agreement Provides for the Release of Funds Over the
Aggregate Disputed Claim Amounts Still Pending and Disputed ........... 16
C. 	Defendants’ Contentions Ignore the Plain, Unambiguous Language of the
Escrow Agreement ............................................................................................... 17
D. 	AT&T’s Refusal to Execute Joint Release Notices Upon Resolution of the
2010 and 2011 Com Nextel Tax Audits is a Breach of Section 3(e)(iii)(2)
of the Escrow Agreement..................................................................................... 23
E. 	NIU Is Entitled to Nine Percent Interest from the Date of AT&T’s Breach ....... 24
F. 	NIU and NII Are Entitled to Summary Judgment on Defendants’
Counterclaims ...................................................................................................... 26
19-01099-scc Doc 42 Filed 10/14/20 Entered 10/14/20 14:17:06 Main Document
Pg 3 of 36

TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
Page
- ii -
1. 	Defendants are Not Entitled to a Declaratory Judgment ......................... 28
a. 	AT&T Has No Current Basis to Demand Indemnification
from NIU or to Enforce its Guarantee Against NII ..................... 29
2. 	Defendants Are Not Entitled to Equitable Relief .................................... 31
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................ 32
19-01099-scc Doc 42 Filed 10/14/20 Entered 10/14/20 14:17:06 Main Document
Pg 4 of 36

HONORABLE SHELLEY C. CHAPMAN
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE:
This Adversary Proceeding centers on a dispute over the proper disposition of certain
funds in an escrow account that was created in 2015, at the time of the $1.875 billion acquisition
by New Cingular Wireless Services, Inc. (“New Cingular”) of the Mexican telecommunications
operations of NIU Holdings LLC (“NIU”) and NII Holdings, Inc. (“NII”). By the terms of the
purchase agreement documenting such acquisition, the parties agreed that (i) ten percent of the
$1.875 billion purchase price, i.e., $187.5 million, would be held in an escrow account in order
to cover the possibility of pre-closing liabilities asserted post-closing; and (ii) the funds from
such escrow account would only be distributed in accordance with the terms of an escrow
agreement executed by the parties. NIU and NII now claim that New Cingular and the other
Defendants1 are wrongly refusing to release $65,800,288 in escrow account funds which were
reserved on account of claims relating to tax audits which have now been resolved; they argue
that Defendants’ refusal to consent to the release of such funds is a breach of the parties’ escrow
agreement. NIU and NII have moved for summary judgment on the breach of contract claims
and seek a declaration that NIU is entitled to $65,800,288 currently being held in escrow.
Separately, Defendants have filed counterclaims against NIU and NII seeking (i) to obtain a
declaratory judgment that, inter alia, NIU is obligated to indemnify AT&T (as New Cingular’s
assignee) for the full amount of the alleged “Tax Claims” under the parties’ purchase agreement
and (ii) to enjoin NIU from dissolving its business without reserving for such claims in full. By
their motion for summary judgment, NIU and NII seek dismissal of Defendants’ counterclaims.
For the reasons that follow, the motion for summary judgment filed by NIU and NII is
granted.
1 	The four Defendants are: New Cingular, AT&T Mobility Holdings B.V. (“AT&T”), Nextel International
(Uruguay) LLC (“Nextel Uruguay”), and Comunicaciones Nextel de México S.A. de C.V. (“Com Nextel”).
19-01099-scc Doc 42 Filed 10/14/20 Entered 10/14/20 14:17:06 Main Document
Pg 5 of 36

- 2 -
Background
A. 	The Chapter 11 Cases and the Sale of the Telecommunications Business in Mexico
to New Cingular
On September 15, 2014, NII and several of its affiliates filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy
protection. On January 25, 2015, NIU filed its chapter 11 case. 2 During the pendency of their
chapter 11 cases, NIU and NII sold their Mexican telecommunications operations to New
Cingular pursuant to the Purchase and Sale Agreement, dated January 26, 2015 (the “Purchase
Agreement”). On March 23, 2015, this Court approved the proposed sale—including entry into
the Purchase Agreement and its accompanying Escrow Agreement (the “Escrow Agreement”
and, together with the Purchase Agreement, the “Agreements”)3 —in accordance with sections
105 and 363 of the Bankruptcy Code. As part of the sale transaction, NIU, New Cingular, and
nonparty Citibank N.A. (“Citibank” or “Escrow Agent”) executed the Escrow Agreement.
The sale closed on April 30, 2015 with a final purchase price of $1.875 billion, minus certain
adjustments.
B. 	Indemnification Obligations
By the Purchase Agreement, NIU agreed that it would be “responsible for, and will
indemnify and hold harmless [New Cingular] . . . for all Taxes and Damages relating to . . . any
taxes imposed on the Entities that are attributable to any Pre-Closing Period . . . .” (Purchase
Agreement § 11.4(a).) As part of the indemnification process, New Cingular or AT&T
(as purchaser New Cingular’s assignee) is required to give NIU notice of potential
indemnification matters once “a written notice of deficiency, proposed adjustment, adjustment,
2 	NIU’s bankruptcy proceedings were jointly administered with the NII chapter 11 cases. On October 18, 2016,
the Court entered the Final Decree Pursuant to Section 350(a) of the Bankruptcy Code and Bankruptcy Rule 3022
Closing the Debtors’ Jointly Administered Chapter 11 Cases. On February 11, 2019, NIU filed a motion to reopen
its bankruptcy case in order to commence this adversary proceeding (the “Adversary Proceeding”), which motion
was granted by order dated March 5, 2019.
3 	Adversary Proceeding ECF Nos. 1-2, 1-3.
19-01099-scc Doc 42 Filed 10/14/20 Entered 10/14/20 14:17:06 Main Document
Pg 6 of 36

- 3 -
assessment, audit, examination or other administrative or court proceeding, suit, dispute or other
claim (a ‘Tax Claim’) is delivered or sent to or commenced or initiated” against any indemnified
business entity “by any Governmental Authority with respect to Taxes or Tax Returns of any of
the Entities for which [New Cingular or its affiliates] may reasonably be entitled to
indemnification pursuant to Section 11.4 . . . .” (Purchase Agreement § 11.5(a).)
NII, as a “Seller Guarantor” under the Purchase Agreement, “irrevocably guarantee[d]”
to New Cingular “the full, complete and timely payment and performance . . . by [NIU] of each
and every payment and performance obligation” in the Purchase Agreement. (Purchase
Agreement § 12.13(a).) If NIU “defaults . . . on any such payment obligation when and to the
extent that any of the same will become due and payable,” then NII agreed to “unconditionally
pay or cause to be paid such payment obligation . . . immediately upon notice from [New
Cingular] specifying the default so that the same benefits will be conferred upon [New Cingular]
as would have been received if such payment or performance obligations had been duly
performed and satisfied” by NIU. (Id.)
C. 	The Escrow Account
The Purchase Agreement established the Escrow Account (governed by the Escrow
Agreement) to satisfy indemnification claims made within specified time windows for pre-
closing liabilities, including current and estimated future tax liabilities. (Purchase Agreement §§
11.4(a), 11.5(a), 11.7; Escrow Agreement § 3.) The Purchase Agreement provides that ten
percent of the sale consideration would be deposited in the Escrow Account and distributed in
accordance with the Escrow Agreement. Accordingly, after the sale transaction closed on
April 30, 2015, $187.5 million was deposited into the Escrow Account.
The Escrow Agreement sets forth the conditions under which funds in the Escrow
Account are to be distributed. If NIU (as seller) and AT&T (as purchaser New Cingular’s
19-01099-scc Doc 42 Filed 10/14/20 Entered 10/14/20 14:17:06 Main Document
Pg 7 of 36

- 4 -
assignee) agree on amounts to be disbursed from the account, they can jointly execute and
deliver to the Escrow Agent a joint release notice (“Joint Release Notice”) with instructions
on how, when, and to whom funds should be sent. (Escrow Agreement § 3(e)(i)(1).) The
procedure is different, however, when the parties disagree.
To the extent that AT&T intends to assert a claim against the Escrow Account,
Section 3(e)(i)(2) of the Escrow Agreement provides:
If the Purchaser intends to assert a claim against the Escrow
Account for Damages pursuant to Article 9 or Article 11 of the
Purchase and Sale Agreement (each, a “Claim”), then Purchaser
shall deliver a written notice to Escrow Agent (with a copy to
Seller) (each, a “Claim Notice”) describing such claim in
reasonable detail and stating the estimate of the amount of the
Escrow Account to be reserved with respect to such Claim
prepared in good faith based on information then available (the
amount set forth in the applicable Claim Notice, the “Claimed
Amount”).
(Escrow Agreement § 3(e)(i)(2).) Upon AT&T’s delivery of a Claim Notice describing any
claim in “reasonable detail” and providing an “estimate of the amount . . . to be reserved with
respect to such Claim,” NIU has thirty days to submit to the Escrow Agent an “Objection
Notice” setting forth any objection it may have to the Claim Notice. (Escrow Agreement §
3(e)(i)(3).)
If NIU delivers a timely Objection Notice to the Escrow Agent, then Section 3(e)(ii) of
the Escrow Agreement applies. Section 3(e)(ii) provides that the Escrow Agent will distribute
only those amounts that are undisputed between the parties and will “continue to hold in the
Escrow Account the amount in dispute (each such amount, a ‘Disputed Claim Amount’) . . . .”
(Escrow Agreement § 3(e)(ii).) The Escrow Agent is required to hold any Disputed Claim
Amount in the Escrow Account until it (i) receives from the parties a Joint Release Notice
directing the disposition of “all or part of” the Disputed Claim Amount, or (ii) receives from
19-01099-scc Doc 42 Filed 10/14/20 Entered 10/14/20 14:17:06 Main Document
Pg 8 of 36

- 5 -
either of the parties (with notice to the other party) a written notice of a legally binding
settlement agreement or a final order or judgment. (Escrow Agreement § 3(e)(ii).)
Under the Escrow Agreement, funds in the Escrow Account are available only for Claims
New Cingular (or AT&T, as its assignee) asserted on or before the “Final Release Date,” which
date was April 30, 2017, two years after the closing of the sale transaction. After the Final
Release Date, all funds remaining in the Escrow Account were to be returned to NIU, unless (i)
the funds were Disputed Claim Amounts “still pending or disputed” or (ii) NIU’s time to submit
an Objection Notice had not yet expired. (Escrow Agreement § 3(e)(iii)(1).).
The Escrow Agreement further provides that:
. . . [U]pon resolution of any dispute that was the subject of an
Objection Notice giving rise to a Disputed Claim Amount,
[NIU] and [New Cingular] shall deliver a Joint Release Notice
to the Escrow Agent to release from the Escrow Account,
(x) to [New Cingular], the applicable amount, if any, with respect
to such Disputed Claim Amount . . . and (y) to [NIU], an amount
equal to the excess of the entire balance then available in the
Escrow Account (if any) over the aggregate Disputed Claim
Amounts still pending or disputed pursuant to Claim Notices
executed and delivered by [New Cingular] and received by the
Escrow Agent prior to 6:00 p.m. local time in New York, New
York, on the Final Release Date, in each case, if any. . . .
(Escrow Agreement § 3(e)(iii)(2).)
D. 	The Claim Notice
On April 27, 2017, three days before the Final Release Date, AT&T delivered to NIU
a “Tax Claim Notice” stating that certain of AT&T’s affiliates were the subject of “Tax Claims
concerning Taxes attributable to Pre-Closing Periods.” (AT&T’s April 27, 2017 Tax Claim
Notice, ECF No. 1-4.) In its Tax Claim Notice, AT&T set forth its “Tax Claims” in chart form,
as follows:
19-01099-scc Doc 42 Filed 10/14/20 Entered 10/14/20 14:17:06 Main Document
Pg 9 of 36

- 6 -
Table 1
(AT&T’s April 27, 2017 Tax Claim Notice, Annex A, ECF No. 1-4.) AT&T presented its
claims as (i) an aggregate amount of $37,300,000 in “Estimated Taxes and Damages” for
affiliated “Other Entities” 4 and (ii) an aggregate amount of $80,600,000 in “Estimated Taxes and
Damages” for Com Nextel. (Id.)
Also on April 27, 2017, AT&T sent to the Escrow Agent an “Escrow Claim Notice”
that it described as a “Claim Notice in respect of the Tax Claims detailed in the Tax Claim
Notice and a Claim against the Escrow Account for Damages in accordance with Section
3(e)(i)(2) of the Escrow Agreement.” (AT&T’s April 27, 2017 Escrow Claim Notice, ECF No.
1-4, at 1.) AT&T incorporated its April 27, 2017 Tax Claim Notice into its Escrow Claim Notice
and requested “that the Escrow Agent reserve the Claimed Amount equal to the Tax Claim
Amount” (i.e., $117.9 million) in the Escrow Account. (AT&T’s April 27, 2017 Escrow Claim
Notice, ECF No. 1-4, at 1.) AT&T specifically stated that the figures provided therein were
estimates “subject to amendment in the event additional information becomes available.” (Id.)
After receiving AT&T’s notices on April 27, 2017 reflecting aggregate Claims totaling
4 	The affiliated “Other Entities” are Inversiones Nextel de Mexico, S. de R.L. de C.V. (“Inv. Mexico”),
NII Telecom S. de R.L. de C.V. (“NII Telecom”), and NII Digital, S. de R.L. de C.V. (“NII Digital”).
19-01099-scc Doc 42 Filed 10/14/20 Entered 10/14/20 14:17:06 Main Document
Pg 10 of 36

- 7 -
$80,600,000 related to Com Nextel and $37,300,000 related to the affiliated Other Entities, NIU
asked AT&T to provide more specificity, consistent with AT&T’s obligation under Section
3(e)(i)(2) of the Escrow Agreement to describe its claims “in reasonable detail.” On April 28,
2017, prior to the Final Release Date, AT&T provided to NIU the following “Breakdown of
Estimated Taxes and Damages in Dispute” by tax year and entity:
Table 25
E. 	The Joint Release Notices
Shortly after the Final Release Date, and consistent with Section 3(e)(iii)(1) of the
Escrow Agreement, NIU and AT&T promptly executed and delivered to Citibank (as Escrow
5 	ECF No. 1-5.
19-01099-scc Doc 42 Filed 10/14/20 Entered 10/14/20 14:17:06 Main Document
Pg 11 of 36

- 8 -
Agent) a Joint Release Notice, dated May 4, 2017, instructing Citibank to release $45,562,279.58
from the Escrow Account to NIU. NIU and AT&T agreed that such amount was the difference
between the total balance of the funds in the Escrow Account and the total of the Claimed
Amounts that AT&T identified in the notices it delivered prior to the Final Release Date.
Following discussions between NIU and AT&T regarding the facts underlying AT&T’s
claims against the Escrow Account, AT&T recalculated its estimate of the total amount of
taxes and damages indemnifiable in respect of the Tax Claims referenced in its April 27, 2017
Tax Claim Notice and reduced its aggregate claims from $117.9 million to $113.8 million.
Based on the foregoing, NIU and AT&T delivered to Citibank another Joint Release Notice,
dated May 18, 2017, directing Citibank to disburse $4.1 million from the Escrow Account to
NIU.
Additionally, on July 18, 2017, the parties agreed to a joint release of $3,816,390 from
the Escrow Account to NIU, bringing the balance of the Escrow Account to $109,941,971. In
July 2018, the parties agreed to the release of an additional $3,994,720.20 to AT&T to fund the
resolution of the 2011 Com Nextel tax audit, bringing the balance of the Escrow Account to
$105,947,250.80. Finally, in June 2019, after the commencement of this Adversary Proceeding,
the parties agreed to the release of $2,693,806 to AT&T to fund the resolution of the 2012 Com
Nextel tax audit, bringing the current balance of the Escrow Account to $103,425,987.81. 6
F. 	The Objection Notice
On May 25, 2017, NIU timely objected to the Escrow Claim Notice. (NIU’s May 25,
2017 Objection to Escrow Claim Notice, ECF No. 1-7.) As a result, AT&T’s $113.8 million in
6 	NIU has clarified that, while the complaint filed in the Adversary Proceeding in March 2019 (the “Complaint”)
demanded the release of $68.3 million from the Escrow Account, as a result of the $2,693,806 disbursed from the
Escrow Account in June 2019, the amount of funds in the Escrow Account exceeding the pending Disputed Claim
Amounts has been reduced from $68.3 million to approximately $65.8 million. By the Summary Judgment Motion
(as defined below), NIU and NII seek, among other things, a declaration that NIU is entitled to $65,800,288. (See
Summary Judgment Motion at 3 n. 5.)
19-01099-scc Doc 42 Filed 10/14/20 Entered 10/14/20 14:17:06 Main Document
Pg 12 of 36

- 9 -
claims against the Escrow Account, identified on April 27, 2017 (as set forth supra in Table 1)
and broken down into detail on April 28, 2017 (as set forth supra in Table 2), became “Disputed
Claim Amounts” under Section 3(e)(ii) of the Escrow Agreement.
G. 	The Com Nextel 2010 and 2011 Tax Audits
As set forth on the April 28, 2017 “Breakdown of Estimated Taxes and Damages in
Dispute” provided by AT&T to NIU (Table 2, supra), $75.7 million of the $117.9 million
originally claimed by AT&T in the Tax Claim Notice sent on April 27, 2017 was based on
unresolved 2010 and 2011 tax audits for Com Nextel. Since the delivery of the April 27, 2017
Tax Claim Notice, the 2010 and 2011 Com Nextel tax audits have been finally resolved, and the
relevant governmental authorities have confirmed that the audits are closed.
AT&T satisfied the 2010 Com Nextel tax audit without any outlay of cash; no funds from
the Escrow Account were disbursed in connection with that resolution. For the 2011
Com Nextel tax audit, as discussed supra, on July 9, 2018, NIU and AT&T agreed to a Joint
Release Notice that disbursed $3,994,720 from the Escrow Account to AT&T to fund resolution
of such audit.
H. 	The Adversary Complaint and the Counterclaims
On March 25, 2019, NIU filed the Adversary Proceeding seeking, among other
relief, a declaration that (i) there is no longer any dispute with respect to the 2010 and 2011 Com
Nextel tax audits, such that the funds in the Escrow Account associated with those now-resolved
Claims should be released to NIU and (ii) AT&T is in breach of the Escrow Agreement on
account of its failure to execute and deliver a Joint Release to the Escrow Agent on account of
such funds, which funds currently total approximately $65.8 million.
19-01099-scc Doc 42 Filed 10/14/20 Entered 10/14/20 14:17:06 Main Document
Pg 13 of 36

- 10 -
Defendants amended their answer on June 10, 2019 and asserted counterclaims against
NIU and NII (the “Counterclaims”).7 	By the Counterclaims, Defendants request that the Court
enter an order: (i) declaring that (a) NIU is obligated to indemnify AT&T for the full amount of
the “Tax Claims” under the Purchase Agreement, and (b) any dissolution of NII that does not
account for the maximum potential amount of AT&T’s Tax Claims is improper; (ii) enjoining
NII from dissolving without reserving the full estimated amount of AT&T’s asserted Tax
Claims; (iii) enjoining NII from releasing funds from the Escrow Account absent further order of
the Court; (iv) enjoining NIU and NII from releasing funds from any distribution absent further
order of this Court; and (v) awarding costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees to AT&T.8
On July 22, 2019, NIU and NII moved for summary judgment,9 requesting that the Court
enter judgment in NIU’s favor and dismiss AT&T’s counterclaims against NIU and NII (the
“Summary Judgment Motion”); that same day, the Defendants moved for judgment on the
pleadings in AT&T’s favor and against NIU for failure to state a cause of action.10 The
Defendants filed an objection to the Summary Judgment Motion (the “Objection”),11 together
with (i) the Declaration of James L. Bromley, to which was attached the Declaration of Diana
Sánchez Yáñez, and (ii) the Counter Statement under Bankruptcy Rule 7056-1 of Material Facts
and Replies to NII and NIU’s Statements of Undisputed Material Facts.12 NIU and NII filed a
7 	See Defendants’ Amended Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaims to the Complaint for Declaratory
Judgment and Breach of Contract Filed by NIU Holdings LLC (ECF No. 14).
8 	Id. at 30-31.
9 	See Motion of NIU Holdings LLC and NII Holdings, Inc. for Summary Judgment and Memorandum of Law in
Support of Motion of NIU Holdings LLC and NII Holdings, Inc. for Summary Judgment (ECF Nos. 21 and 24,
together, the “Summary Judgment Motion”). In support of the Summary Judgment Motion, NIU and NII also filed
the Declaration of Thomas E. Lynch (ECF No. 22) and their Statement of Undisputed Facts (ECF No. 23).
10 	See Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF No. 25-1, the
“Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings”). NIU and NII filed opposition to the Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings (ECF No. 29), to which the Defendants filed a reply (ECF No. 38).
11 	ECF No. 30.
12 	ECF Nos. 31 and 32.
19-01099-scc Doc 42 Filed 10/14/20 Entered 10/14/20 14:17:06 Main Document
Pg 14 of 36

- 11 -
reply to the Objection, together with (a) the Reply Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in
Support of Their Motion For Summary Judgment and (b) the Second Declaration of Thomas E.
Lynch in Support of Motion For Summary Judgment.13 On September 5, 2019, the Court held a
hearing on the Summary Judgment Motion and the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (the
“Hearing”).
I. 	The Parties’ Arguments
NIU and NII argue that, because the 2010 and 2011 Com Nextel tax audits are now
resolved—facts that AT&T cannot and does not dispute—NIU is entitled to the $65,800,288 in
the Escrow Account that was reserved for claims on account of those two audits. Stated
differently, according to NIU, the approximately $65.8 million it seeks is the difference between
(i) $103,421,588, the entire balance currently remaining in the Escrow Account and (ii)
$37,621,300, the aggregate amount of the remaining Disputed Claim Amounts asserted in the
Claim Notice that AT&T delivered before the Final Release Date.
In support of its assertion that AT&T is required to execute a Joint Release Notice for the
$65.8 million, NIU points to the language in the Escrow Agreement, which provides that “upon
resolution of any dispute that was the subject of an Objection Notice giving rise to a Disputed
Claim Amount, Seller and Purchaser shall deliver a Joint Release Notice to the Escrow Agent to
release from the Escrow Account . . . (y) to Seller, an amount equal to the excess of the entire
balance then available in the Escrow Account (if any) over the aggregate Disputed Claim
Amounts still pending or disputed pursuant to Claim Notices executed and delivered by
Purchaser and received by the Escrow Agent” 14 prior to the Final Release Date. Such
unambiguous language, asserts NIU, mandates that AT&T execute a Joint Release Notice to
13 	ECF Nos. 35, 36, and 37.
14 	Summary Judgment Motion at 8 (quoting Escrow Agreement § 3(e)(iii)(2) (emphasis added)).
19-01099-scc Doc 42 Filed 10/14/20 Entered 10/14/20 14:17:06 Main Document
Pg 15 of 36

- 12 -
cause the Escrow Agent to disburse to NIU those funds which are no longer the subject of
Claims that AT&T asserted before the Final Release Date—funds totaling $65.8 million.
NIU contends that AT&T’s refusal to execute a Joint Release Notice stems from its
present attempt to revamp the Claims it submitted in its Escrow Claim Notice in order to
reallocate to different claims those Escrow Account funds admittedly no longer needed for the
now-resolved 2010 and 2011 Com Nextel tax audits, notwithstanding the absence of any such
right in the Agreements. NIU further argues that AT&T’s unjustifiable refusal to sign the
required Joint Release Notice is a breach of the Escrow Agreement for which there is no legal
justification. Because the applicable contracts are unambiguous and there are no material
disputes with respect to those facts demonstrating NIU’s right to relief, NIU submits that
summary judgment is appropriate.
By their objection to the Summary Judgment Motion, Defendants argue that the motion
fails on both counts, as (i) NIU’s summary judgment arguments rely on extrinsic evidence,
rendering summary judgment inappropriate and (ii) NIU is not entitled to a declaratory judgment
because AT&T is under no obligation to agree to the release of funds comprising a Disputed
Claim Amount. Specifically, Defendants assert that the escrow release mechanism established
by the Agreements contemplated that a single Claim Notice could encompass multiple claims in
the aggregate, based on a “reasonable estimate” of the amount of the Escrow Fund to be reserved
to cover such claims that may necessarily evolve over time. (Objection at 10 (citing Escrow
Agreement § 3(e)(i)(2)).) They argue that the April 2017 Escrow Claim Notice that AT&T
delivered contained a single Claim—now, a single Disputed Claim Amount—that cannot be
broken apart. As a result, Defendants maintain that a resolution of a subset of the proceedings
underlying AT&T’s good faith estimate of the Claimed Amount does not require that any of such
funds be released from the Escrow Account.
19-01099-scc Doc 42 Filed 10/14/20 Entered 10/14/20 14:17:06 Main Document
Pg 16 of 36

- 13 -
Moreover, because AT&T contends that it met its obligation to deliver a timely Claim
Notice (i) identifying a Claimed Amount, (ii) describing the claim in “reasonable detail,” and
(iii) “stating a reasonable estimate of the amount . . . to be reserved” in good faith “based on
information then available,” and, based on the plain language of the Escrow Agreement, its
Claims were not finalized upon delivery of its Claim Notice. (Objection at 8-9 (citing Escrow
Agreement § 3(e)(i)(2).) Citing to decisions from this District which it maintains are controlling
here, AT&T argues that the Agreements contemplated that the Mexican tax claims may be “fluid
and evolving” and “may change” as new relevant information may become available with
respect to inchoate or unresolved claims. (Objection at 15 (citing Katzman v. Helen of Troy
Texas Corp., 2013 WL 325562, *13 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 28, 2013) (quotation marks omitted)).) As
such, because all of the claims encompassed by AT&T’s April 2017 Escrow Claim Notice were
timely noticed by AT&T in good faith, may change over time, and have not yet “run their
course,” AT&T contends that the full Claimed Amount should remain available in the Escrow
Account for future disbursement until the entirety of the Claimed Amount is resolved.
(Objection at 10-12.)
Discussion
A. 	Applicable Law
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, made applicable by Federal Rule of
Bankruptcy Procedure 7056, a party may move for summary judgment on any claim or any
portion of a claim. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Summary judgment is appropriate where “there is no
genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); see also Neshewat v. Salem, 365 F. Supp. 2d. 508, 517 (S.D.N.Y.
2005); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-50 (1986). A fact is material “if it
‘might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law.’” Royal Crown Day Care LLC v.
19-01099-scc Doc 42 Filed 10/14/20 Entered 10/14/20 14:17:06 Main Document
Pg 17 of 36

- 14 -
Dep’t of Health & Mental Hygiene of City of New York, 746 F.3d 538, 544 (2d Cir. 2014)
(quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)). In deciding if such an
issue of fact exists, the court must resolve all ambiguities and draw all reasonable inferences in
the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. Cifarelli v. Vill. of Babylon, 93 F.3d
47, 51 (2d Cir. 1996). To defeat a motion for summary judgment, the non-movant must set forth
specific evidence demonstrating the existence of a factual issue that is both material and
genuine. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 248. Where there are no disputes of material fact, “[t]he
proper interpretation of an unambiguous contract is a question of law for the court, and a dispute
on such an issue may properly be resolved by summary judgment.” Omni Quartz, Ltd. v. CVS
Corp., 287 F.3d 61, 64 (2d Cir. 2002); Am. Express Travel Related Servs. Co. v. Accu-Weather,
Inc., 849 F. Supp. 233, 239 (S.D.N.Y. 1994).
To establish a breach of contract as a matter of New York law, 15 a party must show: (i)
the existence of the relevant agreements; (ii) adequate performance by one party; (iii) breach by
the other party; and (iv) damages. See First Investors Corp. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 152 F.3d
162, 168 (2d Cir. 1998); Harsco Corp. v. Segui, 91 F.3d 337, 348 (2d Cir. 1996); see also Swan
Media Grp., Inc. v. Staub, 841 F. Supp. 2d 804, 807 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)).
B. 	No Material Undisputed Facts Exist Which Preclude the Court from Granting
Summary Judgment
The Defendants have failed to set forth specific evidence demonstrating the existence of a
factual issue that is material and genuine and which would render the instant dispute not ripe for
summary judgment. The Court has recited, supra, the material background facts and the
information on Table 1 and Table 2, none of which is in dispute. Specifically, with respect to
Tables 1 and 2, at the Hearing, counsel for the Defendants conceded that the Defendants do not
15 	New York law governs both the Purchase Agreement and the Escrow Agreement.
19-01099-scc Doc 42 Filed 10/14/20 Entered 10/14/20 14:17:06 Main Document
Pg 18 of 36

- 15 -
dispute “that the number on those pages are on those pages.”16 The Court finds that it need not
look to extrinsic evidence as to the parties’ intent in drafting the Agreements. Rather, the
pleadings submitted by all parties and the statements by counsel at the Hearing make clear that
NIU and the Defendants disagree not on genuine issues of fact, but instead on the interpretation
and application of the relevant provisions of the Escrow Agreement.17 The Court finds no
ambiguity in the language of such provisions. Accordingly, there is no need to resort to parole
evidence as to intent or as to any other issue pertaining to the interpretation of the Escrow
Agreement.
1. 	In April 2017, AT&T Reserved $75.7 Million in Funds in the Escrow
Account for the 2010 and 2011 Com Nextel Tax Audits in Accordance with
the Escrow Agreement, and Such Audits Have Been Finally Resolved
In accordance with Section 3(e)(i)(2) of the Escrow Agreement, AT&T delivered an
Escrow Claim Notice to Citibank on April 27, 2017, demanding that the Escrow Agent reserve
$117.9 million in total as set forth in the Tax Claim Notice sent to NIU. As set forth in Table 1,
supra, the Tax Claim Notice contained a chart separating AT&T’s Claims into two buckets of
tax claims: (i) an aggregate amount of $37,300,000 in “Estimated Taxes and Damages” for
affiliated “Other Entities” and (ii) an aggregate amount of $80,600,000 in “Estimated Taxes and
Damages” for Com Nextel. (AT&T’s April 27, 2017 Tax Claim Notice, ECF No. 1-4.)
By its April 28, 2017 “Breakdown of Estimated Taxes and Damages in Dispute” by tax
year and entity, AT&T clarified that $75.7 million of the aggregate $80.6 million that it had
reserved for Com Nextel’s estimated taxes and damages constituted estimated amounts for
Com Nextel’s tax audits for fiscal years 2010 ($38.6 million) and 2011 ($37.1 million). (See
16 	See Sept. 5, 2019 Hr’g Tr. (ECF No. 40) at 31:21-31:23.
17 	See id. at 31:25-32:6 (Mr. Bromley: “The question, though, is the import of what those numbers are on those
pages, and not just the numbers, but the categories, the different entities that are subject to tax claims, right, and for
what types of taxes. Now, and that goes into whether we complied with the provisions of the escrow agreement and
what did those provisions of the escrow agreement actually mean?”).
19-01099-scc Doc 42 Filed 10/14/20 Entered 10/14/20 14:17:06 Main Document
Pg 19 of 36

- 16 -
Table 2, supra, ECF No. 1-5.) Between April 2017 and July 2017, AT&T corrected errors in its
original calculations and reduced the potential indemnification amounts to be reserved for Com
Nextel’s 2010 and 2011 fiscal years to $35,462,965 and $36,857,706, respectively, for total
asserted Claims of $72,320,671 for Com Nextel covering those two tax years. Accordingly, as
of May 2017, the amount in the Escrow Account reserved for the 2010 and 2011 Com Nextel tax
audits was approximately $72.3 million, a number which has been confirmed by Defendants.
(See Declaration of Diana Sánchez Yáñez, ECF No. 31-1.) 18
NIU timely delivered an Objection Notice to AT&T’s Escrow Claim Notice, rendering
all components of AT&T’s Escrow Claim Notice “Disputed Claim Amounts” under the Escrow
Agreement. Because the 2010 and 2011 Com Nextel tax audits have been fully and finally
resolved, a fact which is not in dispute, pursuant to the terms of the Escrow Agreement, NIU is
entitled to receive the funds reserved for the 2010 and 2011 Com Nextel tax audits that were not
ultimately needed to resolve such audits.
2. 	The Escrow Agreement Provides for the Release of Funds Over the
Aggregate Disputed Claim Amounts Still Pending and Disputed
Section 3(e) of the Escrow Agreement establishes the procedures under which (i) AT&T
may assert a claim to funds in the Escrow Account before the Final Release Date; (ii) NIU may
object to such claim; and (iii) and the Escrow Agent will distribute funds upon resolution of
disputed claimed amounts. Specifically, subsection (i) of Section 3(e) governs undisputed
distributions as well as the process for delivering a Claim Notice and a corresponding Objection
Notice, if applicable; subsection (ii) governs disputed distributions and what funds should be
released and/or maintained by the Escrow Agent upon receipt of an Objection Notice; and
18 	For the 2011 Com Nextel tax audit, as discussed supra, NIU and AT&T agreed on July 9, 2018 to a Joint
Release Notice that disbursed $3,994,720 to AT&T from the Escrow Account to fund resolution of such audit.
Accordingly, as of the filing of this Adversary Proceeding, the funds in the Escrow Account reserved for the 2010
and 2011 Com Nextel tax audits totaled approximately $68.3 million, the amount demanded by NIU at the time it
filed its Complaint.
19-01099-scc Doc 42 Filed 10/14/20 Entered 10/14/20 14:17:06 Main Document
Pg 20 of 36

- 17 -
subsection (iii) governs how funds are to be distributed from the Escrow Account after the Final
Release Date, with subsection (iii)(2) specifically addressing the procedure for the Escrow Agent
to follow upon resolution of any dispute that was the subject of an Objection Notice.
Specifically, Section 3(e)(iii)(2) of the Escrow Agreement provides as follows:
After the Final Release Date and upon resolution of any dispute
that was the subject of an Objection Notice giving rise to a
Disputed Claim Amount, Seller and Purchaser shall deliver a Joint
Release Notice to the Escrow Agent to release from the Escrow
Account, (x) to Purchaser, the applicable amount, if any, with
respect to such Disputed Claim Amount that is payable pursuant
to Section 3(e)(ii) and (y) to Seller, an amount equal to the excess
of the entire balance then available in the Escrow Account (if any)
over the aggregate Disputed Claim Amounts still pending or
disputed pursuant to Claim Notices executed and delivered by
Purchaser and received by the Escrow Agent prior to 6:00 p.m.
local time in New York, New York, on the Final Release Date, in
each case, if any. . . .
(Escrow Agreement § 3(e)(iii)(2) (emphasis added).)
Therefore, as any dispute that gave rise to a portion of a Disputed Claim Amount is
resolved after the Final Release Date, the Escrow Agreement obligates the parties to deliver a
Joint Release Notice to the Escrow Agent releasing to the Purchaser or to the Seller, as
applicable, the “applicable amount” of the Disputed Claim Amount that has been resolved. Final
resolution of the 2010 and 2011 Com Nextel tax audits renders $65,800,288 in the Escrow
Account excess available funds “over the aggregate Disputed Claim Amounts still pending and
disputed pursuant to Claim Notices” that AT&T executed and delivered before the Final Release
Date.
C. 	Defendants’ Contentions Ignore the Plain, Unambiguous Language of the Escrow
Agreement
AT&T argues that its April 2017 Escrow Claim Notice (as subsequently clarified and
adjusted) set forth a single “Claim” giving rise to a single “Disputed Claim Amount” and that all
19-01099-scc Doc 42 Filed 10/14/20 Entered 10/14/20 14:17:06 Main Document
Pg 21 of 36

- 18 -
components of its Escrow Claim Notice need to be finally resolved before any one component is
considered final. AT&T relies on the “reasonable detail” and “based on information then
available” requirements of Section 3(e)(i)(2) of the Escrow Agreement to argue that, as long as it
complied with these requirements in its Claim Notice, the aggregate amount contained therein
would remain available for future disbursement “‘for the purpose of permitting those third-party
claims . . . to run their course.’” (Objection at 10-11 (citing Katzman, 2013 WL 325562, at *12).)
AT&T contends that the Agreements contemplate that its “good faith claims before the Final
Release Date may necessarily change over time” (Objection at 12), and that the Escrow
Agreement permits it to have one large, adjustable “Claim” that must be held in escrow and can
be amended until all “buckets” of its Claimed Amount are resolved. As further support for its
argument, AT&T maintains that it reserved its rights to amend its Claim by specifically stating in
the April 27, 2017 Escrow Claim Notice that the figures provided were estimates “subject to
amendment in the event additional information becomes available.” (Objection at 5 (citing April
27, 2017 Escrow Claim Notice, ECF No. 1-4).)
The Court disagrees. Nowhere in the plain language of the Escrow Agreement does it
state that AT&T’s obligations to provide a “reasonable estimate” in “reasonable detail” give
AT&T a right to amend its Claims after the Final Release Date. The Court observes that such a
reading of the Escrow Agreement would render the Final Release Date and the provisions of
Section 3(e) meaningless. As NIU correctly asserts, “[n]othing in either the Purchase Agreement
or the Escrow Agreement suggests that AT&T or its affiliates have a right to unilaterally
combine individual Claims into an amorphous amount that can then be amended after the Final
Release Date and applied to different facts after the date the parties agreed was the deadline for
asserting any Claim against the Escrow Account.” (Summary Judgment Motion at 23.) In fact,
the Escrow Agreement provides that any funds retained in the Escrow Account after the Final
19-01099-scc Doc 42 Filed 10/14/20 Entered 10/14/20 14:17:06 Main Document
Pg 22 of 36

- 19 -
Release Date were to be released, in all cases, “pursuant to Claim Notices executed and delivered
by Purchaser and received by the Escrow Agent prior to 6:00 p.m. local time in New York, New
York, on the Final Release Date, in each case, if any. . . ,” after subtracting Disputed Claim
Amounts “still pending or disputed” pursuant to Claim Notices received before the Final Release
Date from the “excess of the entire balance” remaining in the Escrow Account. (Escrow
Agreement § 3(e)(iii)(2).) This provision further highlights the absence of language in the
Escrow Agreement providing that Claims could be increased after the Final Release Date. The
Court observes that, had the parties intended to include such a provision, they could have chosen
to do so. Finally, AT&T’s argument that the reservation of rights language that it included in its
notices supports its right to amend its Claim based on new information learned after the Final
Release Date is also unsupported and does not alter the Court’s conclusion in this regard.
AT&T also argues that the Escrow Agreement permits it to make one large “Claim” and
to reallocate the portions within such Claim after the Final Release Date. In support of this
argument, AT&T focuses on the term “Claimed Amount,” as such term is used in Section
3(e)(i)(2) of the Escrow Agreement, to contend that the “Claimed Amount” becomes “the
amount in dispute,” and that such claim “can be comprised of multiple tax claims.” (Sept. 5,
2019 Hr’g Tr. At 38:12-40:23.) Accordingly, such “Claimed Amount,” AT&T asserts, should be
rightfully held in escrow until all portions of such Claimed Amount are resolved.
Simply put, this is not what the Escrow Agreement provides. The Escrow Agreement
identifies each claim in the singular (i.e., “each, a ‘Claim’”), calling for “such Claim” to be
described before the Final Release Date “in reasonable detail and stating a reasonable estimate of
the amount of the Escrow Account to be reserved with respect to such Claim prepared in good
faith based on information then available.” (Escrow Agreement, § 3(e)(i)(2).) As NIU
accurately points out, interpreting each basis for a Claim under Section 3(e)(i)(2) as a singular
19-01099-scc Doc 42 Filed 10/14/20 Entered 10/14/20 14:17:06 Main Document
Pg 23 of 36

- 20 -
Claim is also consistent with Section 11.5(a) of the Purchase Agreement, which allows AT&T
(or an affiliate Purchaser) to request indemnification from NIU based on any “written notice of
deficiency, proposed adjustment, adjustment, assessment, audit, examination or other
administrative or court proceeding, suit, dispute or other claim (a ‘Tax Claim’)” from or by a
“Governmental Authority with respect to Taxes or Tax Returns of any of the Entities for which
Purchaser or its Affiliates may reasonably be entitled to indemnification.” (Purchase Agreement
§ 11.5(a).) The indemnification rights under the Purchase Agreement each represent an
individualized “Tax Claim,” which is consistent with AT&T’s own April 28, 2017 “Breakdown
of Estimated Taxes and Damages in Dispute,” which references the tax audits for individual
entities and tax years. (ECF No. 1-5.)
Sections 3(e)(ii) and (iii) of the Escrow Agreement also provide that individual Claims
are distinct from each other and can be resolved separately, whereupon amounts held in escrow
can be released. Section 3(e)(ii) specifically refers to the buckets of Claims which may comprise
the Disputed Claim Amount, requiring the Escrow Agent to hold any Disputed Claim Amount
until the agent (1) receives from the parties a Joint Release Notice directing the disposition of
“all or part of” the Disputed Claim Amount, or (2) receives from either of the parties (with
notice to the other party) a written notice of a legally binding settlement agreement or a final
order or judgment. (Escrow Agreement § 3(e)(ii) (emphasis added.) Section 3(e)(iii) of the
Escrow Agreement likewise sets forth circumstances under which funds are to be distributed
from the Escrow Account “[a]fter the Final Release Date and upon resolution of any dispute
that was the subject of an Objection Notice giving rise to a Disputed Claim Amount.”
(See Escrow Agreement § 3(e)(iii)(2)) (emphasis added).)
Finally, as counsel for NIU correctly asserted at the Hearing, the words “any dispute” are
given meaning under the Escrow Agreement by AT&T’s Claim Notice and NIU’s Objection
19-01099-scc Doc 42 Filed 10/14/20 Entered 10/14/20 14:17:06 Main Document
Pg 24 of 36

- 21 -
Notice. If NIU does not object to a Claim Notice within thirty days, NIU is deemed to have
agreed to such Claimed Amount without dispute, and the Escrow Agent is required to release to
AT&T the amount demanded by the Claim Notice. (See Escrow Agreement § 3(e)(i)(3).) The
Objection Notice informs the Escrow Agent what funds need to be reserved. Here, the Objection
Notice delivered by NIU on May 25, 2017 disputed on a year-by-year basis the Claims asserted
by AT&T in the Claim Notice and prevented the Escrow Agent from releasing such funds.
Accordingly, were AT&T’s theory that it could increase or reallocate its claim a correct one,
there would be no opportunity provided for NIU to deliver an Objection Notice objecting to any
new claim by AT&T. There would be no Objection Notice from NIU to clearly indicate to the
Escrow Agent what funds to reserve for any Claim increased or modified by AT&T after the
Final Release Date. This is not surprising, since such a loophole would effectively render the
Final Release Date meaningless by allowing AT&T to continuously recharacterize and/or
increase claims against the Escrow Account. Nothing in the Escrow Agreement gives AT&T a
right to change the basis for or increase the amount of any Claims after the Final Release Date.
Based on each of these provisions of the Escrow Agreement, the Court concludes that the
Escrow Agreement unambiguously provides that Claims set forth in a Claim Notice timely
submitted before the Final Release Date cannot be increased or recharacterized after such date.
Defendants attempt to rely upon three decisions from this District,19 two decided in the
Katzman v. Helen of Troy Texas Corp. litigation and one decided in American Securities LLC, to
argue that the funds sought by NIU should not be released because all of AT&T’s Claims have
not yet “run their course.” (See Objection at 11 (citing Katzman v. Helen of Troy Texas Corp.,
2013 WL 325562 at *12).) Defendants cite to Katzman in support of their argument that,
19 	See Objection at 1, 8-15, 18 n.5 (citing Katzman v. Helen of Troy Texas Corp., 2013 WL 325562
(S.D.N.Y. Jan. 28, 2013); Katzman v. Helen of Troy Texas Corp., 2013 WL 1496952 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 11, 2013);
American Securities LLC v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 2013 WL 5718477 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 15, 2013)).
19-01099-scc Doc 42 Filed 10/14/20 Entered 10/14/20 14:17:06 Main Document
Pg 25 of 36

- 22 -
because AT&T’s Claim Notice provided a reasonable estimated based upon information then
available, “the Agreements must be read to contemplate that good faith claims before the Final
Release Date may necessarily change over time.” (Objection at 12.)
While Katzman does indeed address the release of funds held in escrow, it is factually
distinguishable from this case. In Katzman, the plaintiff sought the release of all funds in the
escrow account immediately upon the passing of the final release date, asserting the funds should
be released because no indemnification amount was immediately payable. The court held that
the language of the escrow agreement required the funds to remain in escrow until the claims for
which funds were reserved had “run their course.” See Katzman v. Helen of Troy Texas Corp.,
2013 WL 325562, at *12. Similarly, in American Securities LLC, the plaintiff also demanded
immediate disbursement of escrow funds upon the final release date because, while the timely
noticed tax claims also remained unresolved, no actual liability had been imposed at that time.
See American Securities LLC, 2013 WL 5718477, at *1-3. The American Securities court held
that the plaintiff was not entitled to immediate disbursement of the funds at the final release date
because the parties’ agreements contemplated that at least some portion of the funds would be
retained after the final release date “specifically for the purpose of resolving unresolved claims
such as those at issue in this case.” Id. at *10. Here, in contrast, NIU waited until the 2010 and
2011 Com Nextel tax audits were resolved before seeking the release of funds reserved for such
audits, and there is no dispute that such audits have been fully and finally resolved.
Significantly, nothing in the decisions cited by Defendants supports the conclusion that a
purchaser can increase the amount of its estimated claims after the final release date or otherwise
prevents the release of escrow funds for resolved claims in order to use such funds to pay new
claims.
19-01099-scc Doc 42 Filed 10/14/20 Entered 10/14/20 14:17:06 Main Document
Pg 26 of 36

- 23 -
NIU is thus entitled to judgment declaring that there is no longer any dispute with respect
to Defendant Com Nextel’s 2010 and 2011 audits and the excess $65,800,288 in the Escrow
Account should be released to NIU.20
D. 	AT&T’s Refusal to Execute Joint Release Notices Upon Resolution of the 2010 and
2011 Com Nextel Tax Audits is a Breach of Section 3(e)(iii)(2) of the Escrow
Agreement
NIU also seeks judgment declaring that, because AT&T refused to execute Join Release
Notices directing the Escrow Agent to transfer to NIU the funds previously held in escrow for
the Com Nextel 2010 and 2011 audits, AT&T is in breach of the Agreements. Section
3(e)(iii)(2) of the Escrow Agreement provides as follows:
After the Final Release Date and upon resolution of any dispute
that was the subject of an Objection Notice giving rise to a
Disputed Claim Amount, Seller and Purchaser shall deliver a Joint
Release Notice to the Escrow Agent to release from the Escrow
Account, (x) to Purchaser, the applicable amount, if any, with
respect to such Disputed Claim Amount that is payable pursuant to
Section 3(e)(ii) and (y) to Seller, an amount equal to the excess of
the entire balance then available in the Escrow Account (if any)
over the aggregate Disputed Claim Amounts still pending or
disputed pursuant to Claim Notices executed and delivered by
Purchaser and received by the Escrow Agent prior to 6:00 p.m.
local time in New York, New York, on the Final Release Date, in
each case, if any. . . .
(Escrow Agreement § 3(e)(iii)(2) (emphasis added).) Final resolution of the 2010 and 2011
Com Nextel tax audits rendered $65,800,288 in the Escrow Account excess available funds
“over the aggregate Disputed Claim Amounts still pending and disputed pursuant to Claim
Notices” that AT&T executed and delivered before the Final Release Date. This amount is
calculated (pursuant to Section 3(e)(iii)(2)) by taking the balance of the Escrow Account as of
20 	As noted, this amount is lower than the $68.3 million that NIU demanded upon the filing of the Adversary
Proceeding primarily due to the June 24, 2019 release of funds from the Escrow Account that the parties agreed
could be used to pay an amount due for Com Nextel’s tax audit for the 2012 fiscal year, which release occurred
subsequent to the commencement of the Adversary Proceeding.
19-01099-scc Doc 42 Filed 10/14/20 Entered 10/14/20 14:17:06 Main Document
Pg 27 of 36

- 24 -
June 28, 2019—$103,421,588.85—and subtracting from it AT&T’s pre-Final Release Date
estimates for the remaining unresolved buckets of its April 27, 2017 Claim Notice, which total
$37,621,300 in the aggregate, as set forth in the Declaration of Diana Sánchez Yáñez filed by the
Defendants. (See Declaration of Diana Sánchez Yáñez, ECF No. 31-1.) This amount is
$65,800,288. AT&T is required by the mandatory “shall” language in Section 3(e)(iii)(2) to join
NIU in delivering a Joint Release Notice to the Escrow Agent directing it to transfer such funds
to NIU. The Court finds that, by refusing to do so, AT&T is in breach of this affirmative
obligation imposed by the Escrow Agreement, and NIU is entitled to summary judgment on its
claim for breach of contract.
E. 	NIU Is Entitled to Nine Percent Interest from the Date of AT&T’s Breach
The parties next dispute whether NIU is entitled to prejudgment interest on its breach of
contract claim. NIU asserts that it is entitled to such interest under New York law, which grants
prejudgment interest to prevailing plaintiffs in breach of contract actions from “the earliest
ascertainable date the cause of action existed . . . .” N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 5001(b). Absent a contrary
contractual provision, such interest is calculated at the statutory rate of “nine per centum per
annum.” Id. § 5004. NIU argues that its cause of action for breach of the Escrow Agreement
existed at least from the dates on which the 2010 and 2011 Com Nextel tax audits were resolved
and AT&T refused to sign Joint Release Notices. Therefore, according to NIU, prejudgment
interest should be calculated from (i) October 24, 2018, with respect to the $35,462,965 reserved
for the 2010 Com Nextel tax audit and (ii) April 2, 2019, with respect to the $32,862,986
reserved for the 2011 Com Nextel tax audit, as each of the audits was finally resolved on such
dates.21
21 	NIU submits that these dates are “conservative” and that the dates of AT&T’s breach could arguably be
fixed at earlier dates, such as when amended tax returns were filed or when the required payment was made. NIU
states that it has selected these dates (by which the 2010 and 2011 Com Nextel tax audits were indisputably final) in
19-01099-scc Doc 42 Filed 10/14/20 Entered 10/14/20 14:17:06 Main Document
Pg 28 of 36

- 25 -
In response, AT&T urges the Court to deny NIU’s requested relief seeking a declaration
that AT&T is in breach of Escrow Agreement, even if the Court ultimately finds that the funds at
issue should be released. Without a finding of breach of contract, the provision of the New York
C.P.L.R providing for statutory prejudgment interest is inapplicable. See Wilder v. World of
Boxing LLC, 310 F. Supp. 3d 426, 450 (S.D.N.Y. 2018), aff’d, 777 F. App’x 531 (2d Cir. 2019)
(denying request for prejudgment interest where there was no finding of breach of contract).
Lastly, AT&T requests that even if the Court awards prejudgment interest to NIU, the nine
percent statutory rate should be adjusted to reflect the approximately five basis points per year
paid to the Escrow Account by the Escrow Agent, “in order to avoid an inequitable windfall” to
NIU. (Objection at 25 n.10.)
New York law governs the Escrow Agreement. New York’s Civil Practice Law and
Rules provide that “[i]nterest shall be recovered upon a sum awarded because of a breach of
performance of a contract, or because of an act or omission depriving or otherwise interfering
with title to, or possession or enjoyment of, property . . . from the earliest ascertainable date the
cause of action existed . . . .” N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 5001(a)-(b); see also NML Capital v. Republic of
Argentina, 17 N.Y.3d 250, 258 (2011) (a party that prevails in a breach of contract action is
entitled to obtain prejudgment interest from the earliest date on which its claim accrued). This
entitlement to prejudgment interest includes instances in which sums are awarded from an
escrow fund. See Callen v. Fourteenth Church of Christ, Scientist N.Y.C., 112 F. App’x 79, 81
(2d Cir. 2004) (“[T]he fact that the money was being held in an escrow account does not prevent
the district court’s action from being interpreted as an award of a sum.”); Katzman v. Helen of
order to avoid a dispute that could unnecessarily prolong these proceedings. (See Summary Judgment Motion at 26
n.15.) AT&T has not disputed these dates.
19-01099-scc Doc 42 Filed 10/14/20 Entered 10/14/20 14:17:06 Main Document
Pg 29 of 36

- 26 -
Troy Texas Corp., 2013 WL 1496952, at *2 (“[E]ven where, as here, damages are awarded from
an escrow fund, prejudgment interest is generally awarded.”).
Here, the Court has found that AT&T breached the Escrow Agreement by refusing to
execute Joint Release Notices to release excess Escrow Account funds after the final resolution
of the 2010 and 2011 Com Nextel tax audits. Accordingly, Section 5001 of the New York
C.P.LR. requires that prejudgment interest run from the dates on which AT&T was in breach,
here, the dates when the tax audits were indisputably finalized. AT&T has not pointed to any
contractual provision specifying an alternative rate of prejudgment interest or any waiver of
NIU’s right to prejudgment interest. See Katzman v. Helen of Troy Texas Corp., 2013 WL
1496952, at *6 (stating that a party may waive a right to statutory prejudgment interest but, to be
valid, such waiver must be “clear and express”). Further, the Court is not persuaded that the
statutory rate should be reduced by the interest earned by the Escrow Account. In Katzman, the
District Court similarly confronted whether to grant prejudgment interest on sums held in an
interest-bearing escrow account and declined to reduce the mandatory statutory rate of nine
percent per annum by the interest earned by the account. (See Katzman, 2013 WL 1496952, at
*3-4.). So too here. NIU is awarded prejudgment interest at nine percent per annum
commencing on (i) October 24, 2018, with respect to the $35,462,965 reserved for the 2010 Com
Nextel tax audit and (ii) April 2, 2019, with respect to the $32,862,986 reserved for the 2011
Com Nextel tax audit.
F. 	NIU and NII Are Entitled to Summary Judgment on Defendants’ Counterclaims
By the Counterclaims, Defendants request that the Court enter an order: (i) declaring that
(a) NIU is obligated to indemnify AT&T for the full amount of the “Tax Claims” under the
Purchase Agreement, and (b) any dissolution of NII that does not account for the maximum
potential amount of AT&T’s Tax Claims is improper; (ii) enjoining NII from dissolving without
19-01099-scc Doc 42 Filed 10/14/20 Entered 10/14/20 14:17:06 Main Document
Pg 30 of 36

- 27 -
reserving the full amount of the current purported estimate for the total amount of AT&T’s
alleged Tax Claims; (iii) enjoining NII from releasing funds from the Escrow Account absent
further order of the Court; (iv) enjoining NIU and NII from releasing funds from any distribution
absent further order of this Court; and (v) awarding costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees to
AT&T.
NIU and NII seek dismissal of the Counterclaims, arguing that (i) Defendants have not
identified any “actual controversy” that could justify their request for a declaratory judgment and
(ii) Defendants have no legal or factual basis for their requested equitable relief. With respect to
AT&T’s request for declaratory relief, NIU and NII argue that it is undisputed that Defendants
have no current basis to assert either an underlying indemnification claim against NIU or a
guarantee claim against NII under the Purchase Agreement, as NIU has not defaulted on any
payment obligation or otherwise failed to perform its obligations under such agreement. (Reply
at 18.) Accordingly, they assert that there is no actual controversy sufficient to invoke section
2201(a) of title 28 of the United States Code (the “Declaratory Judgment Act”).
AT&T responds that there is a present controversy—the protection of AT&T’s
contingent contractual rights—which is sufficient to support its claims for relief under the
Declaratory Judgment Act. In addition, AT&T urges this Court to issue the injunction sought by
the Counterclaims in order to protect what it characterizes as its undisputed indemnification
rights under the Agreements, as AT&T’s “counterparty blatantly plans to circumvent” AT&T’s
“substantial contingent contractual rights” by dissolving without adequate reserves for AT&T’s
indemnification claims. (Objection at 3.) AT&T submits that an injunction is within this
Court’s equitable powers to protect AT&T’s indemnification rights, “rights recognized by this
Court as fundamental to the key asset sale in its supervision of NIU’s reorganization.”
(Objection at 28.)
19-01099-scc Doc 42 Filed 10/14/20 Entered 10/14/20 14:17:06 Main Document
Pg 31 of 36

- 28 -
1. 	Defendants are Not Entitled to a Declaratory Judgment
The Declaratory Judgment Act provides, in pertinent part, that “[i]n a case of actual
controversy within its jurisdiction . . . any court of the United States, upon the filing of an
appropriate pleading, may declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party
seeking such declaration, whether or not further relief is or could be sought. Any such
declaration shall have the force and effect of a final judgment or decree and shall be reviewable
as such.” 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a). Stated differently, declaratory relief is available as a remedy
only if an “actual controversy” exists between the parties and “[t]he determinative issue is
‘whether the facts alleged, under all the circumstances, show that there is a substantial
controversy, between parties having adverse legal interests, of sufficient immediacy and reality
to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment.’” Spirit Realty, L.P. v. GH & H Mableton,
LLC, 227 F. Supp. 3d 291, 296-97 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) (quoting Md. Cas. Co. v. Pac. Coal & Oil
Co., 312 U.S. 270, 273 (1941)). “This standard is ‘conceptually linked to the doctrine of
ripeness, requiring that the claim of threatened injury be of direct and immediate impact and the
injury sufficiently likely to occur, so as to render the issue appropriate for judicial review.’” Id.
at 297 (quoting Dow Jones & Co. v. Harrods, Ltd., 237 F. Supp. 2d 394, 407 (S.D.N.Y. 2002)).22
“Generally, claims involving indemnification obligations are not justiciable until liability
has been imposed upon the party to be indemnified” and “federal courts have generally declined
to award declaratory relief” where there is no liability yet. U.S. Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Orion
Plumbing & Heating Corp., 321 F. Supp. 3d 313, 318-19 (E.D.N.Y. 2018) (citations omitted).
In order to determine whether Defendants’ claims for a declaratory relief are ripe, the Court must
22 	Even where an actual controversy exists, the court still has discretion under the Declaratory Judgment Act to
decline to exercise its jurisdiction. See Spirit Realty, L.P. v. GH & H Mableton, LLC, 227 F. Supp. 3d at 297. When
making this determination, courts in the Second Circuit consider, inter alia, “‘(i) whether the judgment will serve a
useful purpose in clarifying or settling the legal issues involved; [and] (ii) whether a judgment would finalize the
controversy and offer relief from uncertainty. . . .’” Id. (quoting N.Y. Times Co. v. Gonzales, 459 F.3d 160, 167 (2d
Cir. 2006)).
19-01099-scc Doc 42 Filed 10/14/20 Entered 10/14/20 14:17:06 Main Document
Pg 32 of 36

- 29 -
consider whether Defendants have a current basis to assert either an underlying indemnification
claim against NIU or a guarantee claim against NII.
a. 	AT&T Has No Current Basis to Demand Indemnification from NIU
or to Enforce its Guarantee Against NII
Defendants’ Counterclaim for declaratory relief seeks a declaration that (i) NIU is
obligated to indemnify AT&T for the full amount of the “Tax Claims” under the Purchase
Agreement, and (ii) any dissolution of NII that does not account for the maximum potential
amount of AT&T’s Tax Claims is improper. (Counterclaims ¶ 64.). The claim for
indemnification from NIU stems from Defendants’ assertion that, “[p]ursuant to [the Purchase
Agreement and the Escrow Agreement], the Purchase Agreement requires NIU to indemnify
AT&T for the Full Amount of the Tax Claims.” (Counterclaims ¶ 65.)
Section 11.4(a) of the Purchase Agreement requires that NIU “indemnify and hold
harmless [AT&T] for, without duplication, all Taxes and Damages relating to (i) any Taxes
imposed on the Entities that are attributable to any Pre-Closing Period . . . .” (Purchase
Agreement § 11.4.). The Purchase Agreement obligates NIU to indemnify AT&T (as assignee
of New Cingular) for “Taxes and Damages” under Purchase Agreement Section 11.4, not “Tax
Claims” under Section 11.5. The term “Tax Claim,” utilized by AT&T in its Counterclaim, is
defined in Section 11.5 of the Purchase Agreement with reference to the process of administering
issues for which AT&T and its affiliates “may reasonably be entitled to indemnification pursuant
to Section 11.4 . . . .” (Purchase Agreement § 11.5(a).) As NIU correctly asserts, “Tax Claims”
may at a future date become “Taxes and Damages” when audits are complete and Taxes imposed
are payable pursuant to Section 11.4 of the Purchase Agreement, “but Defendants’ contention
that ‘the Purchase Agreement requires NIU to indemnify AT&T for the full amount of the Tax
19-01099-scc Doc 42 Filed 10/14/20 Entered 10/14/20 14:17:06 Main Document
Pg 33 of 36

- 30 -
Claims’ . . . is an inaccurate statement of NIU’s obligations that is devoid of support in the text
of the Purchase Agreement.” (Summary Judgment Motion at 28-29.)
Notwithstanding AT&T’s assertion that the “total amount of open, indemnifiable Tax
Claims” is $502,922,689 (Counterclaims ¶ 55), AT&T has failed to specifically identify any
unpaid Taxes and Damages that would give rise to an indemnification claim under the Purchase
Agreement which have not already been reimbursed by NIU. Accordingly, the Court has not
been presented with an actual controversy sufficient to warrant the issuance of a declaratory
judgment with respect to Defendants’ claim for indemnification from NIU.
As Defendants have failed to demonstrate that NIU owes and has failed to pay any
indemnifiable obligations under Section 11.4 of the Purchase Agreement, Defendants’ request
for a declaratory judgment to enforce guarantee rights against NII similarly fails. Specifically,
Section 12.13 of the Purchase Agreement provides that, if NIU:
defaults for any reason whatsoever on any [ ] payment obligation
or fails to perform such performance obligation when and to the
extent that any of the same will become due and payable, then
[NII] will unconditionally pay or cause to be paid such payment
obligation or perform or cause to be performed such performance
obligation immediately upon notice from Purchaser specifying the
default so that the same benefits will be conferred on Purchaser as
would have been received if such payment or performance
obligations had been duly performed and satisfied . . . .
(Purchase Agreement § 12.13.). Here, none of the conditions precedent to NII’s guarantee
obligations has occurred. NIU has not defaulted on any payment obligation or otherwise failed
to perform any other obligation which would trigger an enforceable guarantee right against NII.
As Defendants have not established a basis to assert either an indemnification claim against
NIU or a guarantee claim against NII, their requests for a declaratory judgment are not ripe for
resolution at this time. Simply put, there is no actual controversy sufficient to warrant the
issuance of a declaratory judgment sought by the Counterclaims. The Summary Judgment
19-01099-scc Doc 42 Filed 10/14/20 Entered 10/14/20 14:17:06 Main Document
Pg 34 of 36

- 31 -
Motion is granted with respect to the dismissal of the Counterclaims for declaratory relief against
NII and NIU.
2. 	Defendants Are Not Entitled to Equitable Relief
By the Counterclaims, Defendants also request equitable relief in the form of an order (a)
enjoining NII from dissolving without reserving the full amount of the current purported estimate
for the total amount of AT&T’s alleged Tax Claims; (b) enjoining NII from releasing funds from
the Escrow Account absent further order of the Court; and (c) enjoining NIU and NII from
releasing funds from any distribution absent further order of this Court. (Counterclaims ¶¶ 69-
71.). Defendants assert that, “[i]f NII liquidates without reserving sufficient funds to cover
AT&T’s tax claims . . . AT&T will be ‘left without recourse’ because ‘the Escrow Account [will
be] already empty.’” (Objection at 29 (citing Am. Sec. LLC, 2013 WL 5718477, at *11).)
Defendants’ speculative concern that a dissolution of NII may impact the payment of a
hypothetical future contractual claim assertable by AT&T for money damages is insufficient to
support their request for injunctive relief. “It is a basic doctrine of equity jurisprudence that
courts of equity should not act . . . when the moving party has an adequate remedy at law and
will not suffer irreparable injury if denied equitable relief.” Morales v. Trans World Airlines,
Inc., 504 U.S. 374, 381 (1992) (citations omitted); Beacon Theatres, Inc. v. Westover, 359 U.S.
500, 506–07 (1959) (“The basis of injunctive relief in the federal courts has always been
irreparable harm and inadequacy of legal remedies.”). Defendants do not allege sufficient facts
supporting a claim of irreparable harm warranting the imposition of equitable relief. As stated,
supra, because no “Taxes and Damages” are currently due from NIU to AT&T, a fact that
neither party disputes, it follows that no indemnification claim or guarantee claim is extant and
unpaid.
19-01099-scc Doc 42 Filed 10/14/20 Entered 10/14/20 14:17:06 Main Document
Pg 35 of 36

- 32 -
Finally, the Supreme Court has held that federal courts have “no authority to issue a
preliminary injunction preventing petitioners from disposing of their assets pending adjudication
of respondents’ contract claim for money damages.” Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo S.A. v. All.
Bond Fund, Inc., 527 U.S. 308, 333 (1999) (ruling on district courts’ equitable jurisdiction under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 65). Although here the Defendants request the entry of a permanent injunction
and not a preliminary injunction, the Supreme Court’s reasoning is nonetheless applicable. The
Court declines to entertain the Defendants’ request for injunctive relief relating to hypothetical
claims for potential future liabilities that may arise under the Agreements. The Court grants the
Summary Judgment Motion with respect to the dismissal of the Counterclaims for equitable
relief against NII and NIU.
Conclusion
For all of the foregoing reasons, the Summary Judgment Motion is granted. NIU is
entitled to the immediate disbursement of $65,800,288 held in the Escrow Agreement
administered by Citibank N.A., plus prejudgment interest at nine percent per annum (i)
commencing on October 24, 2018 with respect to the Escrow Account funds reserved for the
2010 Com Nextel tax audit and (ii) commencing on April 2, 2019 with respect to the Escrow
Account funds reserved for the 2011 Com Nextel tax audit. The Counterclaims are dismissed.
The parties are directed to submit an order consistent with this decision.
Dated: October 14, 2020
New York, New York
/S/ Shelley C. Chapman
THE HONORABLE SHELLEY C. CHAPMAN
19-01099-scc Doc 42 Filed 10/14/20 Entered 10/14/20 14:17:06 Main Document
Pg 36 of 36