In a $50 million dispute between AT&T and a former top sales partner, jurors in the Texas Business Court heard opening statements Tuesday morning that told very different stories, framing the breach of contract case as either a display of “corporate greed” or an unraveling scheme of “bribes and cover-ups.”
Judge Andrea Bouressa is presiding over the case. Since the Texas Business Court does not have its own space, the weeklong jury trial is taking place in Dallas County District Court Judge Eric Moyé’s courtroom in the George Allen Courts Building.
The dispute stems from AT&T’s practice of contracting with third-party representatives and entities to market and sell its services for commissions. Plaintiff Faisal Chaudhry was an AT&T employee for four years until he left in 2008 to operate Spearhead Networks, which entered a service-provider agreement with the telecom giant in 2010.
Plaintiff Chris Percy, who was at AT&T for 26 years and served as a vice president in 2018, coordinated and supervised high-value business sales with providers like Spearhead Consulting. Percy left to join Spearhead Consulting in 2019.
In 2022, AT&T received grand jury subpoenas from the U.S. attorney’s office for the Northern District of California requesting information about Spearhead Networks and several former AT&T employees.
Spearhead Consulting renamed itself to Fiberwave in 2023 and became one of AT&T’s largest third-party providers. Percy terminated Chaudhry’s employment.
The following year, AT&T ended its contract with Fiberwave, claiming it was due to a Department of Justice investigation into the company and an alleged kickback scheme. In its termination letter, AT&T stated it would withhold payments pending further investigation into Spearhead’s alleged misconduct.
Fiberwave filed this suit against AT&T in February 2025, claiming that the mobile company owes it $50 million in compensation for marketing and reselling AT&T’s services to businesses.
However, AT&T claims that Spearhead violated its contract when it filed suit, alleging it contained confidential information. Spearhead later removed the confidential information at AT&T’s request, but the company called it “another example of its brazen disregard for contractual obligations.”
Last month, Judge Bouressa issued a memorandum opinion on the motions for summary judgment, disposing of fraud claims on both sides, which left the remaining contract claims to the jury. She found neither party provided enough evidence to support the fraud claims.
“In sum, the Court determined that the briefing and evidence before it on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment was such that Fiberwave’s fraudulent inducement claim and AT&T’s fraud claims against Chaudhry, Fiberwave, and Percy could not proceed to trial as a matter of law,” Judge Bouressa wrote.
She further ruled that AT&T’s guidebook provision capping vested post-termination compensation at “no more than 36 monthly payments remaining on an order” is ambiguous as to whether that window runs from the order’s start date or the termination date. The issue will be presented to the jury.
Out of the 70 potential jurors called, five women and nine men were chosen to serve on the 14-member jury panel.
Fiberwave’s counsel, James Shields of Shields Legal Group, told the jury that AT&T benefited from Fiberwave’s work and then failed to pay for it.
“We believe that promises do matter, and that promises should be kept,” Shields said.
He told the jury that Fiberwave is owed $50 million for its work.
Shields explained that Fiberwave and Spearhead Networks are separate companies, but AT&T is going to say they are the same.
“It’s a stunning display of hubris by a big company that they would even try to do this,” Shields said.
He said the disputed agreement is exclusively between AT&T and Fiberwave. Shields explained Fiberwave is not arguing whether AT&T had a right to terminate. It is arguing it should be paid for its work.
“It’s not like we’re saying, ‘You didn’t get the money, and we still want our money.’ They got paid. They have the money. They’re holding it. It’s vested,” Shields said.
Shields said AT&T was going to claim Spearhead Networks was bribing AT&T employees and giving kickbacks.
“They’re going to call them whatever it is they’re going to call them,” Shields said. “Frankly, I don’t really care because it’s all nonsense.”
He called it “corporate greed” to hold on to the money.
AT&T’s counsel, Pete Marketos of Reese Marketos, told the jurors that it is more exhausting to unwind a tale than to tell one.
“You’re about to find out what happened in this case and why we are where we are, and it’s pretty simple,” Marketos said.
He said Fiberwave’s counsel skipped part of the narrative.
“And now I’m going to tell you the rest of the story. It’s about agreements, it’s about bribes, and it’s about a cover-up,” Marketos said, calling it the “ABCs.”
Marketos agreed Fiberwave and Spearhead Networks are separate, but under the agreement with AT&T, they are treated the same because Spearhead Networks was a subcontractor for Fiberwave.
Marketos claimed that — under AT&T’s service-provider agreement — if a provider breaks the law or learns of a government investigation, then the agreement is terminated and the commission payments are limited.
“Break the law, it’s over,” Marketos said.
He explained that AT&T didn’t just receive subpoenas from the DOJ, but also two from the FBI and three from the IRS asking for hundreds of documents.
AT&T hired Sidley Austin to conduct an internal inquiry concurrently with the government investigation.
Marketos told the jury that AT&T is owed $8.4 million for the nearly two-year internal investigation that Sidley attorneys completed.
Marketos claimed the investigation discovered that Percy received $225,000 from Chaudhry that was deposited into his son’s college account, which he used to buy his son a Ford Explorer and to pay for his son’s tuition at Southern Methodist University.
“Sometimes things are elementary at the end of the day. It’s a complex scheme, tough facts to uncover,” Marketos said. “Takes a long time to unwind the tale, but sometimes it comes down to the ABCs. There was an agreement. There was a bribe. A lot of them. There was a cover-up.”
Spearhead Networks counsel Matthew Muckleroy of Crawford Wishnew Lang briefly addressed the jury, stating this is a breach of contract case.
“I want you to see through kind of all of the noise, all the hyperbole that you’re going to be hearing about, and make AT&T show its work. Hold AT&T to its burden on this identification of division, and don’t just trust AT&T, because I think, as you’ll see, as the evidence shows, putting your trust in AT&T does not get you very far,” Muckleroy said.
Sasha Begovic, Bart Higgins and R. Brian Shields of Shields Legal Group and Byron Henry of Henry Hill Firm are representing Fiberwave and Percy.
Matthew Muckleroy, Dallas Flick, Michael Lang, and David Wishnew of Crawford Wishnew Lang are representing Spearhead Networks and Chaudhry.
Pete Marketos, Tyler Bexley, Will Hamilton, Brett Rosenthal, and Whitney Wendel of Reese Marketos and Leah Bower of Lehotsky Cohn are representing AT&T.
The case number is 25-BC01A-0013.