XML 55 R16.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v2.4.0.6
Commitments and Contingencies
9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2012
Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract]  
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
9. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

The Company enters into purchase commitments with vendors in the ordinary course of business, including minimum purchase agreements with certain suppliers of handsets. The Company also has long-term purchase contracts with vendors to support the on-going needs of its business. These purchase commitments and contracts have varying terms and in certain cases may require the Company to buy goods and services in the future at predetermined volumes and at fixed prices.

The Company is involved in various claims, legal actions and regulatory proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business and has recorded litigation reserves of approximately $525 at September 30, 2012 against certain current claims and legal actions. The Company is presently a defendant in a class action lawsuit; however, it does not believe that the plaintiff class, if finally certified, is more likely than not to prevail. Accordingly, no amounts have been recorded for this matter. The Company believes that the disposition of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position, comprehensive income or cash flows. It is the Company’s policy to expense costs associated with loss contingencies, including any related legal fees, as they are incurred.

Alaska Wireless Network Transaction

On June 4, 2012, the Company entered into an Asset Purchase and Contribution Agreement with General Communication, Inc., (“GCI”), ACS Wireless, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of ACS (the “ACS Member”), GCI Wireless Holdings, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of GCI (the “GCI Member”) and The Alaska Wireless Network, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of GCI (“AWN”), for the purpose of combining their wireless networks into AWN as described below (the “AWN Transaction”). ACS will own one-third of AWN and GCI will own two-thirds of AWN.

Pursuant to the Asset Purchase and Contribution Agreement, ACS will cause one or more of its affiliates to sell to the GCI Member certain assets used primarily in ACS’s wireless operations (the “Purchased Assets”) for a cash payment of $100,000. Both the ACS Member and the GCI Member will contribute to AWN all the assets used primarily in each of ACS’s and GCI’s respective wireless operations, including, in the case of the GCI Member, the Purchased Assets. The assets to be contributed include spectrum licenses, cell sites and backhaul facilities, switching systems and certain other assets necessary to operate the combined Alaska state-wide wireless network being contributed to AWN. ACS and GCI will not contribute certain “Excluded Assets”, which include cash, accounts receivable and subscriber agreements. AWN will assume from ACS and GCI post-closing liabilities of ACS and GCI, and their respective affiliates, under contracts assumed by AWN and certain other liabilities. All other liabilities will be retained by ACS or GCI, or their respective affiliates.

Consummation of the transactions is subject to various conditions, including the consent of the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”), the expiration or termination of applicable waiting periods under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, and other customary closing conditions. The parties to the Contribution Agreement expect to consummate the transactions no later than the second quarter of 2013.

 

On October 1, 2012, the parties to the Asset Purchase and Contribution Agreement amended the agreement to, among other things, extend the date by which the agreement of ACS’s lenders would need to be obtained to November 2, 2012, and extend the date by which consent of the IBEW would need to be obtained to January 31, 2013.

On October 4, 2012, the CBA with the IBEW, as amended to reflect the waiver of the provisions referenced above, was ratified by the IBEW membership. See “Note 10 – Subsequent Events” for a summary of this amendment.

On November 1, 2012, the Company entered into an amendment of its Senior Credit Facility whereby the agreement of its lenders was obtained. See “Note 10 – Subsequent Events” for a summary of this amendment.

The Asset Purchase and Contribution Agreement contains certain termination rights for each of the parties. In the event the Contribution Agreement is terminated by ACS or GCI because GCI and its affiliates (in the case of a termination by ACS) or ACS and its affiliates (in the case of a termination by GCI) fail to maintain certain material non-regulatory consents, the non-terminating party would be required to pay the terminating party a termination fee of $5,000. If ACS terminates to accept a superior proposal, ACS would be required to pay GCI a $20,000 fee, and if GCI terminates to accept a superior proposal, GCI would be required to pay ACS a $40,000 fee.

Crest Internal Revenue Service Matter

On April 19, 2010, the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) issued a Notice of Proposed Adjustment (“NOPA”) with respect to the 2006, 2007 and 2008 taxable years of Crest, which was acquired by the Company on October 30, 2008. Crest had acquired certain entities out of bankruptcy in 2002. The original majority stockholder of these entities, an Australian insurance company, AMP, had made certain advances to the entities. These entities entered into bankruptcy in 2001 and the bankruptcy court approved a plan which effectively subordinated these advances to all other creditors. Upon acquiring the entities in 2002, Crest characterized the advances as equity for tax purposes. The IRS is asserting that characterization of the AMP advances as equity was incorrect and that Crest had additional taxable income due to the cancellation of debt.

On November 2, 2010, the IRS reissued their original NOPA and issued four additional NOPAs which restated their original position on debt versus equity and assessed the Company for accuracy related penalties and for adjustments to the tax treatment of optical cables, fibers and related conduit. On May 31, 2011, the IRS issued a 30-day letter and revenue agent’s report which restated the IRS’s position in the NOPAs while adding certain additional adjustments. In the third quarter of 2011, the IRS sent a rebuttal letter to the Company’s responses to the NOPAs discussed above. The case was submitted to the IRS’s Appeals Office and the Company’s first hearing occurred on July 19, 2012. Resolution of this matter may not occur for a year or more. The cancellation of indebtedness income at the amounts set out in the above IRS documents could result in a charge to income tax expense of approximately $93,738, $54,248 of which would be a result of additional taxes payable, including accrued interest, and $39,490 of which would be a result of the reduction in recognized deferred tax assets. For the Company’s 2008 and 2009 Federal tax returns the IRS proposed to disallow $862 in depreciation and amortization, consistent with the above positions.

The Company believes there are errors within the adjustments asserted by the IRS. If the IRS accepts the corrections the Company believes are appropriate, but prevails on the underlying debt versus equity issue, the result is expected to be a receivable from the IRS for the overpayment of alternative minimum tax of $2,781, a charge to income tax expense of approximately $29,678, and a net reduction in recognized deferred tax assets. The Company believes it is more-likely-than-not that it will prevail on factual errors included in the NOPAs; however, it is unable to conclude it is more-likely-than-not it will prevail on the underlying debt versus equity issue. Therefore, in accordance with the guidance in ASC Topic 740, Income Taxes (“ASC 740”), the Company recorded $29,678 in additional income tax expense and a $2,781 receivable in the second quarter of 2010, pending resolution with the IRS.

The additional income tax expense is made up of two components: the first representing $11,018 for the tax effect of losing NOLs while the remaining $18,660 represents a deferred tax liability for the difference in outside basis in certain Crest subsidiaries. ASC 740 requires recognition of a deferred tax liability for outside basis differences. An outside basis difference represents the amount by which the book basis of an investment in a domestic subsidiary for financial reporting purposes exceeds the tax basis in such subsidiary. For certain Crest subsidiaries, the cancellation of debt created a difference in outside basis that the Company cannot recover in a tax free manner and as such, a deferred tax liability was established. Through enforcing indemnification rights, preserving the corporate structure of the Crest subsidiaries and other proactive steps, it is possible to mitigate most or all of the cash impact of the $18,660 deferred tax liability for as long as the Company remains a going concern.

The Stock Purchase Agreement (“SPA”) underlying the Company’s acquisition of Crest provides for indemnification for the Company by the Selling Stockholders of Crest. The indemnifications are intended to mitigate the impact on the Company of potential exposure items such as those raised by the NOPAs. The Company and the Selling Stockholders intend to contest all issues raised by the NOPAs through various avenues of appeal. However, should the appeals process fail to overturn the NOPAs, should the Company be unable to preserve the corporate structure of the Crest subsidiaries and should the Company prove unable to effectively enforce the indemnification provisions in the SPA, this could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position, comprehensive income and cash flows.

The Company’s final purchase price for Crest included $4,169 of cash consideration placed in an escrow account to be used for the settlement of any potential claims of misrepresentations, breach of warranties or covenants or for other indemnifications. At September 30, 2012 $3,430 remained in the escrow account to be used for the settlement of expenses related to the current IRS audit discussed above. All other escrow issues have been resolved.