Commitments and contingencies:	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2015
Commitments and contingencies:
Commitments and contingencies:	4. Commitments and contingencies : Current and potential litigation In accordance with the accounting guidance for contingencies, the Company accrues its estimate of a contingent liability when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Where it is probable that a liability has been incurred and there is a range of expected loss for which no amount in the range is more likely than any other amount, the Company accrues at the low end of the range. The Company reviews its accruals at least quarterly and adjusts them to reflect the impact of negotiations, settlements, rulings, advice of legal counsel, and other information and events pertaining to a particular matter. The Company has taken certain positions related to its obligations for leased circuit and dark fiber obligations for which it is reasonably possible could result in a loss of up to $2.2 million in excess of the amount accrued at March 31, 2015. On March 27, 2015 the City of Sunrise Firefighters Retirement Fund (“Plaintiff”) filed suit against the Company in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware alleging that certain bylaw amendments regarding litigation had been adopted by the board in violation of Delaware law. On March 30, the Company rescinded the amendments to the bylaws and withdrew from the proxy a request that the stockholders give an advisory vote on the amendments. On April 1, the Company filed a supplement to the proxy, which acknowledged that the Company’s certificate of incorporation does not give the Company’s board of directors the power to amend the bylaws of the Company and that the provision of the bylaws that purports to give the board of directors such authority is not enforceable absent a grant of such authority in the certificate of incorporation. The board of directors agreed that it will not seek to adopt, amend or repeal any bylaws other than by a vote of stockholders, unless such power is conferred on the board of directors through an amendment to the Company’s certificate of incorporation. The Company and Plaintiff have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding to settle the lawsuit, subject to Court approval. Pursuant to the proposed settlement, the Company agreed that the lawsuit was the sole cause of the Company’s above-referenced March 30 and April 1 disclosures. In exchange, Plaintiff will consent to dismissal of this case with prejudice and the parties will exchange mutual releases. Plaintiff has indicated it will seek an award of attorney’s fees from the Court of an unknown amount. The Company has reserved the right to contest the amount of fees that may be awarded. Certain former sales employees of the Company filed a collective action against the Company in December 2011 in the United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division alleging misclassification of the Company’s sales employees throughout the United States in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The lawsuit sought to recover pay for allegedly unpaid overtime and other damages, including attorney’s fees. In March 2014, the judge de-certified the collective action. Each of the former employees that opted-in to the collective action retained the right to file an individual action. Approximately 70 former employees did so. The Company has settled a number of the cases that were filed and made the required settlement payments. Currently, four cases remain, of which two have been settled pending signature of the settlement agreements and/or court approval of the same. In the two remaining cases, the plaintiffs seek certification of a class or collective action related to the employees in that jurisdiction. The Company denies the claims and believes that the claims for unpaid overtime are without merit. The Company believes its classification of sales employees is in compliance with applicable law. In the normal course of business the Company is involved in other legal activities and claims. Because such matters are subject to many uncertainties and the outcomes are not predictable with assurance, the liability related to these legal actions and claims cannot be determined with certainty. Management does not believe that such claims and actions will have a material impact on the Company’s financial condition or results of operations. Judgment is required in estimating the ultimate outcome of any dispute resolution process, as well as any other amounts that may be incurred to conclude the negotiations or settle any litigation. Actual results may differ from these estimates under different assumptions or conditions and such differences could be material.

4. Commitments and contingencies :

Current and potential litigation

In accordance with the accounting guidance for contingencies, the Company accrues its estimate of a contingent liability when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Where it is probable that a liability has been incurred and there is a range of expected loss for which no amount in the range is more likely than any other amount, the Company accrues at the low end of the range. The Company reviews its accruals at least quarterly and adjusts them to reflect the impact of negotiations, settlements, rulings, advice of legal counsel, and other information and events pertaining to a particular matter. The Company has taken certain positions related to its obligations for leased circuit and dark fiber obligations for which it is reasonably possible could result in a loss of up to $2.2 million in excess of the amount accrued at March 31, 2015.

On March 27, 2015 the City of Sunrise Firefighters Retirement Fund (“Plaintiff”) filed suit against the Company in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware alleging that certain bylaw amendments regarding litigation had been adopted by the board in violation of Delaware law. On March 30, the Company rescinded the amendments to the bylaws and withdrew from the proxy a request that the stockholders give an advisory vote on the amendments. On April 1, the Company filed a supplement to the proxy, which acknowledged that the Company’s certificate of incorporation does not give the Company’s board of directors the power to amend the bylaws of the Company and that the provision of the bylaws that purports to give the board of directors such authority is not enforceable absent a grant of such authority in the certificate of incorporation. The board of directors agreed that it will not seek to adopt, amend or repeal any bylaws other than by a vote of stockholders, unless such power is conferred on the board of directors through an amendment to the Company’s certificate of incorporation.

The Company and Plaintiff have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding to settle the lawsuit, subject to Court approval. Pursuant to the proposed settlement, the Company agreed that the lawsuit was the sole cause of the Company’s above-referenced March 30 and April 1 disclosures. In exchange, Plaintiff will consent to dismissal of this case with prejudice and the parties will exchange mutual releases. Plaintiff has indicated it will seek an award of attorney’s fees from the Court of an unknown amount. The Company has reserved the right to contest the amount of fees that may be awarded.

Certain former sales employees of the Company filed a collective action against the Company in December 2011 in the United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division alleging misclassification of the Company’s sales employees throughout the United States in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The lawsuit sought to recover pay for allegedly unpaid overtime and other damages, including attorney’s fees. In March 2014, the judge de-certified the collective action. Each of the former employees that opted-in to the collective action retained the right to file an individual action. Approximately 70 former employees did so. The Company has settled a number of the cases that were filed and made the required settlement payments. Currently, four cases remain, of which two have been settled pending signature of the settlement agreements and/or court approval of the same. In the two remaining cases, the plaintiffs seek certification of a class or collective action related to the employees in that jurisdiction. The Company denies the claims and believes that the claims for unpaid overtime are without merit. The Company believes its classification of sales employees is in compliance with applicable law.

In the normal course of business the Company is involved in other legal activities and claims. Because such matters are subject to many uncertainties and the outcomes are not predictable with assurance, the liability related to these legal actions and claims cannot be determined with certainty. Management does not believe that such claims and actions will have a material impact on the Company’s financial condition or results of operations. Judgment is required in estimating the ultimate outcome of any dispute resolution process, as well as any other amounts that may be incurred to conclude the negotiations or settle any litigation. Actual results may differ from these estimates under different assumptions or conditions and such differences could be material.