6.	Commitments and Contingencies

From time to time, the Company

may

be involved in various claims, legal actions and regulatory proceedings incidental to and in the ordinary course of business, including administrative hearings of the Alabama Public Service Commission, the Maine Public Utilities Commission, the Massachusetts Department of Telecommunications and Cable, the Missouri Public Service Commission, the New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission, the Vermont Public Utility Commission and the West Virginia Public Service Commission, relating primarily to rate making and customer service requirements. In addition, the Company

may

be involved in similar proceedings with interconnection carriers and the Federal Communications Commission (the “FCC”). Currently,

none

of the Company’s legal proceedings are expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business.

Sprint Communications L.P. (“Sprint”), MCI Communications Services, Inc. (“MCI”) and Verizon Select Services, Inc. (“Verizon”) filed more than

lawsuits in federal courts across the United States alleging that over

400

local exchange carriers (“LECs” or “LEC Defendants”) overcharged Sprint, MCI and Verizon for so-called intraMTA traffic (wireless phone calls that originate and terminate in the same metropolitan transit area). The lawsuits seek a refund of previously-paid access charges for intraMTA traffic, as well as a discount related to intraMTA traffic on a going-forward basis. One of the Company’s subsidiaries, MMT, was named as a defendant in

two

of the lawsuits that are being brought before the District Court for the Western District of Missouri (

one

filed on

May 2, 2014,

by Sprint and the other filed on

September 5, 2014,

by MCI and Verizon). In addition,

one

of the Company’s other subsidiaries, OTP, was named as a defendant in a lawsuit relating to these issues filed by MCI and Verizon in the District Court for the District of Delaware on

September 5, 2014.

In addition, MMT filed suit, along with other LECs, against Level

Communications LLC (“Level

3”

) seeking payment of access charges that Level

was refusing to pay because of its position on intraMTA traffic. As all of the lawsuits relating to these issues raise the same fundamental questions of law, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has consolidated the lawsuits in the District Court for the Northern District of Texas (the “Court”). On

May 5, 2018,

the Court granted the LEC Defendants’ request to dismiss all of the claims brought by Sprint, MCI and Verizon. The Court also granted the LECs’ motion for summary judgment against Level

Sprint, MCI and Verizon have appealed the Court’s ruling. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (the “Fifth Circuit”) is currently accepting party appearances and corporate disclosures. A briefing schedule from the Fifth Circuit is expected in the near future.

November 10, 2014,

a large coalition of the LEC Defendants, including MMT and OTP, filed a petition for declaratory ruling with the FCC seeking a ruling by the FCC that: (

) any traffic intentionally routed over Interexchange carrier (“IXC”) trunks by IXCs should be subject to access charges; (

) only carriers with specific agreements with an LEC

may

use alternative billing arrangements; (

) federal tariffing rules require the LECs to assess access charges for switched access traffic routed through Feature Group D trunks; and (

) the IXCs

may

not

engage in self-help by refusing to pay the LEC Defendants’ properly assessed access charges. On

March 11, 2015,

the LEC Defendants filed their reply brief with the FCC.

timeline has been established for a decision by the FCC.