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 Service Board and the West Virginia Public Service Commission, relating primarily to rate making. In addition, the Company may be involved in similar proceedings with interconnection carriers and the Federal Communications Commission (the “FCC”). Currently, except as set forth below, 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 60 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. 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”) for all pre-trial proceedings. On November 17, 2015, the Court issued a memorandum opinion and order dismissing the federal-law claims with prejudice, dismissing the state-law claims but granting leave to re

-plead said claims, and denying the Defendants’ request to refer the matter to the FCC. The Court continues to handle pre-trial motions related to some LEC Defendants’ counterclaims, with decisions on those matters and final summary judgment motions not scheduled to occur until April of 2017. After all pre-trial matters are addressed, Sprint, MCI and Verizon have indicated they will appeal the Court’s November 17, 2015 decision making. Accordingly, it is not possible to determine at this time whether these lawsuits will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business.

On 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: (1) any traffic intentionally routed over Interexchange carrier (“IXC”) trunks by IXCs should be subject to access charges; (2) only carriers with specific agreements with an LEC may use alternative billing arrangements; (3) federal tariffing rules require the LECs to assess access charges for switched access traffic routed through Feature Group D trunks; and (4) 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. No timeline has been established for a decision by the FCC and the FCC has given no indication that it intends to issue a ruling in the near future

. Accordingly, it is not possible to determine at this time whether this action will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business.