COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2020
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	12. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Litigation, Regulatory Proceedings and Other Contingencies Access Charges In 2014, Sprint Communications Company L.P. (“Sprint”) along with MCI Communications Services, Inc. and Verizon Select Services Inc. (collectively, “Verizon”) filed lawsuits against certain subsidiaries of the Company including FairPoint Communications, Inc. (“FairPoint”) and many other Local Exchange Carriers (collectively, “LECs”) throughout the country challenging the switched access charges LECs assessed Sprint and Verizon, as interexchange carriers (“IXCs”), for certain calls originating from or terminating to mobile devices that are routed to or from these LECs through these IXCs. The plaintiffs’ position is based on their interpretation of federal law, among other things, and they are seeking refunds of past access charges paid for such calls. The disputed amounts total $4.8 million and cover periods dating back as far as 2006. CenturyLink, Inc. and its LEC subsidiaries (collectively “CenturyLink”), requested that the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the “Panel”), which has the authority to transfer the pretrial proceedings to a single court for multiple civil cases involving common questions of fact, transfer and consolidate these cases in one court. The Panel granted CenturyLink’s request and ordered that these cases be transferred to and centralized in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas (the “U.S. District Court”). On November 17, 2015, the U.S. District Court dismissed these complaints based on its interpretation of federal law and held that LECs could assess switched access charges for the calls at issue (the “November 2015 Order”). The November 2015 Order also allowed the plaintiffs to amend their complaints to assert claims that arise under state laws independent of the dismissed claims asserted under federal law. While Verizon did not make such a filing, on May 16, 2016, Sprint filed amended complaints and on June 30, 2016, the LEC defendants named in such complaints filed, among other things, a Joint Motion to Dismiss them, which the U.S. District Court granted on May 3, 2017. Certain of our FairPoint LEC entities filed counterclaims against Sprint and Verizon. Relatedly, in 2016, numerous LECs across the country, including a number of our legacy Consolidated and FairPoint LEC entities, filed complaints in various U.S. district courts against Level 3 Communications, LLC and certain of its affiliates (collectively, “Level 3”) for its failure to pay access charges for certain calls that the November 2015 Order held could be assessed by LECs. The Company’s LEC entities, including FairPoint, sought from Level 3 a total amount of at least $2.3 million, excluding attorneys’ fees. These complaint cases were transferred to and included in the above-referenced consolidated proceeding before the U.S. District Court. Level 3 filed a Motion to Dismiss these complaints that, in part, repeated arguments, which the November 2015 Order rejected. On March 22, 2017, the U.S. District Court denied Level 3’s Motion to Dismiss. On March 12, 2018, a motion for summary judgment was filed by various LECs with counterclaims against Verizon and Sprint. On March 26, 2018, a motion for summary judgment was filed by various LECs with claims against Level 3. On May 15, 2018, the U.S. District Court granted all pending motions for summary judgment against Sprint, Verizon, and Level 3, and directed the entry of formal judgments in these cases. On July 17, 2018, the U.S. District Court entered a judgment of $0.7 million in favor of our legacy Consolidated LEC entities and against Level 3. Level 3 filed a notice of appeal of this judgment with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (the “Fifth Circuit”) on July 24, 2018. On August 15, 2018, the U.S. District Court entered a judgment of over $1.2 million in favor of our FairPoint LEC entities and against Level 3. Level 3 filed a notice of appeal of this judgment with the Fifth Circuit on August 20, 2018. On September 21, 2018, all of our LECs entered into a settlement agreement with Level 3 to resolve the dispute with respect to all past-due amounts at issue in the litigation. The settlement did not result in a material impact to our financial statements. As part of the settlement, the parties filed on October 18, 2018 joint stipulations to dismiss with prejudice the related complaints by our LECs against Level 3 with the U.S. District Court and a joint motion to voluntarily dismiss the Level 3 appeal against our LECs with the Fifth Circuit. The Fifth Circuit granted this motion on October 25, 2018 by dismissing the Level 3 appeal. Formal judgments were entered in the Verizon and Sprint cases on June 7, 2018. Verizon and Sprint filed notices of appeal of these judgments with the Fifth Circuit on June 28 and June 29, 2018, respectively. Those appeals remain pending. Absent a decision by an appellate court that overturns these orders, it could be difficult for Sprint or Verizon to succeed on its claims against us. Therefore, we do not expect any potential settlement or judgment to have a material adverse impact on our financial results or cash flows. Gross Receipts Tax Two of our subsidiaries, Consolidated Communications of Pennsylvania Company LLC (“CCPA”) and Consolidated Communications Enterprise Services Inc. (“CCES”), have, at various times, received Assessment Notices and/or Audit Assessment Notices from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Revenue (“DOR”) increasing the amounts owed for the Pennsylvania Gross Receipts Tax, and have had audits performed for the tax years 2008 through 2016. For our CCES and CCPA subsidiaries, the total additional tax liabilities calculated by the DOR auditors for the tax years 2008 through 2016, including interest, are approximately $6.1 million and $7.4 million, respectively. We filed Petitions for Reassessment with the DOR’s Board of Appeals for the tax years 2008 through 2016, contesting these audit assessments. These cases remain pending and are in various stages of appeal. In May 2017, we entered into an agreement to guarantee any potential liabilities to the DOR up to $5.0 million. We believe that certain of the DOR’s findings regarding CCPA’s and CCES’s additional tax liabilities for the tax years 2008 through 2016, for which we have filed appeals, continue to lack merit. However, in January 2018, CCES and CCPA submitted initial settlement offers to the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General proposing to settle the intrastate and interstate cases at reduced tax liabilities for the tax years 2008 through 2013. The settlement offers were subject to negotiation with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, with final approvals required from the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General and DOR. The approvals have been obtained and the necessary settlement documents drafted for our review. The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania imposed a deadline in the fourth quarter of 2019 for the parties to finalize their agreement and file stipulations for judgment. Stipulations for judgment and directions to satisfy for the 2008 through 2013 tax years, except for the 2010 CCPA appeals, were filed in the fourth quarter of 2019, bringing the appeals to a conclusion. The settlement resulted in a payment from us to the DOR of $2.1 million, which the Company previously reserved for. While we continue to believe a settlement of all remaining disputed claims is possible, we cannot anticipate at this time what the ultimate resolution of these cases will be, nor can we evaluate the likelihood of a favorable or unfavorable outcome or the potential losses (or gains) should such an outcome occur. Based on the initial settlement offers for the tax years 2008 through 2013 and the Company’s best estimate of the potential additional tax liabilities for the tax years 2010 (CCPA) and 2014 through 2018 (CCPA and CCES), we have reserved $1.5 million and $0.7 million, including interest, for our CCES and CCPA subsidiaries, respectively. We expect the filings for the tax years 2014 through 2018 to be settled at a later date similar to the initial settlement. We do not believe that the outcome of these claims will have a material adverse impact on our financial results or cash flows. From time to time we may be involved in litigation that we believe is of the type common to companies in our industry, including regulatory issues. While the outcome of these claims cannot be predicted with certainty, we do not believe that the outcome of any of these legal matters will have a material adverse impact on our business, results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2020

12. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Litigation, Regulatory Proceedings and Other Contingencies

Access Charges

In 2014, Sprint Communications Company L.P. (“Sprint”) along with MCI Communications Services, Inc. and Verizon Select Services Inc. (collectively, “Verizon”) filed lawsuits against certain subsidiaries of the Company including FairPoint Communications, Inc. (“FairPoint”) and many other Local Exchange Carriers (collectively, “LECs”) throughout the country challenging the switched access charges LECs assessed Sprint and Verizon, as interexchange carriers (“IXCs”), for certain calls originating from or terminating to mobile devices that are routed to or from these LECs through these IXCs. The plaintiffs’ position is based on their interpretation of federal law, among other things, and they are seeking refunds of past access charges paid for such calls. The disputed amounts total $4.8 million and cover periods dating back as far as 2006. CenturyLink, Inc. and its LEC subsidiaries (collectively “CenturyLink”), requested that the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the “Panel”), which has the authority to transfer the pretrial proceedings to a single court for multiple civil cases involving common questions of fact, transfer and consolidate these cases in one court. The Panel granted CenturyLink’s request and ordered that these cases be transferred to and centralized in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas (the “U.S. District Court”).

On November 17, 2015, the U.S. District Court dismissed these complaints based on its interpretation of federal law and held that LECs could assess switched access charges for the calls at issue (the “November 2015 Order”). The November 2015 Order also allowed the plaintiffs to amend their complaints to assert claims that arise under state laws independent of the dismissed claims asserted under federal law. While Verizon did not make such a filing, on May 16, 2016, Sprint filed amended complaints and on June 30, 2016, the LEC defendants named in such complaints filed, among other things, a Joint Motion to Dismiss them, which the U.S. District Court granted on May 3, 2017. Certain of our FairPoint LEC entities filed counterclaims against Sprint and Verizon.

Relatedly, in 2016, numerous LECs across the country, including a number of our legacy Consolidated and FairPoint LEC entities, filed complaints in various U.S. district courts against Level 3 Communications, LLC and certain of its affiliates (collectively, “Level 3”) for its failure to pay access charges for certain calls that the November 2015 Order

held could be assessed by LECs. The Company’s LEC entities, including FairPoint, sought from Level 3 a total amount of at least $2.3 million, excluding attorneys’ fees. These complaint cases were transferred to and included in the above-referenced consolidated proceeding before the U.S. District Court. Level 3 filed a Motion to Dismiss these complaints that, in part, repeated arguments, which the November 2015 Order rejected. On March 22, 2017, the U.S. District Court denied Level 3’s Motion to Dismiss.

On March 12, 2018, a motion for summary judgment was filed by various LECs with counterclaims against Verizon and Sprint. On March 26, 2018, a motion for summary judgment was filed by various LECs with claims against Level 3. On May 15, 2018, the U.S. District Court granted all pending motions for summary judgment against Sprint, Verizon, and Level 3, and directed the entry of formal judgments in these cases.

On July 17, 2018, the U.S. District Court entered a judgment of $0.7 million in favor of our legacy Consolidated LEC entities and against Level 3. Level 3 filed a notice of appeal of this judgment with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (the “Fifth Circuit”) on July 24, 2018. On August 15, 2018, the U.S. District Court entered a judgment of over $1.2 million in favor of our FairPoint LEC entities and against Level 3. Level 3 filed a notice of appeal of this judgment with the Fifth Circuit on August 20, 2018. On September 21, 2018, all of our LECs entered into a settlement agreement with Level 3 to resolve the dispute with respect to all past-due amounts at issue in the litigation. The settlement did not result in a material impact to our financial statements. As part of the settlement, the parties filed on October 18, 2018 joint stipulations to dismiss with prejudice the related complaints by our LECs against Level 3 with the U.S. District Court and a joint motion to voluntarily dismiss the Level 3 appeal against our LECs with the Fifth Circuit. The Fifth Circuit granted this motion on October 25, 2018 by dismissing the Level 3 appeal.

Formal judgments were entered in the Verizon and Sprint cases on June 7, 2018. Verizon and Sprint filed notices of appeal of these judgments with the Fifth Circuit on June 28 and June 29, 2018, respectively. Those appeals remain pending. Absent a decision by an appellate court that overturns these orders, it could be difficult for Sprint or Verizon to succeed on its claims against us. Therefore, we do not expect any potential settlement or judgment to have a material adverse impact on our financial results or cash flows.

Gross Receipts Tax

Two of our subsidiaries, Consolidated Communications of Pennsylvania Company LLC (“CCPA”) and Consolidated Communications Enterprise Services Inc. (“CCES”), have, at various times, received Assessment Notices and/or Audit Assessment Notices from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Revenue (“DOR”) increasing the amounts owed for the Pennsylvania Gross Receipts Tax, and have had audits performed for the tax years 2008 through 2016. For our CCES and CCPA subsidiaries, the total additional tax liabilities calculated by the DOR auditors for the tax years 2008 through 2016, including interest, are approximately $6.1 million and $7.4 million, respectively. We filed Petitions for Reassessment with the DOR’s Board of Appeals for the tax years 2008 through 2016, contesting these audit assessments. These cases remain pending and are in various stages of appeal.

In May 2017, we entered into an agreement to guarantee any potential liabilities to the DOR up to $5.0 million. We believe that certain of the DOR’s findings regarding CCPA’s and CCES’s additional tax liabilities for the tax years 2008 through 2016, for which we have filed appeals, continue to lack merit. However, in January 2018, CCES and CCPA submitted initial settlement offers to the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General proposing to settle the intrastate and interstate cases at reduced tax liabilities for the tax years 2008 through 2013. The settlement offers were subject to negotiation with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, with final approvals required from the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General and DOR. The approvals have been obtained and the necessary settlement documents drafted for our review. The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania imposed a deadline in the fourth quarter of 2019 for the parties to finalize their agreement and file stipulations for judgment. Stipulations for judgment and directions to satisfy for the 2008 through 2013 tax years, except for the 2010 CCPA appeals, were filed in the fourth quarter of 2019, bringing the appeals to a conclusion. The settlement resulted in a payment from us to the DOR of $2.1 million, which the Company previously reserved for. While we continue to believe a settlement of all remaining disputed claims is possible, we cannot anticipate at this time what the ultimate resolution of these cases will be, nor can we evaluate the likelihood of a favorable or unfavorable outcome or the potential losses (or gains) should such an outcome occur.

Based on the initial settlement offers for the tax years 2008 through 2013 and the Company’s best estimate of the potential additional tax liabilities for the tax years 2010 (CCPA) and 2014 through 2018 (CCPA and CCES), we have reserved $1.5 million and $0.7 million, including interest, for our CCES and CCPA subsidiaries, respectively. We expect the filings for the tax years 2014 through 2018 to be settled at a later date similar to the initial settlement. We do not believe that the outcome of these claims will have a material adverse impact on our financial results or cash flows.

From time to time we may be involved in litigation that we believe is of the type common to companies in our industry, including regulatory issues. While the outcome of these claims cannot be predicted with certainty, we do not believe that the outcome of any of these legal matters will have a material adverse impact on our business, results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.