XML 33 R22.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.22.2

Commitments, Contingencies and Other Items | 6 Months Ended
--- | ---
Jun. 30, 2022
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies and Other Items | Commitments, Contingencies and Other Items We are subject to various claims, legal proceedings and other contingent liabilities, including the matters described below, which individually or in the aggregate could materially affect our financial condition, future results of operations or cash flows. As a matter of course, we are prepared to both litigate these matters to judgment as needed, as well as to evaluate and consider reasonable settlement opportunities. Irrespective of its merits, litigation may be both lengthy and disruptive to our operations and could cause significant expenditure and diversion of management attention. We review our litigation accrual liabilities on a quarterly basis, but in accordance with applicable accounting guidelines only establish accrual liabilities when losses are deemed probable and reasonably estimable and only revise previously established accrual liabilities when warranted by changes in circumstances, in each case based on then-available information. As such, as of any given date we could have exposure to losses under proceedings as to which no liability has been accrued or as to which the accrued liability is inadequate. Amounts accrued for our litigation and non-income tax contingencies at June 30, 2022 aggregated to approximately $98 million and are included in other current liabilities, other liabilities or liabilities held for sale in our consolidated balance sheet as of such date. The establishment of an accrual does not mean that actual funds have been set aside to satisfy a given contingency. Thus, the resolution of a particular contingency for the amount accrued could have no effect on our results of operations but nonetheless could have an adverse effect on our cash flows. In this Note, when we refer to a class action as "putative" it is because a class has been alleged, but not certified, in that matter. Principal Proceedings Shareholder Class Action Suit Lumen and certain Lumen Board of Directors members and officers were named as defendants in a putative shareholder class action lawsuit filed on June 12, 2018 in the Boulder County District Court of the state of Colorado, captioned Houser et al. v. CenturyLink, et al. The complaint asserted claims on behalf of a putative class of former Level 3 shareholders who became CenturyLink, Inc. shareholders as a result of our acquisition of Level 3. It alleged that the proxy statement provided to the Level 3 shareholders failed to disclose various material information of several kinds, including information about strategic revenue, customer loss rates, and customer account issues, among other items. The complaint seeks damages, costs and fees, rescission, rescissory damages, and other equitable relief. In May 2020, the court dismissed the complaint. Plaintiffs appealed that decision, and in March 2022, the appellate court affirmed the district court's order in part and reversed it in part. It then remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. State Tax Suits Since 2012, a number of Missouri municipalities have asserted claims in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri, alleging that we and several of our subsidiaries have underpaid taxes. These municipalities are seeking, among other things, declaratory relief regarding the application of business license and gross receipts taxes and back taxes from 2007 to the present, plus penalties and interest. In a February 2017 ruling in connection with one of these pending cases, the court entered an order awarding the plaintiffs $4 million and broadening the tax base on a going-forward basis. We appealed that decision to the Missouri Supreme Court. In December 2019, it affirmed the circuit court's order in some respects and reversed it in others, remanding the case to the circuit court for further proceedings. The Missouri Supreme Court's decision reduced our exposure in the case. In a June 2021 ruling in one of the pending cases, another trial court awarded the cities of Columbia and Joplin approximately $55 million, plus statutory interest. On appeal, the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part, vacated the judgment and remanded the case to the trial court with instructions for further proceedings consistent with the Missouri Supreme Court's decision. The Court of Appeals decision may be subject to further appeals. We continue to vigorously defend against these claims. Billing Practices Suits In June 2017, a former employee filed an employment lawsuit against us claiming that she was wrongfully terminated for alleging that we charged some of our retail customers for products and services they did not authorize. Thereafter, based in part on the allegations made by the former employee, several legal proceedings were filed, including consumer class actions in federal and state courts, a series of securities investor class actions in federal courts and several shareholder derivative actions in federal and Louisiana state courts. The derivative cases were brought on behalf of CenturyLink, Inc. against certain current and former officers and directors of the Company and seek damages for alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. The consumer class actions, the securities investor class actions, and the federal derivative actions were transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota for coordinated and consolidated pretrial proceedings as In Re: CenturyLink Sales Practices and Securities Litigation. We have settled the consumer and securities investor class actions. Those settlements are final. The derivative actions remain pending. We have engaged in discussions regarding related claims with a number of state attorneys general, and have entered into agreements settling certain of the consumer practices claims asserted by state attorneys general. While we do not agree with allegations raised in these matters, we have been willing to consider reasonable settlements where appropriate. Telephone Consumer Protection Act Litigation In December 2020, Lumen was named as a defendant in Diana Mey v. CenturyLink Communications, LLC, et al., an action pending in the US District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for delivering unsolicited calls to her mobile phone. She asserts claims on behalf of herself and a putative class of similarly situated persons. The complaint seeks damages, statutory awards, costs and fees, and other relief. We are defending the claims asserted. December 2018 Outage Proceedings We experienced an outage on one of our transport networks that impacted voice, IP, 911, and transport services for some of our customers between the 27th and 29th of December 2018. We believe that the outage was caused by a faulty network management card from a third-party equipment vendor. The FCC and four states (both Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission ("WUTC") and the Washington Attorney General; the Montana Public Service Commission; the Nebraska Public Service Commission; and the Wyoming Public Service Commission) initiated formal investigations. In November 2020, following the FCC's release of a public report on the outage, we negotiated a settlement which was released by the FCC in December 2020. The amount of the settlement was not material to our financial statements. In December 2020, the Staff of the WUTC filed a complaint against us based on the December 2018 outage, seeking penalties owed for alleged violations of Washington regulations and laws. We have denied the allegations and will defend the claims asserted. Peruvian Tax Litigation In 2005, the Peruvian tax authorities ("SUNAT") issued tax assessments against one of our Peruvian subsidiaries asserting $26 million of additional income tax withholding and value-added taxes ("VAT"), penalties and interest for calendar years 2001 and 2002 on the basis that the Peruvian subsidiary incorrectly documented its importations. In May 2021, the Company paid the remaining amount on the fractioning regimes entered into by the Company to pay the amount assessed while it was appealed. We challenged the assessments via administrative and then judicial review processes. In October 2011, the highest administrative review tribunal (the Tribunal) decided the central issue underlying the 2002 assessments in SUNAT's favor. We appealed the Tribunal's decision to the first judicial level, which decided the central issue in favor of Level 3. SUNAT and we filed cross-appeals with the court of appeal. In May 2017, the court of appeal issued a decision reversing the first judicial level. In June 2017, we filed an appeal of the decision to the Supreme Court of Justice, the final judicial level. Oral argument was held before the Supreme Court of Justice in October 2018. A decision on this case is pending. In October 2013, the Tribunal decided the central issue underlying the 2001 assessments in SUNAT’s favor. We appealed that decision to the first judicial level in Peru, which decided the central issue in favor of SUNAT. In June 2017, we filed an appeal with the court of appeals. In November 2017, the court of appeals issued a decision affirming the first judicial level and we filed an appeal of that decision to the Supreme Court of Justice. In May 2021, the Supreme Court of Justice issued its final decision in favor of the Company. The Company provided additional information to SUNAT regarding 2001 tax payments and, in June 2022, SUNAT notified the Company of its decision regarding the 2001 refund amount. In July 2022, the Company appealed that decision to the Tax Court. The appeal is pending. Brazilian Tax Claims The São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro state tax authorities have issued tax assessments against our Brazilian subsidiaries for the Tax on Distribution of Goods and Services (“ICMS”), mainly with respect to revenue from leasing certain assets and revenue from the provision of Internet access services by treating such activities as the provision of communications services, to which the ICMS tax applies. We filed objections to these assessments in both states, arguing, among other things that neither the lease of assets nor the provision of Internet access qualifies as “communication services” subject to ICMS. We have appealed to the respective state judicial courts the decisions by the respective state administrative courts that rejected our objections to these assessments. In cases in which state lower courts ruled partially in our favor finding that the lease assets are not subject to ICMS, the State appealed those rulings. In other cases, the assessment was affirmed at the first administrative level and we have appealed to the second administrative level. Other assessments are still pending state judicial decisions. We are vigorously contesting all such assessments in both states and view the assessment of ICMS on revenue from equipment leasing and Internet access to be without merit. We believe these assessments, if upheld, could result in a loss of up to $51 million as of June 30, 2022, in excess of the reserved accruals established for these matters. Other Proceedings, Disputes and Contingencies From time to time, we are involved in other proceedings incidental to our business, including patent infringement allegations, regulatory hearings relating primarily to our rates or services, actions relating to employee claims, various tax issues, environmental law issues, grievance hearings before labor regulatory agencies and miscellaneous third-party tort actions or commercial disputes. We are currently defending several patent infringement lawsuits asserted against us by non-practicing entities, many of which are seeking substantial recoveries. These cases have progressed to various stages and one or more may go to trial within the next twelve months if they are not otherwise resolved. Where applicable, we are seeking full or partial indemnification from our vendors and suppliers. As with all litigation, we are vigorously defending these actions and, as a matter of course, are prepared to litigate these matters to judgment, as well as to evaluate and consider all reasonable settlement opportunities. We are subject to various foreign, federal, state and local environmental protection and health and safety laws. From time to time, we are subject to judicial and administrative proceedings brought by various governmental authorities under these laws. Several such proceedings are currently pending, but none is reasonably expected to exceed $300,000 in fines and penalties. The outcome of these other proceedings described under this heading is not predictable. However, based on current circumstances, we do not believe that the ultimate resolution of these other proceedings, after considering available defenses and any insurance coverage or indemnification rights, will have a material adverse effect on us. The matters listed in this Note do not reflect all of our contingencies. For additional information on our contingencies, see Note 18—Commitments, Contingencies and Other Items to the consolidated financial statements and accompanying notes in Part II, Item 8 of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021. The ultimate outcome of the above-described matters may differ materially from the outcomes anticipated, estimated, projected or implied by us in certain of our statements appearing above in this Note, and proceedings currently viewed as immaterial by us may ultimately materially impact us.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -URI https://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 954 -SubTopic 440 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (a) -URI https://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6491277&loc=d3e6429-115629 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI https://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -URI https://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=123406679&loc=d3e25336-109308 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -URI https://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=123406679&loc=d3e25336-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration