XML 34 R18.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.2.0.727

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | 6 Months Ended
--- | ---
Jun. 30, 2015
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES |
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | 12. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Regulatory and Litigation Matters The Company and its subsidiaries are subject to certain regulatory and legal proceedings and other claims arising in the ordinary course of business, some of which involve claims for damages and taxes that are substantial in amount. The Company believes that, except for the items discussed below, for which the Company is currently unable to predict the final outcome, the disposition of proceedings currently pending will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operations. As part of the FCC’s reform of its USF program, which previously provided support to carriers seeking to offer telecommunications services in high-cost areas and to low-income households, the FCC created two new funds, including the Mobility Fund, a one-time award meant to support wireless coverage in underserved geographic areas in the United States. In August 2013, the Company received FCC final approval for $21.7 million of Mobility Fund support to its wholesale wireless business (the "Mobility Funds"), to expand voice and broadband networks in certain geographic areas in order to offer either 3G or 4G coverage. As part of the receipt of the Mobility Funds, the Company committed to comply with certain additional FCC construction and other requirements. A portion of these funds will be used to offset network capital costs and a portion is used to offset the costs of supporting the networks for a period of five years. In connection with the Company’s application for the Mobility Funds, the Company has issued approximately $10.6 million in letters of credit to the Universal Service Administrative Company (“USAC”) to secure these obligations. The letters of credit accrue a fee at a rate of 1.75% per annum on the outstanding amounts. As of June 30, 2015 the Company had approximately $10.6 million in letters of credit payable to USAC outstanding to cover its Mobility Fund obligations and there were no drawdowns against these letters of credit. If the Company fails to comply with any of the terms and conditions upon which the Mobility Funds were granted, or if it loses eligibility for the Mobility Funds, USAC will be entitled to draw the entire amount of the letter of credit applicable to the affected project plus penalties and may disqualify the Company from the receipt of additional Mobility Fund support. Currently, the Company’s Guyana subsidiary, GT&T, holds a license to provide domestic fixed services and international voice and data services in Guyana on an exclusive basis until December 2030. Since 2001, the Government of Guyana has stated its intention to introduce additional competition into Guyana’s telecommunications sector. Since that time, the Company and GT&T have met on several occasions with officials of the Government of Guyana to discuss potential modifications of GT&T’s exclusivity and other rights under the existing agreement and license. In 2012, the Government of Guyana introduced draft legislation in Parliament that, if enacted, would have the effect of terminating the Company’s exclusive license rights by permitting other telecommunications carriers to receive licenses to provide domestic fixed services and international voice and data services in Guyana. Along with the draft legislation, the Government also released drafts of new regulations and licenses (collectively, the “Draft Laws”). These Draft Laws would also introduce material changes to many other features of Guyana’s existing telecommunications regulatory regime. While little or no substantive actions were taken on the Draft Laws since 2012, the Company cannot predict when or if the proposed legislation will be adopted by Parliament or, if adopted and then signed into law by the President, the manner in which it would be implemented by the relevant Minister and the PUC. Although the Company believes that it would be entitled to damages or other compensation for any involuntary termination of its contractual exclusivity rights, it cannot guarantee that the Company would prevail in a proceeding to enforce its rights or that its actions would effectively halt any unilateral action by the Government. Historically, GT&T has been subject to other litigation proceedings and disputes in Guyana that, while not conclusively resolved, to the Company’s knowledge have not been the subject of discussions or other significant activity in the last five years. It is possible, but not likely, that these disputes, as discussed below, may be revived. The Company believes that none of these additional proceedings would, in the event of an adverse outcome, have a material impact on the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operation or liquidity. In a letter dated September 8, 2006, the National Frequency Management Unit ("NFMU") agreed that total spectrum fees in Guyana should not increase for the years 2006 and 2007. However, that letter implied that spectrum fees in 2008 and onward may be increased beyond the amount GT&T agreed to with the Government. GT&T has objected to the NFMU's proposed action and reiterated its position that an increase in fees prior to development of an acceptable methodology would violate the Government's prior agreement. Using a recommended methodology for the calculation of spectrum fees as jointly proposed by GT&T and Digicel to the NFMU by letter in November 2011, GT&T, over the past four years, calculated and paid the NFMU spectrum fees representing payments in full for 2008-2014. While the NFMU rejected this proposed methodology in 2011, to date, it has not yet provided its own recommendation for such calculation to GT&T. There have been no further discussions on this subject and GT&T has not had the opportunity to review any recommendation made to the Minister. In November 2007, Caribbean Telecommunications Limited (“CTL”) filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against GT&T and ATN claiming breach of an interconnection agreement for domestic cellular services in Guyana and related claims. CTL asserted over $200 million in damages. GT&T and ATN moved to dismiss the complaint on procedural and jurisdictional grounds. On January 26, 2009, the court granted the motions to dismiss the complaint on the grounds asserted. On November 7, 2009 and again on April 4, 2013, CTL filed a similar claim against GT&T and the PUC in the High Court of Guyana. The Company believes these claims are without merit and are duplicative of a previous claim filed by CTL in Guyana that was dismissed. There has been no action on these matters since the April 2013 filing. On May 8, 2009, Digicel filed a lawsuit in Guyana challenging the legality of GT&T’s exclusive license rights under Guyana’s constitution. Digicel initially filed this lawsuit against the Attorney General of Guyana in the High Court. On May 13, 2009, GT&T petitioned to intervene in the suit in order to oppose Digicel’s claims and that petition was granted on May 18, 2009. GT&T filed an answer to the charge on June 22, 2009 and the case is pending. The Company believes that any legal challenge to GT&T’s exclusive license rights granted in 1990 is without merit and the Company intends to vigorously defend against such a legal challenge. On February 17, 2010, GT&T filed a lawsuit in the High Court of Guyana asserting that, despite its denials, Digicel is engaged in international bypass in violation of GT&T’s exclusive license rights, the interconnection agreement between the parties, and the laws of Guyana. GT&T is seeking, among other things, injunctive relief to stop the illegal bypass activity, actual damages in excess of US$9 million and punitive damages of approximately US$5 million. Digicel filed counterclaims alleging that GT&T has violated the terms of the interconnection agreement and Guyana laws. GT&T intends to vigorously prosecute this suit. On July 20, 2012 a trial court in Guyana made findings calling into question the validity of GT&T's exclusive license to provide international voice and data service in Guyana and the applicability of that license to telecommunications services using Voice over Internet Protocol ("VoIP"). The findings were made in a breach of contract case brought originally in 2007 against GT&T by a subscriber to its Internet service. The Court of Appeals in Guyana reversed the decision of the trial court and both Plaintiff and GT&T appealed the case to the Caribbean Court of Justice (“CCJ”). In July 2015, the CCJ upheld the trial judge’s finding that no GT&T contract term prohibited the personal use of VoIP by the GT&T customer. The CCJ declined to express any view on the validity or Constitutionality of GT&T’s exclusive license and dismissed that aspect of the appeal. GT&T is also involved in several legal claims regarding its tax filings with the Guyana Revenue Authority dating back to 1991 regarding the deductibility of intercompany advisory fees as well as other tax assessments. Should GT&T be held liable for any of the disputed tax assessments, totaling $33.2 million, the Company believes that the Government of Guyana would then be obligated to reimburse GT&T for any amounts necessary to ensure that GT&T’s return on investment was no less than 15% per annum for the relevant periods. In Bermuda, the Regulatory Authority continued its implementation of the Electronic Communications Act of 2011, which allows communications service providers to enter new lines of business and encourages further competition in the sector. As the government of Bermuda reforms the local telecommunications market, it has imposed regulatory and other fees and adopted additional regulation that have increased the regulatory costs incurred by and could otherwise impact the Company’s Bermuda operations. For instance, in December 2014, the Bermuda Regulatory Authority adopted a decision imposing a limitation on amounts of spectrum that may be held by a single carrier and requiring the Company to surrender a portion of existing spectrum held in Bermuda that the Company had reserved for the launch of next generation services in accordance with the Company’s plans and demands of its customers. The Company initiated legal proceedings challenging the implementation of such decision, however, was not successful in staying the decision and in March 2015 surrendered the spectrum in question to the Bermuda Regulatory Authority. The Company has withdrawn its appeal of the decision without prejudice and cannot now accurately predict the impact to the competitive position of the Company’s Bermuda business or limitations that such actions will have on the Company’s ability to grow. The term of the Company’s telecommunications license to operate in Aruba expired on January 15, 2014. The government of Aruba informed the Company earlier in January 2014 that a renewed license would be issued only upon payment by the Company of a fee in the amount of Afl 7.2 million (or approximately US$4 million). The Company is continuing to operate as it is actively contesting the assessment of such fee.

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://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 825 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6449706&loc=d3e16207-108621 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 460 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 8 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6398077&loc=d3e12565-110249 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=25496072&loc=d3e14435-108349 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 210 -SubTopic 10 -Section S99 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (SX 210.5-02.25) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6877327&loc=d3e13212-122682 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 2 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6394976&loc=d3e25287-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration