COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2015
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	11. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Litigation On November 6, 2014, a putative stockholder class action complaint challenging the tender offer by which HC2 Holdings, Inc. acquired approximately 721,000 of the issued and outstanding common shares of Schuff International, Inc. (“Schuff International”) was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Mark Jacobs v. Philip A. Falcone, Keith M. Hladek, Paul Voigt, Michael R. Hill, Rustin Roach, D. Ronald Yagoda, Phillip O. Elbert, HC2 Holdings, Inc., and Schuff International, Inc., Civil Action No. 10323 (the “Complaint”). On November 17, 2014, a second lawsuit was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Arlen Diercks v. Schuff International, Inc. Philip A. Falcone, Keith M. Hladek, Paul Voigt, Michael R. Hill, Rustin Roach, D. Ronald Yagoda, Phillip O. Elbert, HC2 Holdings, Inc., Civil Action No. 10359. On February 19, 2015, the court consolidated the actions (now designated as Schuff International, Inc. Stockholders Litigation) and appointed lead plaintiff and counsel. The currently operative complaint is the November 6, 2014 Complaint filed by Mark Jacobs. The Complaint alleges, among other things, that in connection with the tender offer, the individual members of the Schuff International board of directors and HC2 Holdings, the controlling stockholder of Schuff, breached their fiduciary duties to members of the plaintiff class. The Complaint also purports to challenge a potential short-form merger based upon plaintiff’s expectation that the Company would cash out the remaining public stockholders of Schuff International following the completion of the tender offer. Such a short-form merger has never been formally proposed or acted upon and as of June 30, 2015, approximately 342 thousand shares of Schuff International remain in public hands, representing approximately 9% of the outstanding shares of Schuff International. The Complaint seeks rescission of the tender offer and/or compensatory damages, as well as attorney’s fees and other relief. The defendants filed answers to the Complaint on July 30, 2015. We believe that the allegations and claims set forth in the Complaint are without merit and intend to defend them vigorously. On July 16, 2013, Plaintiffs Xplornet Communications Inc. and Xplornet Broadband, Inc. (“Xplornet”) initiated an action against Inukshuk Wireless Inc. (“Inukshuk”), Globility Communications Corporation (“Globility”), MIPPS Inc., Primus Telecommunications Canada Inc. and PTGi. Xplornet alleges that it entered into an agreement to acquire certain licenses for radio spectrum in Canada from Globility. Xplornet alleges that Globility agreed to sell Xplornet certain spectrum licenses in a Letter of Intent dated July 12, 2011 but then breached the Letter of Intent by selling the licenses to Inukshuk. Xplornet then alleges that they reached an agreement with Inukshuk to purchase the licenses on June 26, 2012, but that Inukshuk breached that agreement by not completing the sale. Xplornet alleges that, as a result of the foregoing, they have been damaged in the amount of $50 million. On January 29, 2014, Globility, MIPPS Inc., and Primus Telecommunications Canada, Inc., demanded indemnification pursuant to the Equity Purchase Agreement among PTUS, Inc., PTCAN, Inc. Primus Telecommunications Group, Incorporated, Primus Telecommunications Holding, Inc., Lingo Holdings, Inc., and Primus Telecommunications International, Inc., dated as of May 10, 2013. On February 14, 2014, the Company assumed the defense of this litigation while reserving all of its rights under the Equity Purchase Agreement. On February 5, 2014, Globility, MIPPS Inc., and PTCI filed a Notice of Intent to Defend. On February 18, 2014, Globility, MIPPS Inc., and PTCI filed a Demand for Particulars. A Notice of Change of Solicitors to Hunt Partners LLP was filed on behalf of those same entities on April 1, 2014. On March 13, 2015, Inukshuk filed a cross claim against Globility, MIPPS, PTCI, and PTGi. Inukshuk asserts that if Inukshuk is found liable to Xplornet, then Inukshuk is entitled to contribution and indemnity, compensatory damages, interest, and costs from the Company. Inukshuk alleges that Globility represented and warranted that it owned the licenses at issue, that Globility held the licenses free and clear, and that no third party had any rights to acquire them. Inukshuk claims breach of contract and misrepresentation if the Court finds that any of these representations are untrue. On October 17, 2014, the Company moved for summary judgment against Xplornet arguing that there was no agreement between Globility and Xplornet to acquire the licenses at issue. On June 5, 2015, Inukshuk also moved for summary judgment against Xplornet, similarly arguing that there was no agreement between Inukshuk and Xplornet to acquire the licenses in question. The motions are set for hearing on October 7, 2015. The Company is subject to claims and legal proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of business. Such matters are inherently uncertain, and there can be no guarantee that the outcome of any such matter will be decided favorably to the Company or that the resolution of any such matter will not have a material adverse effect upon the Company’s business, consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flow. The Company does not believe that any of such pending claims and legal proceedings will have a material adverse effect on its business, consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flow. Tax Matters Currently, the Canada Revenue Agency (“CRA”) is auditing a subsidiary previously held by the Company. The Company intends to cooperate in audit matters. To date, CRA has not proposed any specific adjustments and the audit is ongoing.

11. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Litigation

On November 6, 2014, a putative stockholder class action complaint challenging the tender offer by which HC2 Holdings, Inc. acquired approximately 721,000 of the issued and outstanding common shares of Schuff International, Inc. (“Schuff International”) was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Mark Jacobs v. Philip A. Falcone, Keith M. Hladek, Paul Voigt, Michael R. Hill, Rustin Roach, D. Ronald Yagoda, Phillip O. Elbert, HC2 Holdings, Inc., and Schuff International, Inc., Civil Action No. 10323 (the “Complaint”). On November 17, 2014, a second lawsuit was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Arlen Diercks v. Schuff International, Inc. Philip A. Falcone, Keith M. Hladek, Paul Voigt, Michael R. Hill, Rustin Roach, D. Ronald Yagoda, Phillip O. Elbert, HC2 Holdings, Inc., Civil Action No. 10359. On February 19, 2015, the court consolidated the actions (now designated as Schuff International, Inc. Stockholders Litigation) and appointed lead plaintiff and counsel. The currently operative complaint is the November 6, 2014 Complaint filed by Mark Jacobs. The Complaint alleges, among other things, that in connection with the tender offer, the individual members of the Schuff International board of directors and HC2 Holdings, the controlling stockholder of Schuff, breached their fiduciary duties to members of the plaintiff class. The Complaint also purports to challenge a potential short-form merger based upon plaintiff’s expectation that the Company would cash out the remaining public stockholders of Schuff International following the completion of the tender offer. Such a short-form merger has never been formally proposed or acted upon and as of June 30, 2015, approximately 342 thousand shares of Schuff International remain in public hands, representing approximately 9% of the outstanding shares of Schuff International. The Complaint seeks rescission of the tender offer and/or compensatory damages, as well as attorney’s fees and other relief. The defendants filed answers to the Complaint on July 30, 2015. We believe that the allegations and claims set forth in the Complaint are without merit and intend to defend them vigorously.

On July 16, 2013, Plaintiffs Xplornet Communications Inc. and Xplornet Broadband, Inc. (“Xplornet”) initiated an action against Inukshuk Wireless Inc. (“Inukshuk”), Globility Communications Corporation (“Globility”), MIPPS Inc., Primus Telecommunications Canada Inc. and PTGi. Xplornet alleges that it entered into an agreement to acquire certain licenses for radio spectrum in Canada from Globility. Xplornet alleges that Globility agreed to sell Xplornet certain spectrum licenses in a Letter of Intent dated July 12, 2011 but then breached the Letter of Intent by selling the licenses to Inukshuk. Xplornet then alleges that they reached an agreement with Inukshuk to purchase the licenses on June 26, 2012, but that Inukshuk breached that agreement by not completing the sale. Xplornet alleges that, as a result of the foregoing, they have been damaged in the amount of $50 million. On January 29, 2014, Globility, MIPPS Inc., and Primus Telecommunications Canada, Inc., demanded indemnification pursuant to the Equity Purchase Agreement among PTUS, Inc., PTCAN, Inc. Primus Telecommunications Group, Incorporated, Primus Telecommunications Holding, Inc., Lingo Holdings, Inc., and Primus Telecommunications International, Inc., dated as of May 10, 2013. On February 14, 2014, the Company assumed the defense of this litigation while reserving all of its rights under the Equity Purchase Agreement. On February 5, 2014, Globility, MIPPS Inc., and PTCI filed a Notice of Intent to Defend. On February 18, 2014, Globility, MIPPS Inc., and PTCI filed a Demand for Particulars. A Notice of Change of Solicitors to Hunt Partners LLP was filed on behalf of those same entities on April 1, 2014. On March 13, 2015, Inukshuk filed a cross claim against Globility, MIPPS, PTCI, and PTGi. Inukshuk asserts that if Inukshuk is found liable to Xplornet, then Inukshuk is entitled to contribution and indemnity, compensatory damages, interest, and costs from the Company. Inukshuk alleges that Globility represented and warranted that it owned the licenses at issue, that Globility held the licenses free and clear, and that no third party had any rights to acquire them. Inukshuk claims breach of contract and misrepresentation if the Court finds that any of these representations are untrue.

On October 17, 2014, the Company moved for summary judgment against Xplornet arguing that there was no agreement between Globility and Xplornet to acquire the licenses at issue. On June 5, 2015, Inukshuk also moved for summary judgment against Xplornet, similarly arguing that there was no agreement between Inukshuk and Xplornet to acquire the licenses in question. The motions are set for hearing on October 7, 2015.

The Company is subject to claims and legal proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of business. Such matters are inherently uncertain, and there can be no guarantee that the outcome of any such matter will be decided favorably to the Company or that the resolution of any such matter will not have a material adverse effect upon the Company’s business, consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flow. The Company does not believe that any of such pending claims and legal proceedings will have a material adverse effect on its business, consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flow.

Tax Matters

Currently, the Canada Revenue Agency (“CRA”) is auditing a subsidiary previously held by the Company. The Company intends to cooperate in audit matters. To date, CRA has not proposed any specific adjustments and the audit is ongoing.