Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2011
Commitments and Contingencies
Commitments and Contingencies	(10) Commitments and Contingencies CenturyLink is involved in several legal proceedings to which we are not a party that, if resolved against CenturyLink, could have a material adverse effect on its business and financial condition. As a wholly owned subsidiary of CenturyLink, our business and financial condition could be similarly affected. You can find descriptions of these legal proceedings in CenturyLink's quarterly and annual reports filed with the SEC. Because we are not a party to any of these matters, we have not accrued any liabilities for these matters. In this section, when we refer to a class action as "putative" it is because a class has been alleged, but not certified in that matter. Until and unless a class has been certified by the court, it has not been established that the named plaintiffs represent the class of plaintiffs they purport to represent. To the extent appropriate, we have accrued liabilities for the matters described below. The terms and conditions of applicable bylaws, certificates or articles of incorporation, agreements or applicable law may obligate us to indemnify our former directors, officers or employees with respect to certain of the matters described below, and we have been advancing legal fees and costs to certain former directors, officers or employees in connection with certain matters described below. *KPNQwest Litigation/Investigation* On September 29, 2010, the trustees in the Dutch bankruptcy proceeding for KPNQwest, N.V. (of which we were a major shareholder) filed a lawsuit in district court in Haarlem, the Netherlands, alleging tort and mismanagement claims under Dutch law. We and Koninklijke KPN N.V. ("KPN") are defendants in this lawsuit along with a number of former KPNQwest supervisory board members and a former officer of KPNQwest, some of whom were formerly affiliated with us. Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that defendants' actions were a cause of the bankruptcy of KPNQwest, and they seek damages for the bankruptcy deficit of KPNQwest, which is claimed to be approximately €4.2 billion (or approximately $6.1 billion based on the exchange rate on June 30, 2011), plus statutory interest. Two lawsuits asserting similar claims were previously filed against Qwest and others in federal courts in New Jersey in 2004 and Colorado in 2009; those courts dismissed the lawsuits without prejudice on the grounds that the claims should not be litigated in the United States. On September 13, 2006, Cargill Financial Markets, Plc and Citibank, N.A. filed a lawsuit in the District Court of Amsterdam, the Netherlands, against us, KPN, KPN Telecom B.V., and other former officers, employees or supervisory board members of KPNQwest, some of whom were formerly affiliated with us. The lawsuit alleges that defendants misrepresented KPNQwest's financial and business condition in connection with the origination of a credit facility and wrongfully allowed KPNQwest to borrow funds under that facility. Plaintiffs allege damages of approximately €219 million (or approximately $320 million based on the exchange rate on June 30, 2011). We will continue to defend against the pending KPNQwest litigation matters vigorously. *Other Matters* Several putative class actions relating to the installation of fiber-optic cable in certain rights-of-way were filed against us on behalf of landowners on various dates and in various courts in Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois (where there is a federal and a state court case), Indiana, Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Washington. For the most part, the complaints challenge our right to install our fiber-optic cable in railroad rights-of-way. The complaints allege that the railroads own the right-of-way as an easement that did not include the right to permit us to install our fiber-optic cable in the right-of-way without the plaintiffs' consent. Most of the actions purport to be brought on behalf of state-wide classes in the named plaintiffs' respective states, although two of the currently pending actions purport to be brought on behalf of multi-state classes. Specifically, the Illinois state court action purports to be on behalf of landowners in Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, Ohio and Wisconsin, and the Indiana state court action purports to be on behalf of a national class of landowners. In general, the complaints seek damages on theories of trespass and unjust enrichment, as well as punitive damages. On July 18, 2008, a federal district court in Massachusetts entered an order preliminarily approving a settlement of all of the actions described above, except the action pending in Tennessee. On September 10, 2009, the court denied final approval of the settlement on grounds that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. On December 9, 2009, the court issued a revised ruling that, among other things, denied a motion for approval as moot and dismissed the matter for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The parties are now engaged in negotiating settlements on a state-by-state basis, and have filed and received preliminary approval of a settlement in Illinois and Alabama federal courts as well as Tennessee state court. A putative class action filed on behalf of certain of our retirees was brought against us, the Qwest Group Life Insurance Plan and other related entities in federal district court in Colorado in connection with our decision to reduce the life insurance benefit for these retirees to a $10,000 benefit. The action was filed on March 30, 2007. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that we and other defendants were obligated to continue their life insurance benefit at the levels in place before we decided to reduce them. Plaintiffs seek restoration of the life insurance benefit to previous levels and certain equitable relief. The district court ruled in our favor on the central issue of whether we properly reserved our right to reduce the life insurance benefit under applicable law and plan documents. The plaintiffs subsequently amended their complaint to assert additional claims. In 2009, the court dismissed or granted summary judgment to us on all of the plaintiffs' claims. The plaintiffs appealed the court's decision to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. On June 2, 2011, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision.

(10) Commitments and Contingencies

CenturyLink is involved in several legal proceedings to which we are not a party that, if resolved against CenturyLink, could have a material adverse effect on its business and financial condition. As a wholly owned subsidiary of CenturyLink, our business and financial condition could be similarly affected. You can find descriptions of these legal proceedings in CenturyLink's quarterly and annual reports filed with the SEC. Because we are not a party to any of these matters, we have not accrued any liabilities for these matters.

In this section, when we refer to a class action as "putative" it is because a class has been alleged, but not certified in that matter. Until and unless a class has been certified by the court, it has not been established that the named plaintiffs represent the class of plaintiffs they purport to represent.

To the extent appropriate, we have accrued liabilities for the matters described below.

The terms and conditions of applicable bylaws, certificates or articles of incorporation, agreements or applicable law may obligate us to indemnify our former directors, officers or employees with respect to certain of the matters described below, and we have been advancing legal fees and costs to certain former directors, officers or employees in connection with certain matters described below.

KPNQwest Litigation/Investigation

On September 29, 2010, the trustees in the Dutch bankruptcy proceeding for KPNQwest, N.V. (of which we were a major shareholder) filed a lawsuit in district court in Haarlem, the Netherlands, alleging tort and mismanagement claims under Dutch law. We and Koninklijke KPN N.V. ("KPN") are defendants in this lawsuit along with a number of former KPNQwest supervisory board members and a former officer of KPNQwest, some of whom were formerly affiliated with us. Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that defendants' actions were a cause of the bankruptcy of KPNQwest, and they seek damages for the bankruptcy deficit of KPNQwest, which is claimed to be approximately €4.2 billion (or approximately $6.1 billion based on the exchange rate on June 30, 2011), plus statutory interest. Two lawsuits asserting similar claims were previously filed against Qwest and others in federal courts in New Jersey in 2004 and Colorado in 2009; those courts dismissed the lawsuits without prejudice on the grounds that the claims should not be litigated in the United States.

On September 13, 2006, Cargill Financial Markets, Plc and Citibank, N.A. filed a lawsuit in the District Court of Amsterdam, the Netherlands, against us, KPN, KPN Telecom B.V., and other former officers, employees or supervisory board members of KPNQwest, some of whom were formerly affiliated with us. The lawsuit alleges that defendants misrepresented KPNQwest's financial and business condition in connection with the origination of a credit facility and wrongfully allowed KPNQwest to borrow funds under that facility. Plaintiffs allege damages of approximately €219 million (or approximately $320 million based on the exchange rate on June 30, 2011).

We will continue to defend against the pending KPNQwest litigation matters vigorously.

Other Matters

Several putative class actions relating to the installation of fiber-optic cable in certain rights-of-way were filed against us on behalf of landowners on various dates and in various courts in Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois (where there is a federal and a state court case), Indiana, Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Washington. For the most part, the complaints challenge our right to install our fiber-optic cable in railroad rights-of-way. The complaints allege that the railroads own the right-of-way as an easement that did not include the right to permit us to install our fiber-optic cable in the right-of-way without the plaintiffs' consent. Most of the actions purport to be brought on behalf of state-wide classes in the named plaintiffs' respective states, although two of the currently pending actions purport to be brought on behalf of multi-state classes. Specifically, the Illinois state court action purports to be on behalf of landowners in Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, Ohio and Wisconsin, and the Indiana state court action purports to be on behalf of a national class of landowners. In general, the complaints seek damages on theories of trespass and unjust enrichment, as well as punitive damages. On July 18, 2008, a federal district court in Massachusetts entered an order preliminarily approving a settlement of all of the actions described above, except the action pending in Tennessee. On September 10, 2009, the court denied final approval of the settlement on grounds that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. On December 9, 2009, the court issued a revised ruling that, among other things, denied a motion for approval as moot and dismissed the matter for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The parties are now engaged in negotiating settlements on a state-by-state basis, and have filed and received preliminary approval of a settlement in Illinois and Alabama federal courts as well as Tennessee state court.

A putative class action filed on behalf of certain of our retirees was brought against us, the Qwest Group Life Insurance Plan and other related entities in federal district court in Colorado in connection with our decision to reduce the life insurance benefit for these retirees to a $10,000 benefit. The action was filed on March 30, 2007. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that we and other defendants were obligated to continue their life insurance benefit at the levels in place before we decided to reduce them. Plaintiffs seek restoration of the life insurance benefit to previous levels and certain equitable relief. The district court ruled in our favor on the central issue of whether we properly reserved our right to reduce the life insurance benefit under applicable law and plan documents. The plaintiffs subsequently amended their complaint to assert additional claims. In 2009, the court dismissed or granted summary judgment to us on all of the plaintiffs' claims. The plaintiffs appealed the court's decision to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. On June 2, 2011, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision.