Commitments and Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2011

Commitments and Contingencies

Commitments and Contingencies

(13) Commitments and Contingencies

• Previously Reported Litigation Matters

        Over 60 years ago, one of our indirect subsidiaries, Centel Corporation, acquired entities that may have owned or operated seven former plant sites that produced "manufactured gas" under a process widely used through the mid-1900s. Centel has been a subsidiary of Embarq since being spun-off in 2006 from Sprint Nextel, which acquired Centel in 1993. None of these plant sites are currently owned or operated by either Sprint, Nextel, Embarq or their subsidiaries. On three sites, Embarq and the current landowners are working with the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") pursuant to administrative consent orders. Remediation expenditures pursuant to the orders are not expected to be material. On five sites, including the three sites where the EPA is involved, Centel has entered into agreements with other potentially responsible parties to share remediation costs. Further, Sprint Nextel has agreed to indemnify Embarq for most of any eventual liability arising from all seven of these sites. Based upon current circumstances, we do not expect this issue to have a material adverse impact on our results of operations or financial condition.

        In William Douglas Fulghum, et al. v. Embarq Corporation, et al., filed on December 28, 2007 in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas (Civil Action No. 07-CV-2602), a group of retirees filed a putative class action lawsuit challenging the decision to make certain modifications to Embarq's retiree benefits programs generally effective January 1, 2008 (which resulted in a $300 million reduction to the liability for retiree benefits at the time of the modifications). Defendants include Embarq, certain of its benefit plans, its Employee Benefits Committee and the individual plan administrator of certain of its benefits plans. Additional defendants include Sprint Nextel and certain of its benefit plans. The Court has certified a class on certain of plaintiffs' claims, but rejected class certification as to other claims. Embarq and other defendants continue to vigorously contest these claims and charges. We believe it is premature to estimate the impact this lawsuit could have to our results of operations or financial condition. In 2009, a ruling in Embarq's favor was entered in an arbitration proceeding filed by 15 former Centel executives, similarly challenging the benefits changes.

        In December 2009, subsidiaries of CenturyLink filed two lawsuits against subsidiaries of Sprint Nextel to recover terminating access charges for VoIP traffic owed under various interconnection agreements and tariffs which presently approximate $34 million. The lawsuits allege that Sprint Nextel has breached contracts, violated tariffs, and violated the Federal Communications Act by failing to pay these charges. One lawsuit, filed on behalf of all legacy Embarq operating entities, was tried in federal court in Virginia in August 2010 and, in March 2011, a ruling was issued in our favor and against Sprint Nextel. We currently expect Sprint Nextel to file an appeal of this decision. The other lawsuit, filed on behalf of all legacy CenturyLink operating entities, is pending in federal court in Louisiana. In that case, the Court recently dismissed certain of CenturyLink's claims, referred other claims to the FCC, and stayed the litigation for 12 months. We have not accrued a liability related to these matters.

        From time to time, we are involved in other proceedings incidental to our business, including administrative hearings of state public utility commissions relating primarily to rate making, actions relating to employee claims, various tax issues, occasional grievance hearings before labor regulatory agencies and miscellaneous third party tort actions. The outcome of these other proceedings is not predictable. However, we do not believe that the ultimate resolution of these other proceedings, after considering available insurance coverage, will have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

• Litigation Matters Relating to Qwest

        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, Qwest has 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 Qwest to indemnify its former directors, officers or employees with respect to certain of the matters described below, and Qwest has been advancing legal fees and costs to certain former directors, officers or employees in connection with certain matters described below.

        On September 29, 2010, the trustees in the Dutch bankruptcy proceeding for KPNQwest, N.V. (of which Qwest was a major shareholder) filed a lawsuit in district court in Haarlem, the Netherlands, alleging tort and mismanagement claims under Dutch law. Qwest 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 Qwest. 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 Qwest, KPN, KPN Telecom B.V., and other former officers, employees or supervisory board members of KPNQwest, some of whom were formerly affiliated with Qwest. 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.

        Several putative class actions relating to the installation of fiber-optic cable in certain rights-of-way were filed against Qwest 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 Qwest's right to install its 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 Qwest to install its 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 Qwest's retirees was brought against Qwest, the Qwest Group Life Insurance Plan and other related entities in federal district court in Colorado in connection with Qwest's 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 Qwest and other defendants were obligated to continue their life insurance benefit at the levels in place before Qwest decided to reduce them. Plaintiffs seek restoration of the life insurance benefit to previous levels and certain equitable relief. The district court ruled in Qwest's favor on the central issue of whether Qwest properly reserved its 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 Qwest 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.