Print Page  Close Window

SEC Filings

CCO HOLDINGS LLC filed this Form 10-Q on 10/27/2017
Entire Document

(dollars in millions, except where indicated)

and the Liberty Transactions. The disclosures demanded by the plaintiff included (i) certain unlevered free cash flow projections for Charter and (ii) a Form of Proxy and Right of First Refusal Agreement (“Proxy”) by and among Liberty Broadband, A/N, Legacy Charter and Charter, which was referenced in the description of the Second Amended and Restated Stockholders Agreement, dated May 23, 2015, among Legacy Charter, Charter, Liberty Broadband and A/N. On September 9, 2015, Charter issued supplemental disclosures containing unlevered free cash flow projections for Charter. In return, the plaintiff agreed its disclosure claims were moot and withdrew its application to enjoin the Charter stockholder vote on the Transactions and the Liberty Transactions. Charter filed a motion to dismiss this litigation and on May 31, 2017, the court issued an opinion, concluding a number of issues but reserving ruling on Charter’s motion until further briefing can be done regarding whether plaintiff’s claims are direct or derivative. The parties are presently providing the additional briefing that the court seeks. Charter denies any liability, believes that it has substantial defenses, and intends to vigorously defend this suit. Although Charter is unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit, it does not expect the outcome will have a material effect on its operations, financial condition or cash flows.

The California Attorney General and the Alameda County, California District Attorney are investigating whether certain of Legacy Charter’s waste disposal policies, procedures and practices are in violation of the California Business and Professions Code and the California Health and Safety Code. That investigation was commenced in January 2014. A similar investigation involving Legacy TWC was initiated in February 2012. Charter is cooperating with these investigations. While the Company is unable to predict the outcome of these investigations, it does not expect that the outcome will have a material effect on its operations, financial condition, or cash flows.

On December 19, 2011, Sprint Communications Company L.P. (“Sprint”) filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas alleging that Legacy TWC infringed 12 U.S. patents purportedly relating to Voice over Internet Protocol (“VoIP”) services. Over the course of the litigation Sprint dismissed its claims relating to five of the asserted patents, and shortly before trial Sprint dropped its claims with respect to two additional patents.  A trial on the remaining five patents began on February 13, 2017.  On March 3, 2017 the jury returned a verdict of $140 million against Legacy TWC and further concluded that Legacy TWC had willfully infringed Sprint’s patents. The court subsequently declined to enhance the damage award as a result of the purported willful infringement. On May 30, 2017, the court awarded Sprint an additional $6 million, representing pre-judgment interest on the damages award. On June 28, 2017, the Company filed its notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In addition to its appeal, the Company will continue to pursue indemnity from one of its vendors.  The impact of the verdict was reflected in the adjustment to net current liabilities as described in Note 2. The Company does not expect that the outcome of this litigation will have a material adverse effect on its operations or financial condition.  The ultimate outcome of this litigation or the pursuit of indemnity against the Company’s vendor cannot be predicted.
On October 23, 2015, the New York Office of the Attorney General (the “NY AG”) began an investigation of Legacy TWC's advertised Internet speeds and other Internet product advertising. On February 1, 2017, the NY AG filed suit in the Supreme Court for the State of New York alleging that Legacy TWC's advertising of Internet speeds was false and misleading. The suit seeks restitution and injunctive relief. On May 26, 2017, the Company moved to dismiss the NY AG’s complaint. The Company intends to defend itself vigorously. However, no assurances can be made that such defenses would ultimately be successful. At this time, the Company does not expect that the outcome of this litigation will have a material adverse effect on its operations, financial condition or cash flows.

The Company and its parent companies are defendants or co-defendants in several lawsuits involving alleged infringement of various patents relating to various aspects of their businesses. Other industry participants are also defendants in certain of these cases. In the event that a court ultimately determines that the Company infringes on any intellectual property rights, the Company may be subject to substantial damages and/or an injunction that could require the Company or its vendors to modify certain products and services the Company offers to its subscribers, as well as negotiate royalty or license agreements with respect to the patents at issue. While the Company believes the lawsuits are without merit and intends to defend the actions vigorously, no assurance can be given that any adverse outcome would not be material to the Company’s consolidated financial condition, results of operations, or liquidity. The Company cannot predict the outcome of any such claims nor can it reasonably estimate a range of possible loss.

The Company and its parent companies are party to lawsuits, claims and regulatory inquiries that arise in the ordinary course of conducting their business, including lawsuits claiming violation of wage and hour laws and breach of contract by vendors, including by one of its programmers. The ultimate outcome of these other legal matters pending against the Company cannot be predicted, and although such lawsuits and claims are not expected individually to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated