Legal Proceedings
−Removed: Phone Recovery Services, LLC (“Phone Recovery Services”) and Phone Administrative Services, Inc.
−Removed: (“Phone Administrative Services”) acting or purporting to act on behalf of applicable jurisdictions, or the applicable county or city itself, have filed multiple lawsuits against us and/or one of our subsidiaries alleging that we failed to bill, collect and remit certain taxes and surcharges associated with the provision of 911 services.
−Removed: The following county or municipal governments have named us in lawsuits associated with the collection and remittance of 911 taxes and surcharges that remain unresolved:
−Removed: the City and County of San Francisco, California (the “California Case”);
−Removed: Cook County and Kane County Illinois;
−Removed: City of Chicago, Illinois;
−Removed: the State of Illinois (collectively, the “Illinois Case”);
−Removed: the State of New York (the “New York Case”);
−Removed: Allegheny County, Pennsylvania (the “Pennsylvania Case”);
−Removed: and the State of Rhode Island (the “Rhode Island Case”).
+Added: Phone Recovery Services, LLC and Phone Administrative Services, Inc.
+Added: acting or purporting to act on behalf of applicable jurisdictions, or the applicable county or city itself, have filed multiple lawsuits against us and/or one of our subsidiaries alleging that we failed to bill, collect and remit certain taxes and surcharges associated with the provision of 911 services.
+Added: The following county or municipal governments have named us in lawsuits that remain unresolved and are associated with the collection and remittance of 911 taxes and surcharges:
+Added: (a) the City and County of San Francisco, California;
+Added: (b) the following Illinois jurisdictions, collectively:
+Added: Cook and Kane Counties, Illinois, the City of Chicago, Illinois, and the State of Illinois, (c) the State of New York, (d) Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, and (e) the State of Rhode Island.
The complaints allege that we failed to bill, collect and remit certain taxes and surcharges associated with 911 service pursuant to applicable laws.
−Removed: The California Case was originally filed under seal in January 2020 and was served on Bandwidth in February 2021.
−Removed: The Illinois Case was dismissed by the trial court in December 2016, but returned to the trial court following an appeal.
−Removed: The plaintiffs’ amended complaint in the Illinois Case was filed on August 12, 2019.
−Removed: We filed a motion to dismiss the Illinois Case on September 26, 2019.
−Removed: The New York Case originally was filed under seal in 2014, amended and filed under seal in 2018, and made available publicly on October 25, 2019.
−Removed: We filed a motion to dismiss the New York Case on February 14, 2020.
−Removed: The Rhode Island Case originally was filed under seal in 2014 and was made available publicly in 2015.
−Removed: Our response to the complaint in the Rhode Island Case has been on hold since 2015, pending the filing of an amended complaint.
−Removed: The Pennsylvania Case is stayed pending the outcome of a related proceeding before the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) that is currently the subject of an appeal.
On November 30, 2020, we were named as a defendant in a Second Amended Class Action Complaint in a putative class action captioned Diana Mey v.
All Access Telecom, Inc., et al.
−Removed: pending in the United States District
−Removed: Court, Northern District of West Virginia relating to the alleged failure to block unsolicited phone calls to the plaintiff and putative class members.
−Removed: We filed a motion to dismiss the action on February 3, 2021.
+Added: pending in the United States District Court, Northern District of West Virginia, relating to the alleged failure to block unsolicited phone calls to the plaintiff and putative class members.
We intend to vigorously defend these lawsuits and believe we have meritorious defenses to each.
8 unchanged sentences
Compared sentence by sentence after normalising whitespace, quotation marks, case and digits, so re-formatting and restated figures do not read as changed language. Wording changes appear as one removal and one addition. The current filing and the prior one are authoritative.