We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
In cooperation with Association of Corporate Counsel
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 36

In the courts

  • Arent Fox LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 30 2012

On July 24, 2012, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania largely denied Sprint Nextel’s motion to dismiss the complaint that CLEC Line Systems, Inc. brought against it for the collection of unpaid access charges for the termination of interstate and intrastate interMTA traffic from Sprint’s customers

Developments in intercarrier compensation

  • Arent Fox LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 11 2011

On April 4, 2011, the Mississippi Public Service Commission (PSC) and a dozen Mississippi rural LECs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit from a Mississippi federal court order reversing the PSC's finding that Total Element Long Run Incremental Cost (TELRIC) pricing is not required for the rural LECs' arbitrated reciprocal compensation rates for traffic exchanged with AT&T Mobility

In the courts

  • Arent Fox LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 28 2013

On January 22, 2013, following a 10-day bench trial, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas agreed with Verizon that its former

In the courts

  • Arent Fox LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 9 2012

On July 3, 2012, a New York Criminal Court Judge ruled that Twitter must produce tweets and user information about a criminal defendant, an Occupy Wall Street protester, that were subpoenaed by the District Attorney

In the courts

  • Arent Fox LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 14 2011

On March 8, 2011, the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed, in part, a Michigan federal trial court's denial of a challenge by CMC Telecom, a competitive local exchange carrier (CLEC), to a Michigan PUC ruling that AT&T Michigan did not violate the Telecommunications Act by refusing to disclose individualized resale contracts to CMC

In the courts

  • Arent Fox LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 25 2011

On July 19, 2011, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California largely dismissed a putative class action suit against AT&T Mobility in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion that the Federal Arbitration Act preempts state laws or court rulings that invalidate no-class-action clauses in consumer contracts

In the courts

  • Arent Fox LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 24 2012

On September 14, 2012, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied the joint motion of Alcatel, Lucent, and Ericsson for reconsideration of the court’s August 21, 2012 order denying their motion to dismiss the TruePosition antitrust case alleging anticompetitive manipulation of the industry standards body, the Third Generation Partnership Program (3GPP

Developments in intercarrier compensation

  • Arent Fox LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 18 2011

On April 7, 2011, Aventure Communications Technology LLC filed a complaint against Global Crossing Telecommunications, Inc

In the courts

  • Arent Fox LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 15 2012

On October 5, 2012, Google Inc. and Slide Inc., together with the class that sued them for violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), filed a motion with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California seeking approval of a $6 million settlement

Developments in intercarrier compensation

  • Arent Fox LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 10 2012

On September 4, 2012, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada’s decision to dismiss Autotel’s complaint concerning an interconnection agreement dispute with Nevada Bell Telephone Company, dba AT&T of Nevada, but remanded the case back to the district court in order to evaluate whether Autotel can lodge a separate claim against AT&T pursuant to Federal Communications Commission regulations