Item 1. Legal Proceedings

 

On April 16, 2004, certain stockholders of the Company (the “Plaintiffs”) filed a putative derivative complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of San Diego (the “Complaint”) against the Company, WorldxChange Corporation (sic), Counsel Communications LLC, and Counsel Corporation as well as four present and former officers and directors of the Company, some of whom also are or were directors and/or officers of the other corporate defendants (collectively, the “Defendants”). The Complaint alleges, among other things, that the Defendants, in their respective roles as controlling stockholder and directors and officers of the Company committed breaches of the fiduciary duties of care, loyalty and good faith and were unjustly enriched, and that the individual Defendants committed waste of corporate assets, abuse of control and gross mismanagement. The Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, restitution, disgorgement of allegedly unlawful profits, benefits and other compensation, attorneys’ fees and expenses in connection with the Complaint. The Company believes that these claims are without merit and intends to continue to vigorously defend this action. There is no assurance that this matter will be resolved in the Company’s favor and an unfavorable outcome of this matter could have a material adverse impact on its business, results of operations, financial position or liquidity.

 

The Company, Counsel Communications LLC, Counsel Corporation and four of its current and former executives and board members were named in a securities action filed in the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of San Diego (the “Court”) on April 16, 2004, in which the plaintiffs made claims nearly identical to those set forth in the Complaint in the derivative suit described above. The Company believes that these claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend this action. There is no assurance that this matter will be resolved in the Company’s favor and an unfavorable outcome of this matter could have a material adverse impact on its business, results of operations, financial position or liquidity. In February 2006, the plaintiffs in both this action and the derivative action described above changed attorneys. In June 2006, a trial date of March 9, 2007 was set for both actions.

 

At our Adjourned Meeting of Stockholders held on December 30, 2003, our stockholders, among other things, approved an amendment to our Articles of Incorporation, deleting Article VI thereof (regarding liquidations, reorganizations, mergers and the like). Stockholders who were entitled to vote at the meeting and advised us in writing, prior to the vote on the amendment, that they dissented and intended to demand payment for their shares if the amendment was effectuated, were entitled to exercise their appraisal rights and obtain payment in cash for their shares under Sections 607.1301 - 607.1333 of the Florida Business Corporation Act (the “Florida Act”), provided their shares were not voted in favor of the amendment. In January 2004, we sent appraisal notices in compliance with Florida corporate statutes to all stockholders who had advised us of their intention to exercise their appraisal rights. The appraisal notices included our estimate of fair value of our shares, at $4.00 per share on a post-split basis. These stockholders had until February 29, 2004 to return their completed appraisal notices along with certificates for the shares for which they were exercising their appraisal rights. Approximately 33 stockholders holding approximately 74,000 shares of our stock returned completed appraisal notices by February 29, 2004. A stockholder of 20 shares notified us of his acceptance of our offer of $4.00 per share, while the stockholders of the remaining shares did not accept our offer. Subject to the qualification that, in accordance with the Florida Act, we may not make any payment to a stockholder seeking appraisal rights if, at the time of payment, our total assets are less than our total liabilities, stockholders who accepted our offer to purchase their shares at the estimated fair value will be paid for their shares within 90 days of our receipt of a duly executed appraisal notice. If we should be required to make any payments to dissenting stockholders, Counsel will fund any such amounts through advances to C2. Stockholders who did not accept our offer were required to indicate their own estimate of fair value, and if we do not agree with such estimates, the parties are required to go to court for an appraisal proceeding on an individual basis, in order to establish fair value. Because we did not agree with the estimates submitted by most of the dissenting stockholders, we have sought a judicial determination of the fair value of the common stock held by the dissenting stockholders. On June 24, 2004, we filed suit against the dissenting stockholders seeking a declaratory judgment, appraisal and other relief in the Circuit Court for the 17 ^th Judicial District in Broward County, Florida. On February 4, 2005, the declaratory judgment action was stayed pending the resolution of the direct and derivative lawsuits filed in California. This decision was made by the judge in the Florida declaratory judgment action due to the similar nature of certain allegations brought by the defendants in the declaratory judgment matter and the California lawsuits described above. On March 7, 2005, the dissenting shareholders appealed the decision of the District Court judge to the Fourth District Court of Appeals for the State of Florida, which denied the appeal on June 21, 2005. When the declaratory judgment matter resumes, there is no assurance that this matter will be resolved in our favor and an unfavorable outcome of this matter could have a material adverse impact on our business, results of operations, financial position or liquidity.

 

 

On June 15, 2006, C2 Communications Technologies Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, filed a patent infringement lawsuit against AT&T, Inc., Verizon Communications, Inc., Qwest Communications International, Inc., Bellsouth Corporation, Sprint Nextel Corporation, Global Crossing Limited, and Level 3 Communications, Inc. The complaint was filed in the Marshall Division of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and alleges that the defendants’ services and systems utilizing Voice over Internet Protocol (“VoIP”) infringe C2’s U.S. Patent No. 6,243,373, entitled “Method and Apparatus for Implementing a Computer Network/Internet Telephone System” . The complaint seeks an injunction, monetary damages, and costs. There is no assurance that the Company will be successful in this litigation.

 

The Company is involved in various other legal matters arising out of its operations in the normal course of business, none of which are expected, individually or in the aggregate, to have a material adverse effect on the Company.

 

Item 1A.  Risk Factors

 

There have been no significant changes to the risk factors discussed in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the SEC.