|
I
<br /> Exhibit 6
<br /> Except as set forth below,no adverse findings have been made and no final actions have been taken within the last
<br /> ten(10)years with respect to Transferee or its wholly-owned subsidiaries related to any of the items listed in Section
<br /> II,Question 5 of the FCC Form 394.
<br /> Charter Communications VI,PLLC v.Community Antenna Services, Cause Number 01-0646-CTV-C,West
<br /> Virginia PSC.In a matter initially filed by Charter against Community Antenna Services("CAS")on grounds that
<br /> CAS was unlawfully blocking Charter's ability to offer service to residents of apartment buildings in violation of
<br /> state law,CAS filed counterclaims,including claims that Charter's pricing plans were discriminatory and
<br /> anticompetitive under state law.An AU issued a decision on August 19,2002,finding that certain of Charter's
<br /> pricing plans at issue were discriminatory in violation of state law.The full PSC on February 10,2004,however,
<br /> reversed the AU finding and held that Charter had not engaged in any unlawful pricing practices.CAS appealed the
<br /> PSC Order to the West Virginia Supreme Court,which ultimately reversed the PSC Order on the central issue and
<br /> remanded the matter for further proceedings.On remand from the Supreme Court,the PSC ruled in February 2007
<br /> that the case had become moot because: (a)the pricing plans challenged in the case had not been used since early
<br /> 2003;and(b)Charter had sold all of its West Virginia cable systems to Cebridge/Suddenlink.
<br /> Charter Communications VI,PLLC v.Community Antenna Service,Inc.,
<br /> Cause No.00-C-505,Circuit Court,Wood County,W.Va.The decision of the West Virginia Supreme Court
<br /> reversing the PSC(in the above referenced proceeding)also re-activated the state court litigation between the parties
<br /> which had been stayed pending resolution of the PSC decision.CAS abandoned all of its prior claims against
<br /> Charter except(a)a claim that Charter has violated state laws governing unduly discriminatory cable rates,and(b)
<br /> in doing so,Charter tortiously interfered with CAS customer relationships and expectation of future relationships.
<br /> In February 2008,the jury awarded CAS,among other things,compensatory damages for"unduly discriminatory
<br /> rates."Charter filed post-trial motions seeking judgment in its favor,for a new trial,and to amend or alter the
<br /> judgment.On March 29,2010,Charter petitioned the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals to accept the case
<br /> for appeal. On June 23,2011,the court ruled against Charter's appeal. The verdict was satisfied on July 15,2011.
<br /> Employment
<br /> Maureen Ford v.Charter,EEOC Case No.471-2007-02572.Complainant alleged sex and age discrimination.The
<br /> EEOC determined on September 12,2008 that there was reasonable cause to believe that a violation of the statutes
<br /> had occurred.Charter disputed the determination,but,in order to avoid incurring unnecessary costs and expenses,
<br /> resolved the matter through mediation.
<br /> Shannon Thompson v.Charter,EEOC Case No.494-2006-01994.Complainant alleged disability discrimination.
<br /> The EEOC determined on September 10,2007 that there was reasonable cause to believe that a violation of the
<br /> statutes had occurred.Charter disputed the determination,but,in order to avoid incurring unnecessary costs and
<br /> expenses,resolved the matter through settlement.
<br /> April Leftridge v.Charter,EEOC Case No. 17JA600184.Complainant alleged race and sex discrimination.The
<br /> EEOC determined on July 12,2006 that probable cause existed to credit the allegations of the complaint filed by the
<br /> Complainant.Charter disputed the determination,but,in order to avoid incurring unnecessary costs and expenses,
<br /> resolved the matter through settlement.
<br /> Linda Meyer v.Charter,EEOC Case No.CR200601947;Wisconsin.Complainant alleged disability
<br /> discrimination in filings with the WI Department of Workforce Development and the EEOC.The EEOC determined
<br /> on December 21,2006 that probable cause existed to credit the allegations of the complaint filed by the
<br /> Complainant.Charter disputed the determination,but,in order to avoid incurring unnecessary costs and expenses,
<br /> resolved the matter through settlement.
<br /> April Bevars v.Charter,Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development(DWD)Complaint No.
<br /> CR201000952. Complainant alleged that she was discriminated against based on her conviction record when an
<br /> •i
<br />
|