Opinion ID: 2646701
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: GST’s Sale to PLNI

Text: In March 2001, TM Communications Hawai#i (TM) agreed to purchase, inter alia, the remainder of the GST assets in Hawai#i 1 CICs presumably entitle their holder to collect payment for certain call termination services. 3 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER that were not previously sold to Time Warner. PLNI is a subsidiary of TM.2 The asset purchase agreement between GST and TM, dated March 9, 2001 stated that TM had purchased: [A]ll of the [GST’s] rights, title, and interests in and to the Business, including, without limitation, in and to all the assets, properties, rights, accounts receivable and Assumed Contracts of [GST] and claims of [GST] related to the Business . . . . C. Customer Investigation Forms and Dispute Submissions Filed with Time Warner On September 18, 2001, PLNI and/or its predecessor GST Hawai#i filed a “Customer Investigation Form” with Time Warner requesting that Time Warner investigate and resolve PLNI’s claim for disputed invoice amounts relating to “Feature Group D” services. The Customer Investigation Form listed the “Disputed Amount[s]” as $30,760.16, “All Invoices $200,000[,]” and “All Invoices[.]” D. Assignment by TM to PLNI TM assigned its rights in the asset purchase agreement with GST to PLNI in October 2001. According to Time Warner, under PLNI’s assumed asset purchase agreement, PLNI was informed of Time Warner’s purchase of GST assets, as well as which assets were covered by PLNI’s purchase. Time Warner states that Section 1.2 of the asset purchase agreement “provided that [PLNI] was not acquiring any assets that had been conveyed to [Time Warner],” and that this meant that “excluded from PLNI’s purchase were ‘all 2 The parties do not make any arguments based on the parentsubsidiary relationship between TM and PLNI, and as noted infra, TM eventually assigned its rights in the asset purchase agreement to PLNI. 4 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER Carrier Identification Codes’ that Time Warner had acquired.” Time Warner asserts that, pursuant to the plain language of PLNI’s assumed asset purchase agreement, PLNI did not acquire CICs 5756, 5478 or any other Carrier Identification Codes. E. Time Warner’s Alleged Resolution of Dispute with GST On June 1, 2002, according to Time Warner, Time Warner and GST resolved the billing dispute over pre-October 2001 call termination services received. Time Warner states that, “[b]ased on proper certification from GST, [Time Warner] credited GST’s account $327,714.03 for end user taxes that should not have been charged, and GST paid the remaining balance due and owing.” Time Warner notes that “as [Time Warner] was still providing transition services for GST under the asset purchase agreement between Time Warner and GST, including housing certain GST divisions [such as] GST’s billing services, the notice of the $327,714.03 credit was sent to GST, via Time Warner’s street address.” According to Time Warner, on August 7, 2002, any dispute regarding who owned certain Carrier Identification Codes was resolved by GST when it assigned CIC 5478 to PLNI via Time Warner’s Consent and Agreement to Assign Service. Time Warner asserts that CIC 5756, as well as all other Carrier Identification Codes remained with Time Warner pursuant to the terms of the original asset purchase agreement executed between GST and Time Warner. 5 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER