Note 22—Commitments and Contingencies

Legal Proceedings

On July 5, 2017, plaintiff JDS1, LLC, on behalf of itself and all other similarly situated stockholders of Straight Path, and derivatively on behalf of Straight Path as nominal defendant, filed a putative class action and derivative complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the “Court of Chancery”) against the Company, The Patrick Henry Trust (a trust formed by Howard S. Jonas that held record and beneficial ownership of certain shares of Straight Path he formerly held), Howard S. Jonas, and each of Straight Path’s directors. The complaint alleged that the Company aided and abetted Straight Path Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer Davidi Jonas, and Howard S. Jonas in his capacity as controlling stockholder of Straight Path, in breaching their fiduciary duties to Straight Path in connection with the settlement of claims between Straight Path and the Company related to potential indemnification claims concerning Straight Path’s obligations under the Consent Decree it entered into with the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”), as well as the sale of Straight Path’s subsidiary Straight Path IP Group, Inc. to the Company in connection with that settlement. The Plaintiffs sought, among other things, (i) a declaration that the action may be maintained as a class action or in the alternative, that demand on the Straight Path Board is excused; (ii) that the term sheet is invalid; (iii) awarding damages for the unfair price stockholders received in the merger between Straight Path and Verizon Communications Inc. for their shares of Straight Path’s Class B common stock; and (iv) ordering Howard S. Jonas, Davidi Jonas, and the Company to disgorge any profits for the benefit of the class Plaintiffs. The trial was held in August and December 2022. On October 3, 2023, the Court of Chancery issued a Memorandum Decision (the “Post-Trial Decision”) dismissing all claims against the Company, and finding that, contrary to the plaintiffs’ allegations, the class suffered no damages. The Court of Chancery denied plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees (the “Attorney’s Fee Decision”). On December 16, 2024, the Court of Chancery issued a Final Order and Judgment, embodying the Post-Trial Decision and Attorney’s Fee Decision. On January 14, 2025, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of the Final Order and Judgment to the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware to appeal the Final Order and Judgment. On April 22, 2025, the Company filed its answering brief to the appeal. Oral argument is scheduled for October 2025.

In fiscal 2025, the Company recorded an aggregate expense of $4.0 million in “Other operating expense, net” in the consolidated statement of income related to the settlement of litigation, of which $1.6 million was included in Corporate and $2.4 million was included in the NRS segment.

In addition to the foregoing, the Company is subject to other legal proceedings that have arisen in the ordinary course of business and have not been finally adjudicated. Although there can be no assurance in this regard, the Company believes that none of the other legal proceedings to which the Company is a party will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations, cash flows, or financial condition.

Sales Tax Contingency

On June 21, 2018, the United States Supreme Court rendered a decision in South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., holding that a state may require a remote seller with no physical presence in the state to collect and remit sales tax on goods and services provided to purchasers in the state, overturning certain existing court precedent. It is possible that one or more jurisdictions may assert that the Company has liability for periods for which it has not collected sales, use or other similar taxes, and if such an assertion or assertions were successful it could materially and adversely affect the Company’s business, financial position, and operating results. One or more jurisdictions may change their laws or policies to apply their sales, use or other similar taxes to the Company’s operations, and if such changes were made it could materially and adversely affect the Company’s business, financial position, and operating results.

Regulatory Fees Audit

The Company’s 2017 FCC Form 499-A, which reported its calendar year 2016 revenue, was audited by the Universal Service Administrative Company (“USAC”). The USAC’s final decision imposed a $2.9 million charge on the Company for the Federal Telecommunications Relay Service (“TRS”) Fund. The Company has appealed the USAC’s final decision to the FCC and does not intend to remit payment for the TRS Fund fees unless and until a negative decision on its appeal has been issued. The Company has made certain changes to its filing policies and procedures for years that remain potentially under audit. At July 31, 2025 and 2024, the Company’s accrued expenses included $21.1 million and $25.9 million, respectively, for FCC-related regulatory fees for the year covered by the audit, as well as prior and subsequent years.

Purchase Commitments

At July 31, 2025, the Company had purchase commitments of $14.5 million primarily for services.

Performance Bonds

The Company has performance bonds issued through third parties for the benefit of various states in order to comply with the states’ financial requirements for money remittance licenses and telecommunications resellers. At July 31, 2025 and 2024, the Company had aggregate performance bonds outstanding of $33.8 million and $32.4 million, respectively.