COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	6 Months Ended
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	Jun. 30, 2011
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]	8. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES The Company is involved in lawsuits, claims, investigations and proceedings consisting of commercial, securities, tort and employment matters, which arise in the ordinary course of business. The Company accrues its best estimates of required provisions for any such matters when the loss is probable and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. The Company reviews these provisions at least quarterly and adjusts these provisions to reflect the impact of negotiations, settlements, rulings, advice of legal counsel and other information and events pertaining to a particular case. Litigation is inherently unpredictable. However, management believes that the Company has valid defenses with respect to legal matters pending against it. Nevertheless, it is possible that cash flows or results of operations could be materially and adversely affected in any particular period by the unfavorable resolution of one or more of these contingencies. Legal costs related to litigation in these matters are expensed as incurred. R2 Derivative Litigation On April 28, 2009, R2 Investments, LDC (“R2”) filed a complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York naming individual members of the Company’s Board of Directors and certain entities controlled by the Chairman as defendants and naming the Company as the nominal defendant in connection with derivative claims. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants breached fiduciary duties in connection with the financing transaction consummated in July 2008 and other related matters. The complaint seeks equitable relief as well as damages in an unspecified amount. On July 24, 2009, the defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint, which was denied on December 10, 2009. On April 23, 2010, the defendants filed an answer to the amended complaint. On May 10, 2010, the defendants filed a summary judgment motion. On March 18, 2011, the court granted R2’s motion to amend its complaint alleging that the rights offering announced by the Company on October 12, 2010 and reverse stock split (the “2010 Rights Offering and Reverse Stock Split”) were unfair to minority stock holders and that ACF Holding’s proposal of January 21, 2011 to acquire all of the outstanding Company Common Stock not owned by ACF Holding or its affiliates for $0.70 per share (“ACF Holding’s 2011 Proposal”) was unfair as well in that it provided inadequate consideration to Company Common Stock shareholders. The amended complaint, which R2 filed on July 16, 2011, also claims that the Special Committee is not independent. On July 26, 2011, the plaintiff filed a motion seeking expedited discovery and declaring that they intended to file a motion for the same preliminary injunctive relief as plaintiff Youlu Zheng concerning the Merger. A hearing for that anticipated motion is scheduled for August 16, 2011. Discovery in this case is ongoing. The effect of this case on the Company, if any, is not known at this time. Zheng Derivative Class Action Litigation On or about June 3, 2010, Youlu Zheng filed a class action complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York against the Chairman, Carl Grivner, Adam Dell, Fredrik Gradin, Vincent J. Intrieri, Keith Meister, Robert Knauss, David S. Schechter, Peter Shea, Harold First, ACF Holding, Arnos, High River, Starfire Holding Corp., and XO Holdings, Inc. alleging that the defendants breached fiduciary duties in connection with the financing transaction consummated in July 2008 and other related matters. The plaintiffs request that the court rescind the July 2008 financing transaction, award compensatory damages to the class of plaintiffs, award the plaintiff expenses, costs and attorneys’ fees, and impose a constructive trust in favor of the plaintiff and the class upon benefits improperly received by the defendants. On July 25, 2010, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The defendants filed an answer to the amended complaint on September 23, 2010. On March 14, 2011, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to include the 2010 Rights Offering and Reverse Stock Split and to enjoin the defendants from proceeding with ACF Holding’s 2011 Proposal. On or about July 27, 2011, the court issued a written order conditionally certifying two separate classes. On July 19, 2011, the plaintiffs requested that they be permitted to amend their complaint to include allegations challenging the Merger, by which various Icahn entities offered to purchase all outstanding shares of Company Common Stock for $1.40 per share, plus one CVR subject to certain conditions. The plaintiffs declared their intention to move to enjoin the defendants from consummating the Merger Agreement. A hearing for that anticipated motion is scheduled for August 16, 2011. The case is under consideration and the effect of this case on the Company, if any, is not known at this time. Henzel Class Action Complaint On or about January 26, 2011, Henzel, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, filed a class action complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against XO Holdings, Inc., the Chairman, Carl Grivner, Vincent Intrieri, Harold First, Daniel Ninivaggi, Fredrik Gradin, Robert Knauss, and David Schechter alleging that the Company and its Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty, good faith, candor, and due care. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants failed to adequately consider ACF Holding’s 2011 Proposal. On July 22, 2011, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint challenging the Merger and asking the court to enjoin the Merger, and moved for expedited proceedings. On July 25, 2011, the defendants moved to dismiss and/or stay the action and opposed expedited proceedings. On July 28, 2011, the parties agreed to stay the action during the pendency of the injunction proceedings in New York. On July 29, 2011, the plaintiff withdrew her motion for expedited proceedings. The case is under consideration and the effect of this case on the Company, if any, is not known at this time. Murphy Class Action Complaint On or about January 28, 2011, Murphy filed a shareholder class action complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York against XO Holdings, Inc., the Chairman, Carl Grivner, Vincent Intrieri, Harold First, Daniel Ninivaggi, Fredrik Gradin, Robert Knauss, David Schechter, and ACF Holding, alleging that the individually named defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing to engage in an honest and fair sale process and failure to disclose material information to the class concerning ACF Holding’s 2011 Proposal; and that the Chairman, the Company, and ACF Holding aided and abetted the Board’s breach of fiduciary duties. The plaintiff asks the court to direct the defendants to carry out their fiduciary duties; to declare that the defendants committed a gross abuse of trust; and to enjoin the consummation of the proposed transaction. On July 20, 2011, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint challenging the Merger and asking that the court enjoin the consummation of the Merger. The defendants understand that the plaintiffs are now preparing a motion to enjoin the Merger, and a hearing on that motion is scheduled for August 16, 2011. The case is under consideration and the effect of this case on the Company, if any, is not known at this time. Fast Class Action Complaint On February 11, 2011, Fast filed a class action complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery against XO Holdings, Inc., ACF Holding, the Chairman, Carl Grivner, Vincent Intrieri, Harold First, Daniel Ninivaggi, Fredrik Gradin, Robert Knauss, and David Schechter alleging that the individually named defendants breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty and care by abandoning the 2010 Rights Offering and Reverse Stock Split in favor of ACF Holding’s 2011 Proposal. The complaint also challenges the independence of the Special Committee and the application of the provision contained in the July 2008 Stock Purchase Agreement entered into by the Company and certain affiliates of the Chairman in connection with the issuance and sale of Class B and C preferred stock to affiliates of the Chairman and which places certain restrictions on the Chairman’s ability to effect a transaction that would result in the Chairman obtaining a 90% ownership share in the Company unless such transaction were approved by a special committee of disinterested directors (the “Standstill Provision”). The plaintiff also asks the Court to enjoin the consummation of ACF Holding’s 2011 Proposal until the transaction’s “financial and procedural unfairness” is rectified; asks the Court to declare that the Special Committee process in the Standstill Provision does not satisfy the entire fairness requirement; and asks the court to declare that the Special Committee is incapable of reviewing ACF Holding’s 2011 Proposal. On July 18, 2011, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint challenging the Merger and asking the court to enjoin the consummation of the Merger, and moved for expedited proceedings. On July 25, 2011, the defendants moved to dismiss and/or stay the action and opposed expedited proceedings. On August 1, 2011, the Court of Chancery denied the motion for expedited proceedings. The case is under consideration and the effect of this case on the Company, if any, is not known at this time. Borden Class Action Complaint On February 25, 2011, Borden filed a class action complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against XO Holdings, Inc., the Chairman, Carl Grivner, Robert Knauss, Harold First, Fredrik Gradin, Vincent Intrieri, David Schechter, Daniel Ninivaggi, and ACF Holding on behalf of the public stockholders of the Company. The complaint alleges various breaches of fiduciary duties by the defendants related to ACF Holding’s 2011 Proposal including allegations that the Special Committee lacked independence to consider and review ACF Holding’s 2011 Proposal and that the defendants placed personal interests of the individual Board Members and/or the interests of the Chairman ahead of the interests of the shareholders. On July 22, 2011, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint challenging the Merger and asking the court to enjoin the Merger, and moved for expedited proceedings. On July 25, 2011, the defendants moved to dismiss and/or stay the action and opposed expedited proceedings. On July 28, 2011, the parties agreed to stay the action during the pendency of the injunction proceedings. The case is under consideration and the effect of this case on the Company, if any, is not known at this time. Other Contingencies The Universal Service Administrative Company (“USAC”) performed an audit of the Company’s compliance with universal service contribution reporting obligations in connection with services provided during 2007. The Company received the final audit report on November 2, 2010 and subsequently appealed the USAC final audit decision to the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”). On March 1, 2011, USAC sought guidance from the FCC relating to one of the audit matters. The Company does not believe the impact will be material to the Company’s financial position, results of operations, cash flows or disclosures.

The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies.

Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef
-Publisher FASB
-Name Accounting Standards Codification
-Topic 450
-SubTopic 20
-Section 50
-Paragraph 4
-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6952336&loc=d3e14435-108349

Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef
-Publisher FASB
-Name Accounting Standards Codification
-Topic 460
-SubTopic 10
-Section 50
-Paragraph 8
-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6398077&loc=d3e12565-110249

Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef
-Publisher FASB
-Name FASB Interpretation (FIN)
-Number 14
-Paragraph 3
-LegacyDoc This reference is SUPERSEDED by the Accounting Standards Codification effective for interim and annual periods ending after September 15, 2009. This reference is included to help users transition from the previous accounting hierarchy and will be removed from future versions of this taxonomy.

Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef
-Publisher FASB
-Name Accounting Standards Codification
-Topic 440
-SubTopic 10
-Section 50
-Paragraph 2
-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6394976&loc=d3e25287-109308

Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef
-Publisher FASB
-Name Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (FAS)
-Number 5
-Paragraph 9, 10, 11, 12
-LegacyDoc This reference is SUPERSEDED by the Accounting Standards Codification effective for interim and annual periods ending after September 15, 2009. This reference is included to help users transition from the previous accounting hierarchy and will be removed from future versions of this taxonomy.

Reference 6: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef
-Publisher FASB
-Name Accounting Standards Codification
-Topic 210
-SubTopic 10
-Section S99
-Paragraph 1
-Subparagraph (SX 210.5-02.25)
-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6877327&loc=d3e13212-122682

Reference 7: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef
-Publisher FASB
-Name Accounting Standards Codification
-Topic 825
-SubTopic 20
-Section 50
-Paragraph 1
-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6449706&loc=d3e16207-108621

+ Details

8. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

R2 Derivative Litigation

Zheng Derivative Class Action Litigation

Henzel Class Action Complaint

Murphy Class Action Complaint

Fast Class Action Complaint

Borden Class Action Complaint

Other Contingencies

XO HOLDINGS INC 10-Q