seek a refund directly from the Company and file a formal complaint with the Commission if they are not satisfied with the response. IDT asserts that the Settlement Company’s provides options, and nothing in the Settlement forces customers to waive their private causes of action against IDT as Mr. Ferrare alleged. IDT R. Exc. at 4. IDT states next that Mr. Exception also makes the erroneous Ferrare’s argument that because the Commission does not have jurisdiction over private causes of action against EGSs, the Commission is precluded from approving a settlement that includes a general release provision. IDT avers that the Settlement does not ask the Commission to limit any of action against IDT but rather includes a individuals’ cause voluntary refund procedure under which specified customers will be given the opportunity to participate in a Refund Pool administered by the OCA and OAG. According to IDT, no customer is compelled in any way to participate in the Refund Pool or execute a general release, and the Settlement clarifies that customers who choose not to participate in the Refund Pool are able to pursue an alternative method to obtain a refund. IDT R. Exc. at 4-5. Finally, IDT states that other than his misguided of “lack jurisdiction” argument that mischaracterizes the terms, Mr. Ferrare has provided no Settlement’s actual reasons why the refund provisions are not in the public interest. As such, IDT Settlement’s avers that his objections to the refund provisions should be rejected. IDT R. Settlement’s Exc. at 6. In their Replies to Exceptions, the Joint Complainants submit that the ALJs did not err in approving the Settlement as the Commission has not adjudicated or interfered with Mr. private causes of action. The Joint Complainants first note that to the Ferrare’s extent Mr. Exception regarding the release language in the Settlement purports to Ferrare’s be made on behalf of all IDT customers, it must be rejected pursuant to the Order ALJs’ granting his Petition to Intervene, wherein the ALJs held that Mr. Ferrare was permitted to intervene on his own behalf only. According to the Joint Complainants, Mr. Ferrare’s
seek a refund directly from the Company and file a formal complaint with the Commission if they are not satisfied with the Company’s response. IDT asserts that the Settlement provides options, and nothing in the Settlement forces customers to waive their private causes of action against IDT as Mr. Ferrare alleged. IDT R. Exc. at 4. IDT states next that Mr. Ferrare’s Exception also makes the erroneous argument that because the Commission does not have jurisdiction over private causes of action against EGSs, the Commission is precluded from approving a settlement that includes a general release provision. IDT avers that the Settlement does not ask the Commission to limit any individuals’ cause of action against IDT but rather includes a voluntary refund procedure under which specified customers will be given the opportunity to participate in a Refund Pool administered by the OCA and OAG. According to IDT, no customer is compelled in any way to participate in the Refund Pool or execute a general release, and the Settlement clarifies that customers who choose not to participate in the Refund Pool are able to pursue an alternative method to obtain a refund. IDT R. Exc. at 4-5. Finally, IDT states that other than his misguided “lack of jurisdiction” argument that mischaracterizes the Settlement’s actual terms, Mr. Ferrare has provided no reasons why the Settlement’s refund provisions are not in the public interest. As such, IDT avers that his objections to the Settlement’s refund provisions should be rejected. IDT R. Exc. at 6. In their Replies to Exceptions, the Joint Complainants submit that the ALJs did not err in approving the Settlement as the Commission has not adjudicated or interfered with Mr. Ferrare’s private causes of action. The Joint Complainants first note that to the extent Mr. Ferrare’s Exception regarding the release language in the Settlement purports to be made on behalf of all IDT customers, it must be rejected pursuant to the ALJs’ Order granting his Petition to Intervene, wherein the ALJs held that Mr. Ferrare was permitted to intervene on his own behalf only. According to the Joint Complainants, Mr. Ferrare’s
1455040.docx