SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 20092010

OR

Commission File No. 0-29092

PRIMUS TELECOMMUNICATIONS GROUP, INCORPORATED

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

(703) 902-2800

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:

Common Stock, par value $0.001 per share

Contingent Value Rights

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.    Yes  ¨    No  x

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act.    Yes  ¨    No  x

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.    Yes  x    No  ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Website, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).    Yes  ¨    No  ¨

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of the registrants’ knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K.  x

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” and “smaller reporting company” in rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act).    Yes  ¨    No  x

Non-affiliates of Primus Telecommunications Group, Incorporated held 119,500,6709,518,431 shares of Common Stock as of June 30, 2009.2010. The fair market value of the stock held by non-affiliates is $1,792,510$67,104,939 based on the sale price of the shares on June 30, 2009.2010.

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has filed all documents and reports required to be filed by Section 12, 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 subsequent to the distribution of securities under a plan confirmed by a court.    Yes  x    No  ¨

As of March 31, 2010, 9,743,15715, 2011, 13,118,083 shares of Common Stock, par value $.001, were outstanding.

Documents Incorporated by Reference:

Portions of the definitive Proxy Statement to be delivered to Stockholders in connection with the Annual Meeting of Stockholders are incorporated by reference into Part III.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART I

GeneralIntroductory Note

We are an integrated facilities-based communications services provider offering a portfolio of international and domestic voice, wireless, Internet, VoIP,Voice over Internet Protocol (“VoIP”), data, colocation and data center services to customers located primarily in the Australia, Canada, the United States Australia, Canada, Brazil, the United Kingdom and western Europe.Brazil. Our primary markets are Australia and Canada where we have deployed significant network infrastructure. We classify our services into three categories: Growth Services, Traditional Services and WholesaleInternational Carrier Services. Our focus is on expanding our Growth Services, which includes our broadband, IP-based voice, local, wireless, data and data center services, to fulfill the demand for high quality, competitively priced communications services. This demand is being driven, in part, by the globalization of the world’s economies, the global trend toward telecommunications deregulation and the migration of communication traffic to the Internet. We manage our Traditional Services, which includes our domestic and international long-distance voice, prepaid cards, dial-up Internet services and Australian off-network local services for cash flow generation that we reinvest to develop and market our Growth Services, particularly in our primary markets of Australia and Canada. We provide our wholesaleinternational carrier services voice termination services to other telecommunications carriers and resellers requiring IP or time-division multiplexing access.

On February 28, 2011, the Company completed the previously announced merger of PTG Investments, Inc. (“Merger Sub”), a Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company with and into Arbinet Corporation (“Arbinet”) (the “Merger”), pursuant to the Agreement and Plan of Merger dated November 10, 2010, as amended by Amendment No. 1 dated December 14, 2010 (collectively, the “Merger Agreement”) by and among the Company, Merger Sub and Arbinet. As a result of the Merger, Arbinet became a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company. In connection with the Merger, each share of Arbinet’s common stock, par value $0.0001 per share, issued and outstanding immediately prior to the effective time of the Merger was canceled and converted into the right to receive 0.5817 of a share of Company common stock. The Company intends to integrate Arbinet’s operations into the Company’s International Carrier Services segment.

Unless we indicate otherwise, references in this filing to “we,” “us,” “our,” “Primus,” “the Company,” and “Group” mean Primus Telecommunications Group, Incorporated and its subsidiaries for all periods before completion of the Merger with Arbinet Corporation on February 28, 2011. For forward-looking statements and risk factors described herein and for factual references herein beginning on March 1, 2011 through the filing of this Form 10-K, such references also include our wholly-owned subsidiary, Arbinet Corporation, and its subsidiaries.

General

We are an integrated facilities-based communications services provider offering a portfolio of international and domestic voice, wireless, Internet, VoIP, data, colocation and data center services to customers located primarily in the Australia, Canada, the United States and Brazil. Our primary markets are Australia and Canada where we have deployed significant network infrastructure. We classify our services into three categories: Growth Services, Traditional Services and International Carrier Services. Our focus is on expanding our Growth Services, which includes our broadband, IP-based voice, local, wireless, data and data center services, to fulfill the demand for high quality, competitively priced communications services. This demand is being driven, in part, by the globalization of the world’s economies, the global trend toward telecommunications deregulation and the migration of communication traffic to the Internet. We manage our Traditional Services, which includes our domestic and international long-distance voice, prepaid cards, dial-up Internet services and Australian off-network local services for cash flow generation that we reinvest to develop and market our Growth Services, particularly in our primary markets of Australia and Canada. We provide our international carrier services voice termination services to other telecommunications carriers and resellers requiring IP or time-division multiplexing access. We were formed as a corporation under the laws of Delaware in 1994.

Through our increased investments in sales and marketing spending focused on our Growth Services we believe that over time our growth in revenue from Growth Services will exceed the decline in our revenue from Traditional Services and Growth Services will increase as a percentage of our total retail revenue.

We target customers with significant telecommunications needs, including SMEs,small- and medium-sized enterprises (“SMEs”), multinational corporations, residential customers, and other telecommunication carriers and resellers. We provide services over our global, facilities-based network, which consists of:

Our Services

Within our three main service categories, Growth Services, Traditional Services and WholesaleInternational Carrier Services, we offer our customers a wide range of products, including:

Growth Services:

Traditional Services:

WholesaleInternational Carrier Services:

Following the Arbinet Merger, we began integrating the Arbinet business within our International Carrier Services Operations (formerly known as our wholesale operations). These operations consist of:

We continue to selectively target growth opportunities in areas of growing demand for telecommunications, including broadband, VoIP, local, wireless, data and data hosting center services. In order to accomplish this objective, we have sought, and continue to seek to:

Strategy

We have refocused our strategy and efforts to enhance the revenue growth from our Growth Services while managing the decline in revenue from our Traditional Services. Key elements of our strategy to achieve these objectives are the following:

scalability and service offerings to effectively compete. For the year ended December 31, 2009,2010, net revenues from our Australia and Canada operations, collectively, generated approximately 57%66.4% of our total net revenues and 78%86.6% of our total retail net revenue. We are focused on making prudent and effective investments in Australia and Canada where we believe that these markets present us with the highest potential for future growth. Supporting our strategy, during the year ended December 31, 20092010 we spent in excess of 90% of our total capital expenditures in our primary markets of Australia and Canada. Our target customer base consists of SMEs, multinational corporations and residential customers.

costs as a percentage of net revenue and enhance our ability to introduce new products and services with more efficient capital expenditures through utilization of available network capacity. In addition, by leveraging multiple customer segments in different geographical regions, including retail and carrier customers, we achieve greater utilization of our network assets, because our network experiences multiple periods of peak usage throughout each day. We are committed to migrating existing customers to our owned facilities (or “on-net”) that in most instances generate significantly higher margins than off-network customers.

2009 Voluntary Reorganization under Chapter 11

On March 16, 2009, Primus Telecommunications Group, Incorporated (“Group” or “PTGI”) and three of its non-operating holding company subsidiaries, Primus Telecommunications Holding, Inc. (“Holding” or “PTHI”), Primus Telecommunications International, Inc. (“PTII”) and Primus Telecommunications IHC, Inc., (“IHC” and together with Group, Holding and PTII, collectively, the “Holding Companies”) each filed a voluntary petition in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the “Bankruptcy Court”) for reorganization relief (“Reorganization”) under chapter 11 of title 11 of the United States Code, 11 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq., as amended (the “Bankruptcy Code”).

None of Group’s operating companies in the United States, Australia, Canada, India, Europe and Brazil were included in the Bankruptcy Court filing. These operating units continued to manage and to operate their businesses normally during the financial reorganization of the Holding Companies.

The consensual plan of reorganization (the “Plan” or “Plan of Reorganization”) was confirmed by the Bankruptcy Court on June 12, 2009 (the “Confirmation Date”). On July 1, 2009 (the “Effective Date”), the Holding Companies consummated their reorganization under the Bankruptcy Code and the Plan became effective. Upon our emergence under the Plan of Reorganization on July 1, the Holding Companies’ principal debt was reduced by $316 million, or over 50%, interest payments were reduced by over 50% and certain debt maturities were extended. For additional detail concerning the effects of the Plan of Reorganization, see Item 7.7, Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Emergence from Voluntary Reorganization under Chapter 11 Proceedings.

References to “Successor” or “Successor Company” show the operations of the reorganized Company from and including July 1, 2009. References to “Predecessor” or “Predecessor Company” refer to the operations of the Company prior to July 1, 2009, except for Predecessor’s July 1, 2009 statements of operations, which reflect only the effect of the plan adjustments and fresh-start accounting as of such date and do not reflect any operating results.

Operating Segments

We operate our business segments through a corporate shared services model and through operating segment managers responsible for specific geographic regions in which we operate. We assess performance and allocate resources based on the following operating segments:

Australia. Our Australian operations represented 30%36.2% of our net revenue for the year ended December 31, 2009.2010. We believe we are the fourth largest full-service provider in Australia, based upon net revenue.revenue and the full suite of services provided. Our Australian operations offers a comprehensive range of international and domestic long-distance voice, broadband and dial-up Internet, wireless, local, VoIP, data and data hosting center products, servicing both residential and business sectors. Our network employs Nortel DMS-100 telephone exchanges in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth and Adelaide operating through 66 POPs to provide national coverage for voice services. We operate a prepaid calling platform as well as a platform for delivery of enhanced toll-free service. The voice network supports direct access integrated services digital network (“ISDN”) and telephone line services across Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth and Adelaide and some select regional areas of the country. VoIP services are offered to business and consumer customers using softswitch platforms operating in Sydney and Melbourne. Primus Australia owns a national IP network for delivery of business and consumer Internet service. Dial-up Internet is available nationally under a single access code. DSL service is provided on-net through 252281 Primus DSLAMs and via wholesaleinternational carrier services DSLAM access providing reach to more than 400 exchanges nationally. The DSLAMs are capable of delivering a full suite of telecommunication products including asymmetric and symmetric IP services, telephone line, ISDN, frame relay and ATM. Primus Australia offers ATM, frame relay, IP virtual private networking (“VPN”) with quality of service (“QoS”) and managed routers. Metropolitan fiber networks exist in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth and Adelaide to provide high capacity backhaul for domestic carrier interconnects, DSLAM backhaul and fiber connectivity to select customer premises.

A data center in Melbourne offers managed hosting, colocation, and e-commerce applications. Our data centercenters in Sydney isand Melbourne are primarily used for colocation services. The Company plans to add growth capacity to these locations in 2010.the future.

We market our services primarily through a combination of direct sales to independent agents, corporate and SME customers, internet based marketing aimed at residential customers, and telemarketing and media advertising aimed at residential customers.

We operate a call center in Melbourne that services all of Australia. We employ staff in Sydney who run our Australian network management center that operates seven days per week, 24 hours per day, 365 days per year.

Canada. Our Canadian operations represented 27%30.2% of net revenue for year ended December 31, 2009.2010. We believe we are one of the largest alternative consumer service providers in Canada based on net revenue. We provide international and domestic long-distance voice, local, broadband and dial-up Internet, data and data center services, VoIP and wireless services to SMEs, residential customers and government agencies. We have sales and customer service offices in key cities throughout Canada, including Vancouver, Toronto, Ottawa, Calgary

and Edmonton. We operate international gateway switchesswitching, infrastructure in Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa, London, Edomnton and Vancouver and a nationwide SS7 network with signal transfer points (“STPs”) in Vancouver and Toronto. We maintain POPs in all major cities in Canada, and have use of a nationwide integrated network backbone for our voice, data, Internet and private line services. Each of the 24 nodes on the backbone is equipped with synchronous optical networking (“SONET”) add/drop, ATM, and IP equipment to provide a complete spectrum of voice and data communications products to our customers. In September 2009, we signed a new contract with Rogers Wireless Partnership which will significantly expand our coverage area and provide increased wireless data functionality to customers for future smart phone offerings.customers. Additionally, we operate one Nortel DMS 500 switch in Toronto and next generation IP voice switches in Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal, Ottawa, London and Edmonton which provide on-net equal access coverage to an estimated 90% of the population of Canada. Together with and through a competitive local

exchange carrier (“CLEC”) partner, we are co-located at 70 incumbent local exchange carriers (“ILECs”) central offices to provide DSL services, T1 access, network interconnection and local dial-tone. We operate a voice dial access network which consists of 70 POPs across the country.

We also own and operate a total of seven data centers in five major cities in Canada: two data centers in Ottawa (totaling 30,000 square feet), two data centers in Toronto (totaling 16,00018,000 square feet), a 18,00052,000 square foot data center in London, Ontario, a 6,00017,000 square foot data center in Edmonton, Alberta and a 3,0002,500 square foot data center in Vancouver through which we offer colocation, managed hosting, storage and other value added services. We have an extensive Internet network and we believe that we provide dial-up and ISDN Internet coverage to over 700 communities across Canada through a network of 51 POPs.

We market our services primarily through a combination of direct sales to independent agents, corporate and SME customers, internet based marketing aimed at residential customers, and telemarketing and media advertising aimed at residential customers.

WholesaleInternational Carrier Services. Our WholesaleInternational Carrier Services operations represented 26%23.3% of our net revenue for the year ended December 31, 2009.2010. Our WholesaleInternational Carrier Services business segment provides domestic and international minute transport and termination services and targets a diverse customer base including Tier 1 international carriers, multi-national carriers, wireless providers, VoIP providers, cable companies and ISPs.Internet service providers (“ISPs”).

United States. Our U.S. operations represented 8%6.6% of our net revenue for the year ended December 31, 2009.2010. In the U.S., we provide international and domestic voice, data, business-class broadband, hosted IP-PBX, SIP trunking and VoIP services to SMEs and residential customers. We operate international gateway telephone switches in the New York City area, Los Angeles, and Miami which are connected with Canada and countries in Europe, Latin America and the Asia-Pacific region through owned and leased international fiber cable systems. We have deployed intelligent softswitch architecture to our gateways in New York, Los Angeles and Miami. We lease and own domestic fiber in the U.S. to interconnect our switches, data centers, and POPs. We use a direct sales organization to sell to business customers. Our direct sales personnel offer business customers voice and hosted IP-PBX services. See “—Sales and Marketing; Direct Sales Force.” To reach residential customers, we advertisehave advertised in national and regional newspapers, other publications, and television channels whose market targets are expatriates, to offer competitive rates for international and domestic telephone calls, data, Internet and VoIP services. We have telemarketing centers in Florida and Iowa. We also sell retail VoIP services through Web-based on-line interactive marketing. We utilize independent agents to reach and enhance sales to both business and residential customers. We maintain customer service centers in Florida, Virginia and Iowa and also outsource selected customer service functions. We operate a 24-hour global network management control center in India which monitors our global voice, Internet and data traffic. Additionally, we offer local and long-distance voice, and DSL services to SMEs in Puerto Rico.

Europe. We operateDuring the third quarter of 2010 the Company discontinued its Europe segment, which is also known as European retail operations and has presented the results of the Europe segment as discontinued operations and held for sale as of September 30, 2010. As a licensed service provider inresult, the United Kingdom, France, Spain, Italy, BelgiumCompany has applied retrospective adjustments for 2009, 2008 and 2007 to reflect the Netherlands. The European market represents 7%effects of our net revenue for the year endeddiscontinued operations that occurred subsequent to December 31, 2009. Our network consistsAccordingly, revenue, costs, and expenses of voice/data switchesthe discontinued operations have been excluded from the respective captions in London, Paris, Milan and Madrid and an Internet router in Frankfurt. the consolidated statements of operations. The Company did not retrospectively adjust its 2009 or 2008 Consolidated Balance Sheet as held for sale criteria was not met until the third quarter of 2010, as such, financial information for the Europe segment will appear, as applicable, where balance sheet information is presented, see Note 19, “Discontinued Operations,” for further information.

Our European network interconnects with our global network. We have data centers for hosting and related services in London and Paris.

Our EuropeanInternational Carrier Services operations are headquartered in London. We provide voice, data, wireless and hosted PBX services to residential customers, SMEs and callshops. We market our services across Europe using a combination of a direct sales force, independent sales agents and direct media advertising.

Brazil. Our Brazilian operations, headquartered in São Paulo, represented 2%3.6% of our net revenue for the year ended December 31, 2009.2010. Our Brazilian business segment primarily consists of data hosting center services and retail and wholesaleinternational carrier services VoIP services.

Network

General. We operate a global telecommunications network consisting of traditional and next-generation international gateway and domestic switches and related peripheral equipment, carrier-grade routers and switches for Internet and data services, data hosting and co-location centers, and undersea and trans-continental fiber optic cable systems. To ensure high-quality communications services, our network employs digital switching and fiber optic technologies, incorporates the use of SS7/C7 signaling, and is supported by comprehensive network monitoring and technical support services.

Switching Systems. Our network makes use of 1813 carrier-grade domestic and international gateway switch systems, Internet routers and media gateways throughout the North America, Europe, and Asia-Pacific regions.

The locations and types of our switching systems are as follows:

We also operate a global VoIP network with an open network architecture which connects with our partners in over 150 countries through the use of open settlement protocol.

Fiber Optic Cable Systems. We have purchased and leased undersea and land-based fiber optic cable transmission capacity to connect our various switching systems. We either lease lines on a term basis for a fixed cost or purchase economic interests in transmission capacity through minimum assignable ownership units or indefeasible rights of use to international traffic destinations.

Throughout the previous years we have purchased or acquired through acquisitions various oceanic fiber capacity and land based capacity. This capacity along with leased fiber capacity allows our switching platforms in our operating units to be connected and pass voice and data traffic.

Foreign Carrier Agreements. In selected countries where competition with the traditional Post Telegraph and Telecommunications companies (“PTTs”) is limited, we have entered into foreign carrier agreements with PTTs or other service providers which permit us to provide traffic into and receive return traffic from these countries.

Network Management and Control. We own and operate network management control centers in Toronto, Canada; London, England; New Delhi, India; and Sydney, Australia, which are used to monitor and control our switching systems, global data network, and other digital transmission equipment used in our network. These network management control centers operate seven days per week, 24 hours per day, 365 days per year.

Network for Data and Internet Services. We have built an Internet backbone network that enables our global network to carry Internet and data traffic for our business, residential, carrier and ISP customers. This network uses packet switched technology, including IP and ATM. This network allows us to offer to customers data and

voice communications services, including, dial-up, broadband and dedicated Internet access, hosting, e-commerce, managed VPN services, VoIP, ATM and frame relay data services.

Data Centers. We offer world-class data center facilities with advanced 24 hours per day, 365 days per year customer access, onsite engineering support and help desk services; dedicated HVAC and environmental control systems; multi-stage fire suppression systems; uninterruptible power supply and backup generator; redundant data connections and services; routing and switching; shared and secure rack space; physical access technologies and practices; closed-circuit television and video security systems; and 24 x 7 building system and network monitoring. Our Australian data center facilities in Melbourne and Sydney occupy approximately 15,000 square feet. Canada offers national data center coverage with locations in Toronto, Vancouver, Edmonton, London, and Ottawa, with a total combined square footage of 73,000 square feet. Additionally, we own a data center facility in Brazil.

Customers

Our residential customers are attracted to us because of competitive pricing as compared to traditional carriers and responsive customer service and support. We offer VoIP, broadband and dial-up Internet access, local access and wireless products to our residential customers in select markets. We are expanding our local and broadband offerings to additional markets and bundling them with traditional voice services.

Our business sales and marketing efforts primarily target SMEs with data, voice, internet and managed hosting needs. We also target large multinational businesses.

We compete for the business of other telecommunications carriers and resellers primarily on the basis of price, service quality and presence. Sales to other carriers and resellers help us to negotiate better termination costs for our retail business units and increase the utilization of our network, thereby reducing our fixed costs per minute of use, as well as permitting our network to be interconnected with other major carriers to provide global coverage.

No single customer accounted for greater than 10% of net revenue for the year ended December 31, 20092010 or for the year ended December 31, 2008.2009.

Sales and Marketing

We market our services through a variety of sales channels, as summarized below:

Direct sales personnel are generally compensated with a base salary plus commissions. We have sales offices in Edmonton, Calgary, Toronto, Vancouver, Ottawa, London, Glasgow, Paris, Adelaide, Brisbane, Melbourne, Perth, Sydney, Sao Paulo, Chicago and Tampa. In addition, we maintain a direct sales team which exclusively sells services to wholesaleinternational carrier services customers including other telecommunications carriers and resellers.

Management Information and Billing Systems

We operate various management information, network and customer billing systems in our different operating subsidiaries to support the functions of network and traffic management, customer service and customer billing. For financial reporting, we consolidate information from each of our markets into a single database. For our billing requirements we use several systems developed in-house as well as a few third party systems.

We believe that our financial reporting and billing systems are generally adequate to meet our business needs. We continually consider and evaluate whether our financial reporting and billing systems are generally adequate to meet our business needs, and in the future, we may determine that we need to invest additional capital to purchase hardware and software, license more specialized software and increase our capacity.

Competition

Voice

The telecommunications industry is highly competitive and significantly affected by regulatory changes, marketing and pricing decisions of the larger industry participants and the introduction of new services made possible by technological advances. We believe that long-distance service providers compete on the basis of price, customer service, product quality and breadth and bundling of services offered. In each country of operation, we have numerous competitors including wireline, wireless, VoIP and cable competitors. We believe that as the international telecommunications markets continue to deregulate, competition in these markets will increase. Prices for long-distance voice calls in the markets in which we compete have declined historically and are likely to continue to decrease. In addition, many of our competitors are significantly larger, have substantially greater financial, technical and marketing resources, larger networks and more products for bundling.

Privatization and deregulation have had, and are expected to continue to have, significant effects on competition in the industry. For example, as a result of legislation enacted in the U.S., regional bell operating companies (“RBOCs”) entered the long-distance market; long-distance carriers have entered the local telephone services market; and cable television companies and utilities are allowed to enter both the local and long-distance telecommunications markets. Consolidation among these large companies is also occurring, which could change the dynamics of pricing and marketing. In addition, competition has begun to increase in the European Union (“EU”) communications markets in connection with the deregulation of the telecommunications industry. In addition, alternatives to wireline services, such as wireless and VoIP services, are significant competitive threats. This increase in competition adversely affects net revenue per minute and usage of traditional wireline services, and these trends are expected to continue.

The following is a brief summary of the competitive environment in our principal service regions:

United States. In the U.S., which is among the most competitive and deregulated long-distance markets in the world, competition is based on pricing, customer service, network quality and the ability to provide value-added services and the bundling of services. AT&T, Inc. and Verizon Communications, Inc. are the largest

suppliers of long-distance services. Wireless carriers have gained significant ground particularly in the domestic long-distance markets, and VoIP cable-based service providers present a growing source of competition.

Australia. Australia is one of the most deregulated and competitive communications markets in the Asia-Pacific region. Our principal competitors in Australia are Telstra Corporation Limited (“Telstra”), the dominant carrier, SingTel Optus Pty Limited, iiNet Limited, SP Telemedia Limited (known as TPG) and until recently AAPT, an affiliate of Telecom New Zealand.Zealand, which recently withdrew from the residential services market, selling its residential customer base to iiNet. AAPT remains a significant competitor, along with Macquarie Telecom, in relation to the corporate and SME markets. Repeated pricing threats and actions by Telstra present serious competitive challenges (see “Regulation—“Government Regulation—Australia”). In September, 2009,December 2010 the Australian government has proposedpassed legislation to reform the regulatory pricing arrangements and provide for the separation of Telstra’s wholesaleinternational carrier services and retail arms, which in orderassociation with the construction of a government owned national broadband network is designed to promote more competition and better prices.competition.

Canada. The Canadian communications market is highly competitive and is dominated by a few established carriers whose marketing and pricing decisions have a significant impact on the other industry participants, including us. In residential markets, we compete with each of the incumbent telecommunication companies (of which the largest are those owned by BCE, Inc. (“Bell CanadaCanada”) in eastern Canada, and TELUS Corporation (“TELUS”)and MTS Allstream, Inc. in western Canada) in their respective territories and the large cable companies, including Rogers and Shaw Communications Inc., who have launched their telecom service portfolio. We also compete against smaller resellers. In the highly competitive business market, we compete with Bell Canada and TELUS, who are both expanding beyond their traditional territories and competing with each other across the country, and with the national division of MTS Allstream, Inc., Rogers Communications, Inc. (“Rogers”), Shaw Communications, Inc. and other smaller carriers, including Bragg Communications Inc., COGECO Inc. and Quebecor Inc. Major wireless carriers are also a significant source of competition. In 2008 the CRTCCanadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (“CRTC”) conducted a review of the regulatory framework for wholesaleinternational carrier services and the definition of essential services. See “Regulation—Canada.”

United Kingdom. Our principal competitors in the United Kingdom are BT Group plc, the dominant provider of telecommunications services in the United Kingdom, ntl:Telewest Business, Carphone Warehouse Group plc, Cable & Wireless plc, Colt Telecom Group S.A. and MCI/Verizon Communications Inc. Major wireless carriers are also a significant source of competition.

Internet and Data

The market for Internet services and data services is extremely competitive. We anticipate that competition will continue to intensify. Our current and prospective competitors offering these services include national, international, regional and local ISPs, web hosting companies, other long-distance and international long-distance telecommunications companies, local exchange carriers (“LECs”), cable television, direct broadcast satellite, wireless communications providers and on-line service providers. Many of these competitors have significantly greater resources, product portfolios, market presence and brand recognition than we do.

Government Regulation

We are subject to varying degrees of regulation in each of the jurisdictions in which we operate. Local laws and regulations, and the interpretation of such laws and regulations, differ among those jurisdictions. There can be no assurance that (1) future regulatory, judicial and legislative changes will not have a material adverse effect on us; (2) domestic or international regulators or third parties will not raise material issues with regard to our compliance or noncompliance with applicable regulations; or (3) regulatory activities will not have a material adverse effect on us.

Regulation of the telecommunications industry continues to change rapidly both domestically and globally. Privatization, deregulation, changes in regulation, consolidation, and technological change have had, and will continue to have, significant effects on competition in the industry. Over time we have become subject to increasing competition in all of the markets in which we operate, and we expect such increases in competitive pressure to continue. Although we believe that continuing deregulation with respect to portions of the telecommunications industry will create opportunities for firms such as us, there can be no assurance that deregulation and changes in regulation will be implemented in a manner that would benefit us.

The regulatory frameworks in certain jurisdictions in which we provide services are described below:

United States

In the U.S., our services are subject to the provisions of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the “Communications Act”), and other federal laws, the FCC’sFederal Communications Commission (“FCC”) regulations, and the applicable laws and regulations of the various states.

Certain of our services (our “telecommunications services”) constitute common carrier offerings subject to Title II of the Communications Act and associated FCC regulations and similar state laws. Among other things, these requirements impose an obligation to offer service on a nondiscriminatory basis at just and reasonable rates, and to obtain regulatory approval prior to withdrawing from the provision of regulated services, to any assignment of authorizations, or to any transfer of legal or actual control of the company.

Our interstate telecommunications services are subject to various specific common carrier telecommunications requirements set forth in the Communications Act and the FCC’s rules, including operating, reporting and fee requirements. Both federal and state regulatory agencies have broad authority to impose monetary and other penalties on us for violations of regulatory requirements.

International Service Regulation. The FCC has jurisdiction over common carrier services linking points in the U.S. to points in other countries. We provide such services. Providers of such international common carrier services must obtain authority from the FCC under Section 214 of the Communications Act. We have obtained the authorizations required to use, on a facilities and resale basis, various transmission media for the provision of international switched services and international private line services on a non-dominant carrier basis. The FCC is considering a number of possible changes to its rules governing international common carriers. We cannot predict how the FCC will resolve those issues or how its decisions will affect our international business. FCC rules permit non-dominant carriers such as us to offer some services on a detariffed basis, where competition can provide consumers with lower rates and choices among carriers and services. With some exceptions, current FCC rules require facilities-based U.S. carriers, like us, with operating agreements with dominant foreign carriers, to abide by the FCC’s International Settlements Policy by following uniform accounting rates, an even split in settlement rates, and proportionate return of traffic, for agreements with carriers on certain routes. U.S. carrier arrangements with non-dominant foreign carriers or on a substantial number of international routes where competition exists are not subject to these requirements. We may take advantage of these more flexible arrangements with non-dominant foreign carriers, and the greater pricing flexibility that may result, but we may also face greater price competition from other international service carriers.

Domestic Service Regulation. With respect to our domestic U.S. telecommunications services, we are considered a non-dominant interstate carrier subject to regulation by the FCC. We are not required to obtain FCC authority to initiate or expand our domestic interstate operations, but we may be required to obtain FCC approval to assume control of another telecommunications carrier or its assets, to transfer control of our operations to another entity, or to discontinue service. We are also required to file various reports and pay various fees and assessments to the FCC and various state commissions. Among other things, interstate common carriers must offer service on a nondiscriminatory basis at just and reasonable rates. The FCC has jurisdiction to hear complaints regarding our compliance or non-compliance with these and other requirements of the Communications Act and the FCC’s rules, including, for example, alleged unauthorized changes in a customer’s preferred carrier. We are also subject to CALEAthe Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (“CALEA”) and associated FCC regulations which require telecommunications carriers and VoIP providers to configure their networks to facilitate law enforcement authorities to perform electronic surveillance; to the Do-Not-Call Registry and related restrictions set out the specific parameters for telemarketing solicitation and prohibit outbound telemarketing in some circumstances; and to the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003, which places certain restrictions on commercial electronic mail messages.

Normally our long-distance customers, and the recipients of calls from our customers, do not connect directly to our network but, instead, are connected to our network by means of the local facilities of LECs, which impose regulated charges on us, called switched access charges, to originate and terminate calls over their local facilities. In some cases, FCC rules cap these charges, and, in the case of incumbent LECs, impose additional restrictions on their ability to change their charges. The FCC may modify its rules regarding LEC access charges, including both the caps and the restrictions on incumbent LECs, which could result in an increase in our termination and origination costs over time.

Interstate telecommunications carriers and VoIP providers are required to contribute to the federal USF.Universal Service Fund (“USF”). The FCC is considering revising its USF mechanisms and the services considered when calculating the USF contribution. We cannot predict the outcome of these proceedings or their potential effect on our USF contributions. Some changes to the USF under consideration by the FCC may affect different entities more than others, and we may be disadvantaged as compared to our competitors as a result of FCC decisions regarding USF. In addition, the FCC may extend the obligation to contribute to the USF to certain services that we offer but that are not currently assessed USF contributions.

Voice-over-Internet Protocol (VoIP). VoIP services that permit subscribers to send calls to and receive calls from the traditional telephone network, known as interconnected VoIP services, are generally subject to the regulatory authority of the FCC. We offer such services. For many years the FCC has been considering whether to classify such services as “telecommunications” services“telecommunications services” or “information” services“information services” under the Communications Act. Information services are generally subject to less regulation than telecommunications services. However, the FCC has extended a number of regulatory obligations normally applicable to telecommunications services to VoIP services, irrespective of the lack of clarity regarding the classification of such services. These include (1) the obligation to contribute to the USF; (2) the obligation to comply with CALEA; (3) the obligation to comply with the FCC’s rules regarding protecting CPNI;customer proprietary network information (“CPNI”); (4) the obligation to provide E911enhanced 911 emergency services (“E911”) services, and to disclose limitations on such services to end users; (5) the obligation to permit customers to keep their telephone number when changing from one carrier to another; (6) the obligation to deploy equipment and provide services that make reasonable accommodations for the needs of disabled persons; andpersons and; (7) the obligation to pay a variety of regulatory fees.fees; . We cannot predict what other regulatory obligations, if any, will be imposed on our VoIP operations, nor can we predict whether the FCC will eventually classify VoIP as a telecommunications service and, if it does, what additional regulatory obligations, if any, the FCC would choose to impose on such services. The uncertainty regarding the regulatory obligations applicable to interconnected VoIP services presents a number of situations which could have a material negative impact on our operating costs and profitability. These potential regulatory developments include:

this ruling, but individual states may nonetheless attempt to regulate that service. We cannot predict whether any individual states would make such an effort, nor can we predict the outcome of any such effort.

does not satisfy the FCC’s requirements, in which case the FCC could require us to disconnect a significant number of our VoIP subscribers, which could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations and cash flows. In addition, the FCC is considering whether it should impose additional VoIP E911 obligations on interconnected VoIP providers including consideration of a requirement that interconnected VoIP providers automatically determine the physical location of their customer rather than allowing customers to manually register their location. We cannot predict the outcome of this proceeding, nor its impact on us, at this time.

State Regulation. Traditional long-distance calls for which the caller and recipient are both located in the same state are subject to regulation by that state. Our intrastate long-distance operations are therefore subject to various state laws and regulations, including, in most jurisdictions, certification and tariff filing requirements. Primus Telecommunications, Inc. (“PTI”), our principal operating subsidiary in the U.S., maintains the necessary certificate and tariff approvals, to provide intrastate long-distance service in 49 states and Puerto Rico. PTI also maintains the necessary certificate to provide local services in Puerto Rico. Certain of our other subsidiaries also maintain certificates and tariffs in some states. Some states also require the filing of periodic reports, the payment of various fees and surcharges and compliance with service standards and consumer protection rules. States often require prior approval or notification for certain stock or asset transfers or, in several states, for the issuance of securities, debt or for name changes. As a certificated carrier, consumers may file complaints against us at the public service commissions. Certificates of authority can generally be conditioned, modified, cancelled, terminated, or revoked by state regulatory authorities for failure to comply with state law and/or rules, regulations and policies of the state regulatory authorities. Fines and other penalties also may be imposed for such violations. Public service commissions also regulate access charges and other pricing for telecommunications services within each state. The RBOCs and other LECs have been seeking reduction of

state regulatory requirements, including greater pricing flexibility which, if granted, could subject us to increased price competition. We may also be required to contribute to universal service funds in some states.

State Taxes and Fees Applicable to VoIP Services. In general, we doWe have historically not collectcollected or remitremitted state or municipal taxes (such as sales and use, excise, utility user, and ad valorem taxes), fees or surcharges on the charges to our customers for our VoIP services. With limited exceptions, we do not believe that we have sufficient nexus in most states/local jurisdictions to be subject to state or municipal taxes, surcharges or other fees. ShouldIn 2010, however, the FCC ruled that states may require interconnected VoIP service providers to contribute to state USF funds, and expressly deferred ruling on whether we must do so retroactively. We are still assessing the applicability of this change or foundruling to be otherwise,our business and developing compliance plans. This ruling may expose us to other state and local assessments on our VoIP services, and we may be subject to retroactive liability for VoIP-specific taxes, fees and surcharges in a number of states and potentially, penalties and interest. Retroactive liability for such taxes, fees or surcharges, as well as penalties and interest, may adversely impact our financial position and we would not be able to recoup any of these liabilities from our customers. If we must collect such state taxes, fees and surcharges on a going-forward basis, we will likely pass such charges through to our customers. The impact of this price increase on our customers or our inability to recoup our costs or liabilities could have a material adverse effect on the financial position, results of operations and cash flows of our VoIP business.

Several states have attempted to impose state-level USF charges on a portion of the revenues from interconnected VoIP service. Thus far, such efforts have been unsuccessful. For example, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently affirmed a lower court ruling enjoining the state of Nebraska from attempting to collect such fees. On the basis of this litigation, we do not believe that existing law allows states to subject us to state universal service fund contribution obligations with respect to our VoIP services. However, we cannot predict the final outcome of this litigation, nor any similar litigation that other states might initiate, nor its impact on us.

On July 16, 2009, Kansas and Nebraska filed a petition with the FCC requesting a declaratory ruling that states are not preempted from requiring nomadic interconnected VoIP providers, such as us, to contribute to state universal service funds. The petition also seeks a retroactive ruling finding that states have been able to collect such contributions for a time period that is not clearly defined in the petition. At this time, we cannot predict the outcome of this proceeding nor its impact on our business. If we were required to retroactively pay into state-level universal service funds, that could have a material negative impact on our earnings. However, if the FCC were to adopt retroactivity but limit it to Kansas and Nebraska, we do not believe our potential liability would be material.

If we become subject to state USF fees in additional states or other telecommunications-related surcharges, we will likely pass such charges through to our customers. The impact of this price increase on our customers or

our inability to recoup its costs or liabilities in remitting USF contributions or other factors could have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations and cash flows.

Australia

The provision of our telecommunications services is subject to federal regulation in Australia. The two primary instruments of regulation are the Telecommunications Act 1997 (the “Telecommunications Act 1997”) and federal regulation of network access pricing and anti-competitive practices pursuant to the Trade Practices Act 1974 (the “Trade Practices Act”). The current regulatory framework came into effect in July 1997.

We are licensed as a carrier under the Telecommunications Act 1997, which permits us to own or operate transmission infrastructure that is used to supply carriage services to the public. With respect to providing carriage services to the public, we must comply with legislated “service provider” rules contained in the Telecommunications Act 1997 covering matters such as operator services, regulation of land access, directory assistance, provision of information to allow maintenance of an integrated public number database and itemized billing.

In December 2010 the Government introduced significant reform to the regulatory framework through the introduction of the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Act 2010. That legislation provided for the structural separation of Telstra (to create distinct retail and international carrier services operations), revised the legislative provisions that deal with interconnection pricing, and introduced additional consumer protection measures. The interconnection revisions establish a mechanism by which the terms and conditions of access to a declared service can be determined in advance by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (“ACCC”) (whereas previously these were determined through an arbitration process and were largely retrospective in application). The telecommunications specific provisions in the Trade Practices Act are intended to ensure fair and competitive access to essential facilities and monopoly services, and address anti-competitive conduct of carriers, particularly those with substantial market power such as Telstra. The right of access provisions also apply to any carrier that owns or controls essential infrastructure or services that have been declared by the ACCC on grounds that access should be provided for the purposes of competition. The recent reforms generally represent improvement in the conditions and prospects for competitors such as Primus, and should ultimately lead to better price certainty and less regulatory risk.

In April 2009 the Government announced its intention to construct a national broadband network (“NBN”). The government subsequently established NBN Co to construct and operate a fiber to the home NBN, with final appointments to the executive team made in early 2010. After a successful trial in Tasmania, a number of initial deployment sites have now been selected across mainland Australia for testing purposes. Work has commenced

on these sites. NBN Co has announced a 9 ¹/2 year rollout and it is expected that legislation will be introduced within the next few months setting out the governance and regulatory framework for NBN Co. This development represents the prospect of long-term improvement in the conditions for industry competitors such as Primus Telecom, given the Government’s intention that NBN Co operate as a stand-alone international carrier services company, therefore removing some of the friction that currently exists between competitors and the (vertically integrated) monopoly international carrier services service provider, Telstra.

Two federal regulatory authorities principally exercise control over the broad range of issues affecting the operation of the Australian telecommunications industry. The Australian Communications & Media Authority (the “ACMA”) is the authority regulating matters including the licensing of carriers and technical matters, and the ACCC has the role of promotion of competition and consumer protection and in particular dealing with carrier to carrier interconnection and network access. Telstra, the dominant carrier and former Government owned monopoly, has typicallyhistorically challenged many of the key principles applied by the ACCC to access pricing, and endeavors to have some key decisions removed from the charter of the ACCC. For example, Telstra has previously applied to the High Court of Australia to overturn its obligation to provide access to unbundled local loop lines (and also access to those lines pursuant to spectrum sharing). While that petition to the highest court in Australia was unsuccessful, over the course of many years Telstra continueshas continued to lodge, mostly unsuccessful, challenges against ACCC regulatory decisions, with recent unsuccessful Federal Court challenges relating to the unconditional local loop service (“ULLS”) and leased line sharing (“LLS”) pricing.decisions. Telstra has also lodged a number of exemption applications with the ACCC submitting that it should be exempted from an obligation to provide wholesale“regulated” international carrier services telecommunications services on various routes and locations in Australia. Some of these applications have been successful, particularly in respect to wholesaleinternational carrier services line rental, the local carriage service and public switched telephone network originating access services supplied from certain CBD and metro exchanges, and also some transmission services where the ACCC considered sufficient alternative supply was available. There is a risk that Telstra will significantly increase its prices in respect of these exempt services and/or deny us access to essential services we need to compete. Separately,

It is not clear to what extent Telstra has also petitionedwill continue to combat competition regulation and ACCC determinations given the ACCC forpassage of the right to impose significantly higher unconditional local loop (“ULL”) pricing. The ACCC has maderecent reform legislation, the construction of a decision to reject this, however Telstra has challenged this decision in the Federal Court. Telstragovernment owned “international carrier services-only” NBN, and the ACCC are also presently contestingpublicly announced expectation that Telstra will cooperate with NBN Co and migrate its services to the appropriate pricing for all the fixed line regulated services supplied by Telstra. There is currently a significant divergence of view on some of this pricing and in August 2009 the ACCC published its draft pricing proposing increased ULL pricing. The ACCC subsequently indicated it would withdraw from that proposed pricing, and is expected to publish its final indicative pricing decision in the second quarter of 2010. The ACCC will also be establishing SSS and ULL pricing in the context of access disputes during the second quarter of 2010.

In September 2009 the Australian Government announced a regulatory reform package that if enacted, we expect will significantly reform the industry for the better. The key reforms are rules designed to separate Telstra’s retail arm from its wholesale business (proposing scope for either functional or structural separation), and the reform of the access pricing regime to enable the ACCC to conduct more efficient and forward looking pricing inquiries, give the ACCC greater price setting powers and provide greater certainty by removing merits review of ACCC decisions. These reforms generally represent improvement in the conditions and prospects for competitors suchNBN as us. However, the removal of merits review does expose us to some risk, as negative outcomes will not be open to challenge. The reforms were subject to debate and consideration by the Federal

Senate during November 2009, and again debated in March 2010, however at this time its not clear whether the Government will obtain the necessary support to pass the legislation. Combined with other measures (including amendment of undertakings and exemption processes), the legislative reforms if and when enacted should ultimately lead to better price certainty and less regulatory risk. Given the reluctance of Telstra to take the lead in constructing a high speed broadband network in Australia, and the failurepart of a competitive tender to construct such a network (given global conditions at the time), the Government has moved to establish a Government owned company (NBN Co) to construct and operate a National Broadband Network. It is expected that draft legislation will be introduced within the next 6 months setting out the governance and regulatory framework for(presently non-binding) “heads of Agreement” reached with NBN Co. At this time NBN CoTelstra is actively engaging in discussion with industry in connection with its construction plans. This development representsregulatory proceedings conducted by the prospect of long-term improvement inACCC to determine interconnection pricing to apply to regulated international carrier services (WLR, LCS, PSTN, SSS, transmission and ULL services, to the conditionsextent they remain regulated access services and are not exempted). Telstra is petitioning for industry competitors such as Primus Telecom, given the Government’s intention that NBN Co operate as a stand alone wholesale company, therefore removing some of the friction that currently exists between competitorshigher rates and the monopoly wholesale service provider, Telstra, which because if its vertically integrated nature has incentivesACCC is expected to favour its own retail operationsfinalize 3 to 5 year pricing determinations for these services over the interestscourse of its wholesale customers.2011. There are limited rights of review (restricted to judicial review proceedings) that Telstra (or access seekers) are able to pursue in respect to these determinations. To the extent the access determinations are favorable; Primus will be seeking to adopt those regulatory pricing determinations over the course of 2011(on expiry of current pricing agreements for relevant regulated international carrier services)

TheIn December 2009 the Government has recently announced a policy to require internet service providersISPs to impose mandatory filtering of certain objectionable and illegal material through blocking access to specified URLs. AtThis initiative has presently been delayed while the Government has directed a review of content classification rules and at this stage it’s not clear what direction the policy will take and consequently what cost and operational implications this policy willcould have on Primus. More detail on these implications should emerge over coming months.

In addition to the Trade Practices Act and the Telecommunications Act 1997, the industry is also subject to other federal legislation, state legislation, various regulations pursuant to delegated authority and legislation, ministerial declarations, codes, directions, licenses, and statements of Australian government policy. Some of the industry codes are being reviewed over the course of 2011; however we do not anticipate these revisions to lead to any material detrimental outcomes for Primus.

Licensed carriers are subject to charges that are intended to cover the costs of regulating the telecommunications industry and are obliged to comply with license conditions (including obligations to comply with the Telecommunications Act 1997 and with the telecommunications access regime and related facilities access obligations). Carriers also must meet the cost of the Universal Service Obligations (“USO”), which assists in providing all Australians, particularly in remote areas, with reasonable access to standard telephone services. Telstra is currently the sole universal service provider. Since 2000, the responsible Minister of the Australian government may make a determination of the amount of USO subsidies, with advice from the ACMA. No methodology is provided in legislation and the Minister could make a determination of a Universal Service Levy (“USL”) that would be material to us. However, the USL has been set previously at levels that we do not consider to have a material impact. The ACMA is presently proposingimplemented a determination for 2010 that is consistent with earlier determinations. However, the Government has since moved to indicate a preference that the industry be locked into subsidizing rural and regional services for a further 10 year period while the NBN is being rolled out. The Government is currently consulting on this proposal, which could impose an increased burden on us.

The Government has recently commenced a review of communications and media regulation in recognition of ‘convergence’. At this time the Government has published the terms of reference, and the inquiry will proceed over the course of 2011. It’s not clear what may result from the review, however we note there have been calls for better harmonization of regulation across the various content platforms.

Fair Trading Practices. The ACCC enforces legislation (the Trade Practices Act) for the promotion of competition and consumer protection, and is responsible for regulating rights of access to services (including pricing for access) and interconnection. The ACCC can issue a competition notice to a carrier which has engaged in anti-competitive conduct. Where a competition notice has been issued, the ACCC can seek pecuniary penalties, and other carriers can seek damages. Under the Trade Practices Act other carriers can also initiate their own proceedings in the event of violation of competition laws.

As indicated, the Trade Practices Act provides for a telecommunications access regime that sets out a framework for regulating access rights to specific carriage services and related services through the declaration of access services by the ACCC. The regime establishes mechanisms by which the terms and conditions of access to a declared service can be determined by the ACCC in an access arbitration. The telecommunications specific provisions in the Trade Practices Act are intended to ensure fair and competitive access to essential facilities and monopoly services, and address anti-competitive conduct of carriers, particularly those with substantial market power such as Telstra. The right of access provisions also apply to any carrier that owns or controls essential infrastructure or services that have been declared by the ACCC on grounds that access should be provided for the purposes of competition.

Consumer Protection. The ACCC’s consumer protection role as set out in the Trade Practices Act is also shared with other state based regulators. Each state has its own Fair Trading Act administered by consumer affairs authorities and ACMA undertakes some activities in consumer protection predominantly in connection with industry codes of conduct. The Trade Practices Act has recently been amended to prohibit “unfair terms” contained in standard form agreements. The ACCC is presently working with the telecommunications industry to ensure compliance and we expect satisfactory resolution. As a service provider we must also be a member of the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (“TIO”) Scheme. The TIO is responsible for handling complaints from consumers about carriers and Internet service providers. The TIO may impose financial penalties upon carriers that do not satisfactorily deal with consumer complaints.

Canada

We are a reseller of telecommunications services in Canada. Because we do not own or operate transmission facilities in Canada, we are not subject to direct regulation by the CRTC pursuant to the Telecommunications Act (as amended, the “Canadian Telecommunications Act”). We may resell long-distance service, local telephone service, wireless service and Internet access without the regulation of our rates, prices or the requirement to file tariffs. In addition, as described below, as a reseller we are not subject to restrictions on foreign ownership or control.

Regulation. The CRTC has issued various decisions and constructed certain frameworks that directly affect our obligations and operations as a reseller.

In 2000, the CRTC implemented a revenue-based contribution regime to replace the per minute contribution charge formerly in place to support universal access. The revenue-based contribution mechanism collects from a wider base of telecommunications service providers, including resellers, and has lowered our contribution expenses since 2001.

We are required to hold a license to provide Basic International Telecommunications Services (a “BITS” license) pursuant to which we are subject to the requirements not to engage in anti-competitive conduct in relation to the provision of international telecommunications services and the requirement to observe the contribution regime described immediately above.

We operate as a local services reseller, both in reselling CLEC local services and in the provision of local VoIP services interconnected with the public switched telephone network. As such, we are subject to a number of obligations that are passed on through our contractual arrangements with LECs from which we purchase services. These include:

•

Privacy safeguards. Local resellers are required to provide certain privacy safeguards, including the provision of the privacy indicator, automated universal per-call blocking of calling line identification and others. To the extent that VoIP providers are unable to provide these privacy safeguards, they are required to inform their customers of this fact.

We also operate as a non-facilities based Internet service provider, both as a reseller of high speed Internet service and a digital subscriber line provider. As such, we are subject to certain obligations passed on through our contractual arrangements with LECs from which we purchase services. These include:

We are also subject to other obligations related to our operations. These include:

In a Price Cap decision issued in May 2002, the CRTC lowered the prices incumbent providers can charge competitors for a range of competitor services, i.e., certain facilities and services required by competitors to

provide telecommunications services to their end-customers and mandated by the CRTC (see discussion of the new framework for wholesaleinternational carrier services, below). The Price Cap formula set out in this decision required the ILECs to revise the rates of selected services (primarily local telecommunications services) yearly by the rate of inflation minus a productivity offset of 3.5%. The rates of other service groupings were “capped” and others were “uncapped” with upward pricing constraints. The CRTC typically relied on a four-year Price Cap period, but in 2005 it decided to extend the period by one year in order to complete a public proceeding to establish the parameters of the next Price Cap period. In a decision dated April 2007, the CRTC issued the parameters of the new Price Cap framework. The new Price Cap framework is similar to the previous framework in that rates for service groupings are “capped,” “uncapped” and subject to upward or downward pricing constraints. The productivity offset still applies to selected services. CRTC decided not to impose an expiry date for the current Price Cap framework. Accordingly, the current Price Cap framework continues to allow for certain savings on competitor services for resellers.

In 2005 the federal government appointed a Telecom Policy Review Panel to review Canada’s telecommunications policy framework. The Panel’s report was released in March of 2006. Following the release of the report, the federal government issued a Policy Direction to the CRTC on December 18, 2006 that required, among other things, that in exercising its powers and duties, it rely on market forces to the maximum extent feasible. The Policy Direction has had an impact on the CRTC’s recentlatest decision involving essential facilities and wholesaleinternational carrier services, described immediately below. The policyPolicy Direction directs the CRTC to take into account the principles of technological and competitive neutrality, the potential for incumbents to exercise market power in the wholesaleinternational carrier services and retail markets for the service in the absence of mandated access to wholesaleinternational carrier services, and the impediments faced by new and existing carriers seeking to develop competing network facilities.

On March 3, 2008, the CRTC issued a decision revising the definition of an essential service and the classifications and pricing principles under which facilities-based carriers are to offer wholesaleinternational carrier services to competitors at regulated rates. Under this revised regulatory framework for wholesaleinternational carrier services, the CRTC has classified existing wholesaleinternational carrier services into six categories: essential, conditional essential, conditional mandated non-essential, public good, interconnection, and non- essential subject to phase-out. More than a third of wholesaleinternational carrier services will be deregulated by 2012, including intra-exchange transport services which we use to interconnect our sites where we have located DSLAM equipment. The area likely to have the next-largest impact involves high-speed access to business services, which is to be deregulated in 2013.

In a regulatory policy update related to the new wholesale framework, dated January 2009, the CRTC determined that it would be appropriate to allow for negotiated agreements for certain services that were mandated pursuant to the wholesale framework (i.e., those services classified as “conditional essential” and “conditional mandated non-essential”). Accordingly, we now have the ability to purchase these services on a tariff basis or through a negotiated agreement. As we utilizeThough there has not been a significant amountuptake in the purchase of these services it is expectedon a negotiated basis, this continues to provide us with flexibility to capitalize on preferable arrangements that the ILECs will attempt to convince us to enter into negotiated agreements for these services going forward. However, it is not yet certain whether such agreements will offer or result in preferable terms for us.may arise.

In addition to the above, our competitors have filed applications to review or appeal other aspects of the CRTC’s new wholesale framework, as well as other wholesale data and Internet service obligations. In a decision

dated January 2009, the CRTC withdrew a directive contained in the wholesale framework decision that would have required the ILECs to provide unbundled access to the facilities used to provide Internet service to all end-users that they are able to serve. In parallel, the CRTC initiated a proceeding to consider the appropriateness of mandating certain ILEC and cable company wholesale high-speed access services, including unbundled access to next-generation facilities. In March 2009, several of our competitors applied to the Governor in Council for the variance or rescission of CRTC decisions related to wholesale data or Internet services, in which the CRTC directed the ILECs to provide wholesale ADSL services at speeds equivalent to their retail offerings. In an Order in Council dated December 2009, the Governor in Council referred these decisions back to the CRTC for reconsideration. The proceeding in which the CRTC is considering the appropriateness of mandating certain ILEC and cable company wholesale high-speed access services has been expanded to include this reconsideration.

In a decision dated August 2009,2010, the CRTC granted interim approvalupheld its decision to an application by an ILEC, Bell Canada,require the ILECs and cable companies’ to implement usage-based billing on itsprovide wholesale Internet services at speeds equivalent to their retail offerings. In the same

decision, the CRTC denied competitor requests for unbundled access service. If this application is granted final approval, it will require us to pass down the cost of usage-based billing incurred by us through theILEC and cable company facilities used to provide Internet usage of ourservices, including higher-speed services, to all end-users that they are served via Bell Canada’s wholesale Internet access serviceable to those customers. It is possible that other ILECs will also implement usage-based billing on their wholesale Internet services. This would also permit us to implement usage-based billing on our retail Internet service that is provided via ILEC unbundled facilities obtained through CLEC arrangements.serve.

In a decision dated October 2009, the CRTC set out a framework which will guide the implementation of Internet traffic management practices by ISPs and facilitate reviews of such practices against that framework. ThisThe Commission expressed clear preference for the use of economic traffic management practices relative to technological traffic management practices, as they provide greater control to the market and the customer. The framework for technological traffic management practices is focused on four rules: Internet traffic management practices must be designed to address the stated need and achieve the stated purpose and effect, and nothing else; they must result in as little discrimination or preference as reasonably possible; they must result in as little harm to end-users and others as reasonably possible; and economic approaches, such as network investment, would not have reasonably addressed the need or effectively achieved the same purpose. As a result of this decision, we may continue to utilize the traffic management practices that we have implemented on our retail Internet service that is provided via ILEC unbundled facilities obtained through arrangements with CLECs. However, we may beare obliged to disclose any traffic management practices, economical or technological, that we employ and to notify our customers of any changes to such practices, with a 30-day wait period after notification before we can implement them. In addition, our arrangements with ILECs or with CLECs may require that the practices we implement respect the above-mentioned framework. Finally, the CRTC also determined that it would not require prior approval of the continued application of traffic management practices by the providers of wholesale Internet access services, provided that these are not more restrictive than those imposed on its retail customers and do not affect its wholesale customers disproportionately. As a result, our customers that are served via wholesale Internet services are, or may be, subject to the traffic management practices of the wholesale provider.

In decisions dated August 2009 and May 2010, the CRTC granted interim and final approval to an application by an ILEC, Bell Canada, to implement usage-based billing on its wholesale Internet access service. In a subsequent October 2010 decision upon an appeal by Bell Canada, the CRTC removed certain conditions it had imposed on Bell Canada in the May 2010 decision and approved the implemention of usage-based billing in the first quarter of 2011. In a decision dated January 2011, the CRTC directed all ILECs and cable carriers who impose usage-based billing on their wholesale Internet services to apply wholesale usage-based billing rates at 85% of the rates applied to their equivalent retail services. Pursuant to political and public pressure prior to implementation, the CRTC has initiated a new proceeding to review the usage-based billing framework for wholesale Internet access services. This proceeding is expected to complete in 2011. If the decisions related to usage-based billing stand, it will require us to pass down the cost of usage-based billing incurred by us through the Internet usage of our end-users that are served via Bell Canada’s wholesale Internet access service to those customers. It is possible that other ILECs will also implement usage-based billing on their wholesale Internet services. This would also permit us to implement usage-based billing on our retail Internet service that is provided via ILEC unbundled facilities obtained through CLEC arrangements.

In an application dated June 2009, an ILEC, Bell Canada, requested approval to increase the tariffed rates for its unbundled local loops. This application hasIncreases in the potential totariffed rates for these unbundled facilites will increase the cost of the unbundled facilities that we obtain through CLEC arrangements and use to provide retail telephone and Internet services. A review ofIn a decision dated January 2011, the CRTC approved certain rate increases and rate decreases for Bell Canada’s unbundled local loops. In the three unbundled local loop rate bands where Primus operates, the monthly rates decreased by 20 percent and increased by 6 percent and 10 percent, as opposed to the requested increases of 25 percent, 62 percent and 36 percent. In addition, there were certain increases and decreases to non-recurring service charges for unbundled local loop orders. An application has been submitted by another party to appeal the rate increases. If the rate increases stand, it is ongoing.expected that these cost increases will be passed down to our end-users.

Competition. Long-distance competition has been in place in Canada since 1990 for long-distance resellers and since 1992 for facilities-based carriers. In June 1992, the CRTC issued Telecom Decision CRTC 92-12 requiring the ILECs to interconnect their networks with their facilities-based, as well as reseller, competitors. Since 1994, the ILECs have been required to provide “equal access,” which eliminated the need for customers of competitive long-distance providers to dial additional digits when placing long-distance calls. The ILECs disbanded the Stentor alliance in 1999, and former Stentor companies, Bell Canada and

TELUS Corporation are the two largest ILECs in Canada, compete against each other.with the former operating mainly in the Canadian provinces of Ontario and Quebec and the latter operating mainly in the Canadian provinces of British Columbia and Alberta. MTS Allstream, Inc., the ILEC serving the Canadian province of Manitoba, has acquired Allstream, Inc. (formerly AT&T Canada Corp.) in 2004 and is now competing nationally as well. The other nationwide competitor, Call-Net Enterprises Inc., which operated as Sprint Canada, was acquired by Rogers in 2005. Cable TV companies, such as Rogers, Shaw Communications

Inc. and Vidéotron Limited, launched their local telephone services in July 2005 and have had a great deal of success thus far. Their local service is provided either via their cable network or acquired CLEC (i.e., Call-Net) or on a resold basis from an underlying LEC.

As markets become competitive, the Canadian Telecommunications Act permits the CRTC to forbear from regulating the rates and terms of service of Canadian carriers. The long-distance rates of Canadian ILECs have largely been forborne from regulation since 1997. The ILECs’ rates for retail Internet services were forborne from regulation in 1999. On April 6, 2006, the CRTC established a framework for forbearance in respect of local services by defining the geographic markets in which the CRTC will forbear from regulating as the criteria for deregulation are met, and by establishing these criteria. On April 4, 2007 the Governor-in-Council varied this framework by reducing to the size of the geographic market in which the criteria are to be met and by relaxing the criteria to be met. As of June 2009 approximately 77% of all residential local lines and 68% of commercial local lines in Canada have been deregulated.

The Competition Bureau issued an Information Bulletin on the Abuse of Dominance Provisions as applied to the Telecommunications Industry on June 6, 2008, in which the Bureau describes its approach in reviewing abuse of dominance complaints in telecommunications markets where the CRTC has forborne from regulating conduct.

On March 12, 2009, the Canadian Competition Act was amended to provide the Competition Tribunal with the power to order the payment of an administrative monetary penalty of up to 15 million CADCanadian dollars in cases of abuse of dominant position. Subject to any relevant defenses, these amendments apply to telecommunications service providers.

Foreign Ownership Restrictions. Under the Canadian Telecommunications Act and the Radiocommunication Act, and certain regulations promulgated thereunder (i.e., the Radiocommunication Regulations and the Canadian Telecommunications Common Carrier Ownership and Control Regulations), foreign ownership restrictions apply to telecommunications common carriers and radiocommunication carriers (“Canadian carriers”), a concept which includes, for example, CLECs and microwave license holders, but not to companies, such as resellers, that do not own or operate transmission facilities. Accordingly, resellers may be wholly foreign-owned and controlled.

The restrictions applicable to Canadian carriers limit the amount of foreign investment in Canadian carriers to no more than 20% of the voting equity of a Canadian carrier operating company and no more than 33 ¹/3%3% of the voting equity of a Canadian carrier holding company. The restrictions also limit the number of seats which may be occupied by non-Canadians on the board of directors of a Canadian carrier operating company to 20%. In addition, under Canadian law, a majority of Canadians must occupy the seats on the board of directors of a Canadian carrier holding company. Although there is no restriction on foreign investors holding non-voting equity in a Canadian carrier, the law requires that the Canadian carrier not be “controlled in fact” by non-Canadians. The concept of “control in fact” is very broad, and takes into account all commercial arrangements between the Canadian carrier and third parties.

The Canadian issuer, along with several other telecommunications service providers, hashave sought to have the Canadian government review foreign ownership restrictions with a view to lowering these restrictions or eliminating them. In April 2003, the Industry Committee of the House of Commons recommended removing these restrictions in their entirety, for both telecommunications common carriers and for broadcasting distribution undertakings (“BDUs”) such as cable companies. In June 2003, however, another committee of the House of Commons (the Heritage Committee) expressed concerns that changes in ownership restrictions for either telecommunications common carriers or BDUs could have an adverse impact on the broadcasting system. In its September 2003 response to the Industry Committee’s recommendation, the government acknowledged the

appropriateness of the committee’s conclusion that removing foreign investment restrictions would benefit the telecommunications industry. However, the government also noted the concerns expressed by the Heritage

Committee. The government recognized that it has a responsibility to determine how best to reconcile the conflicting recommendations of the two committees and undertook to analyze this question and be in a position to examine possible solutions by the spring of 2004. However, no solutions were brought forward in 2005 although the issue was raised once again by the Telecom Policy Review Panel (“TPRP”), who recommended in its Final Report that the foreign ownership restrictions be relaxed. In July 2007, Industry Canada announced the creation of the Competition Policy Review Panel (the “Panel”), which was asked to provide recommendations to the government on how to enhance Canadian competitiveness. The Panel’s duties included a sector specific review of the current telecommunications foreign ownership restrictions. We filed a submission in favor of eliminating the restrictions and also presented options to accommodate concerns such as national security. In its report dated June 2008, the Panel supported the TPRP’s recommendations regarding the easing of foreign ownership restrictions. Specifically, the Panel recommended a two phase approach to liberalize the Canadian foreign ownership restrictions. The initial phase would permit foreign companies to establish new telecommunication companies or acquire existing telecommunication companies with less than a 10% share of the Canadian telecommunication market. The second phase would consist of further liberalization upon a review of existing cultural policies and an assessment of the impact of the foreign investment resulting from the initial phase. In its March 2010 budget, the Government indicated support for the removal of foreign ownership rules and moved immediately to remove the foreign ownership restrictions on Canadian satellites. Industry Canada subsequently announced another consultation to again consider the removal of the foreign ownership restrictions in the telecommunications industry. We filed a submission in favor of the model proposed by the TPRP and the Panel or, alternatively, the complete removal of the restrictions. However, despite the support of both the TPRP and the Panel it is premature to predict whether any recommendation to remove the restrictions for telecommunications common carriers will be implemented. In July 2009, the CRTC issued a new Canadian ownership and control review policy which subjects foreign investment arrangements in Canadian carriers to more formal procedures. These new procedures include greater public scrutiny of the investment arrangements, in some cases extending to detailed disclosure requirements, and may involve significant delays and limit investors’ opportunity to consult informally with the regulator.

European Union

In Europe, the regulation of telecommunications is governed at a supranational level by the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union (the “Council”) and the European Commission (the “EU Commission”), each consisting of members including the following countries: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom. These institutions are responsible for creating European Union-wide policies and, through legislation, have progressively developed a regulatory framework aimed at ensuring an open, competitive telecommunications market.

In February 2002, the Council agreed to a new European regulatory framework for the communications sector, which was adopted formally on March 7, 2002. The new regime comprises the following legislative texts:

EU member states were obligated to implement these directives by July 25, 2003. As of December 31, 2008, these directives have not materially affected our business operations in Europe.

One of the requirements of the Authorization Directive is that no company seeking to provide electronic communications networks or services is required to obtain prior authorization, although such a company could be required to notify relevant regulatory authorities in the member states where it intends to operate.

This regulatory framework is currently under review by the EU Commission. A number of proposed changes have been adopted, including the desire to create a European level telecom market body to complement national regulator, and assist in opening up markets with low levels of competition. The proposed changes have been adopted by the European Parliament and are awaiting consideration by the Council. Once adopted at the European level, the revised rules have to be incorporated into national law before taking effect. The EU Commission is hopeful that the new framework could be in place from 2010 onwards.

The Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of June 27, 2007 on roaming on public mobile telephone networks within the community and amending Directive 2002/21/EC is a regulation by the EU Commission, primarily backed by the EU Commissioner for Information Society and Media, which regulates the charges of mobile phone use when abroad in the EU. The regulation caps the rates operators can charge each other while roaming in the EU and also limits the tariffs an operator can charge from customers. The proposal for a regulation to lower international roaming charges within the EU was published by the EU Commission in July 2006. The regulation entered into force on June 30, 2007. From this date on, mobile phone operators within the EU had one month to inform customers about the new tariffs called “Eurotariff” and provided an offer for switching to the new tariff and the new tariff automatically applied on September 30, 2007, except special roaming package. The Eurotariffs is proposed to gradually decrease over the next three years.

A Eurotariff is available in all 27 member states of the EU. It applies only to voice calls within the EU irrespective of a pre-paid or post-paid status. It does not apply to other mobile phone services, such as short message service (“SMS”), multimedia messaging service (“MMS”) or data transfer.

The regulation caps roaming prices for voice services only but it also requires national regulators to monitor developments in the prices of roamed voice, SMS and data services closely. The EU Commission called on mobile operators to demonstrate their willingness to voluntarily reduce the very high roaming charges for SMS and data roaming. Under new rules as of July 1st, 2009, consumers will also benefit from per-second billing after 30 seconds for calls made and per-second billing throughout for calls received to ensure that consumers do not face any hidden costs when they are roaming. This is expected to increase consumer’s savings by over 20%.

The regulation is meant to expire in three years from 2007 (in Summer 2010). The EU Commission, together with the National Regulatory Authorities will monitor the development of the prices over the next 18 months. If normal market conditions are established in the market for roaming calls, the regulation will expire after three years. However, the Commission can also propose to continue to regulate the roaming market, if normal market conditions are not working yet. Under the latest EU proposal on September 23, 2008, this regulation would be extended to June 30, 2012.

A regulation on SMS and Data is currently being studied by the EU Commission. The operators were given until July 1, 2008 to lower SMS and data roaming charges. The EU Commission then sent letters to the CEOs of all European mobile operators inquiring about their SMS and data prices. The assessment showed that prices are still too high. The EU Commission then decided to introduce maximum price limits for sending SMS messages while roaming. The European Regulators Group has suggested a level between 11 and 15 eurocents. As of May 2009 a maximum price of SMS send within EU borders on the level of 11 eurocents from July 1, 2009 is almost certain. This would also include a wholesale maximum rate of €0.04.

The price cap for the rates the host operator charges a roaming customer’s home operator, calculated on a kilobyte basis is:

Data and Internet services are not regulated for the moment by the EU at the retail level. A wholesale price cap will be applicable as of July 1, 2009 for 1 EUR/MB. Customers traveling to another member state would also receive an automated message of the charges that apply for data roaming services. On July 1, 2010, operators must provide customers with the opportunity to determine in advance how much they want to spend before the service is cut-off.

A further directive relating to privacy and electronic communications (“Directive 2002/58”) was added to the new regime. This directive aims to harmonize national laws regarding personal data protection in the electronic communications age and deals with matters including the confidentiality of billing information, the use of caller identification devices, the use of subscriber directories and unsolicited communications. The directive was supposed to be implemented by EU member states and incorporated into the regulatory regime of each member state by October 31, 2003, but as was also the case with the earlier directives referred to above, a number of member states missed this deadline. Each EU member state in which we currently conduct or plan to conduct our business has historically had a different regulatory regime, and we expect that, even with the adoption of the new EU regulatory regime, differences will continue for the foreseeable future. There may well be differences in the manner in which the new EU regulatory regime is implemented from one member state to another. The requirements for us to obtain necessary approvals have varied considerably from one country to another. We have obtained and will continue to seek to obtain interconnection agreements with other carriers within the EU. While previous EU directives have required that carriers with significant market power offer cost-based and non-discriminatory interconnection to competitors, individual EU member states have implemented this requirement differently and may continue to do so under the new EU regulatory regime. As a result, we may be delayed in obtaining or may not be able to obtain interconnection in certain countries that would allow us to compete effectively.

Further, member states must now introduce domestic legislation to implement the EC Directive on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (“WEEE”) and the EC Directive on the Restriction of the Use of Certain Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic Equipment (“RoHS”). The WEEE seeks to implement legislation on electrical and electronic equipment in relation to its composition and levels to which it should be recycled, while making producers responsible for financing most of these activities. Information technology and telecommunications equipment is WEEE, and subject to the WEEE Directive. RoHS seeks to restrict hazardous substances in WEEE.

The Commission also is concerned with services, such as VoIP, and published a working paper applicable to VoIP based services—Commission Staff Working Document of June 14, 2004 on the Treatment of VoIP under the EU Regulatory Framework- an Information and Consultation Document, which identifies various issues that can arise in relation to VoIP. The introduction of 3G mobile broadband services raised new regulatory issues and the Commission published a Communication on Mobile Broadband Services (June 30, 2004-COM (2004) 447), which covers issues, such as spectrum trading.

Employees

The following table summarizes the number of our employees as of December 31, 20092010 by region:

We have never experienced a work stoppage. Only some of our employees in Australia are represented by a labor union and covered by a collective bargaining agreement. We believe that our employee relations are positive.

Other Information

Our Internet address is www.primustel.comwww.ptgi.com. We make available free of charge through our Internet website our annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to the Securities Act of 1934 as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such material with, or furnish it to, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)(“SEC”).

ITEM 1A.

RISK FACTORS

A wide range of factors could materially affect our performance.the performance of Primus and the Arbinet business, which we acquired on February 28, 2011. In addition to factors affecting specific business operations and the financial results of those operations identified elsewhere in this report, the following factors, among others could adversely affect our operations:

The following is not intended as, and should not be construed as, an exhaustive list of relevant risk factors. There may be other risks that are relevant to its ownan investor’s particular circumstances or generally.

RISKS RELATED TO OUR BUSINESSINDUSTRY AND INDUSTRYOVERALL BUSINESS

Continuing global economic conditions could adversely affect our business.

The global economy and capital and credit markets have been experiencing exceptional turmoil and upheaval. Many major economies worldwide entered significant economic recessions beginning in 2007 and continue to experience economic weakness even though economies have begun to show signs of recovery. Ongoing concerns about the systemic impact of potential long-term and widespread recession and potentially prolonged economic recovery, volatile energy costs, geopolitical issues, the availability, cost and terms of credit, consumer and business confidence, substantially increased and increasing unemployment rates and the crisis in the global housing and mortgage markets have all contributed to increased market volatility and diminished expectations for both established and emerging economies, including those in which we operate. In the second half of 2008, added concerns fueled by government interventions in financial systems led to increased market uncertainty and instability in both U.S. and international capital and credit markets. These conditions have contributed to significant economic uncertainty, of unprecedented levels.which has not subsequently improved in any significant way globally. The availability, cost and terms of credit also have been and may continue to be adversely affected by illiquid markets and wider credit spreads. Concern about the stability of the markets generally and the strength of counterparties specifically has led many lenders and institutional investors to reduce and in many cases cease to provide, credit to businesses and consumers. These factors have led to a substantial and continuing decrease in spending by businesses and consumers over the past twoseveral years, and a corresponding decrease in global infrastructure spending. Continued turbulence in the U.S. and international markets and economies and prolonged declines in business and consumer spending may adversely affect our liquidity and financial condition, and the liquidity and financial condition of our customers, including our ability to refinance maturing debt instruments and to access the capital markets and obtain capital lease financing to meet liquidity needs. This financial crisisA continuation of this adverse environment may have an impact on our business and financial condition in the following ways as well as in other ways that we currently cannot predict.

Strengthening of the United States Dollar (“USD”) against certain foreign currencies reduces the amount of USDs generated from foreign currency payments from our foreign operating subsidiaries and may adversely affect our results of operations and our ability to service our debt.

A significant portion of our net revenue (about 82%85% for the year ended December 31, 2009)2010) is derived from sales and operations outside the U.S. The reporting currency for our consolidated financial statements is the USD. Our foreign operating subsidiaries, including our largest operating subsidiaries in Canada and Australia, generatesgenerate cash in their respective local currencies and fluctuations in exchange rates can have a material adverse impact on amounts of USDs transferred to U.S. parent entities. In the future, we expect to continue to derive a significant portion of our net revenue (which is a substantial source for servicing our significant debt obligations at the parent entity level, as well as a source for making principal payments) and incur a significant portion of our operating costs outside the U.S., and changes in exchange rates have had and may have a significant, and potentially adverse, effect on our results of operations.

From June 30, 2008 through December 31, 2008, the Canadian and Australian dollars (“CAD” and “AUD,” respectively) declined by 17% and 28%, respectively, relative to the USD, and this has had a material adverse impact on amounts of USDs transferred to U.S. parent entities. Conversely, from December 31, 2008 to December 31, 2009, the CAD and AUD increased by 11% and 35%, respectively. From December 31, 2009 to December 31, 2010, the CAD and AUD increased by 5% and 10%, respectively. Due to the large percentage of our operations conducted outside of the U.S., and the cash transfers from these foreign operating subsidiaries to the U.S. parent, a strengthening of the USD relative to one or more of the foregoing foreign currencies could have an adverse impact on future results of operations and could adversely affect our ability to service or repay our consolidated indebtedness and obligations.

We historically have not engaged in hedging transactions. The exposure of our income from operations to fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates is reduced in part because a majority of the costs that we incur in connection with our foreign operations are also denominated in local currencies. In addition, the operations of affiliates and subsidiaries in foreign countries have been funded with investments and other advances denominated in foreign currencies. Historically, such investments and advances have been long-term in nature, and we accounted for any adjustments resulting from currency translation as a charge or credit to accumulate other comprehensive loss within the stockholders’ deficit section of our consolidated balance sheets. In 2002, agreements with certain subsidiaries were put in place for repayment of a portion of the investments and advances made to those subsidiaries. As we anticipate repayment in the foreseeable future of these amounts, we recognize the unrealized gains and losses in foreign currency transaction gain (loss) on the consolidated statements of operations, and depending upon changes in future currency rates, such gains or losses could have a significant, and potentially adverse, effect on our results of operations.

We are substantially smaller than our major competitors, whose marketing and pricing decisions, and relative size advantage could adversely affect our ability to attract and to retain customers and are likely to continue to cause significant pricing pressures that could adversely affect our net revenues, results of operations and financial condition.

The local, long-distance, Internet, broadband, digital subscriber lines (“DSL”), data and hosting and wireless telecommunications industry is significantly influenced by the marketing and pricing decisions of the larger business participants. Prices in the long-distance industry have continued to decline in recent years and, as competition continues to increase within each of our service segments and each of our product lines, we believe that prices are likely to continue to decrease. The most significant competitors in our primary markets include:

including Vonage Holdings Corp and Cbeyond, Inc., wireless carriers in the U.S., including Verizon Communications Inc., AT&T Inc., Sprint Corp., T-Mobile USA Inc., MetroPCS Communications, Inc. and Leap Wireless International, Inc., and web based companies, including Skype Technologies S.A. and Google Inc.;

Customers frequently change local, long-distance, wireless, broadband providers, and ISPs in response to the offering of lower rates or promotional incentives, increasingly as a result of bundling of various services by competitors. Moreover, competitors’ VoIP and broadband product rollouts have added further customer choice and pricing pressure. As a result, customers generally can switch carriers and service offerings at their discretion with little notice to us. Competition in all of our markets is likely to remain intense, or increase in intensity and, as deregulatory influences affect markets outside the U.S., competition in non-U.S. markets is increasing to a level similar to the intense competition in the U.S.

The Arbinet business faces competition for its voice trading services from communication services providers’ legacy processes and new companies that may be able to create centralized trading solutions that replicate Arbinet’s voice trading platform. The Arbinet business’ PrivateExchange and AssuredAxcess solutions may compete with communication services providers’ legacy processes, communication services providers themselves and potentially other companies that provide software and services to communication services providers. The Arbinet business faces competition for its data trading services from Internet service providers and Internet capacity resellers, and to a lesser extent, software-based, Internet infrastructure companies and Internet network service providers. These companies may be more effective in attracting voice traffic than the Arbinet Exchange, (“the Exchange”).

Once communications services providers have established business relationships with competitors to the Arbinet business, it could be extremely difficult to convince them to utilize the Exchange. These competitors may be able to develop services or processes that are superior to Arbinet’s services or processes, or that achieve greater industry acceptance. Where the Arbinet business competes with legacy processes, it may be particularly difficult to convince customers to utilize the Exchange. Since the Exchange provides full disclosure of prices offered by participating sellers on an anonymous basis, buyers may choose to purchase network capacity through the Exchange instead of sending traffic to their existing suppliers at pre-determined, and often higher, contract prices. If suppliers of communications capacity fear or determine that the price disclosure and spot market limit order mechanisms provided by the Exchange will “cannibalize” the greater profit-generating potential of their existing businesses, they may choose to withdraw from the Exchange. If participants withdraw from the Exchange in significant numbers, it could cause the Exchange to fail and materially harm the Arbinet business.

Many of our competitors are significantly larger than us and have substantially greater financial, technical and marketing resources, larger networks, a broader portfolio of service offerings, greater control over network and transmission lines, stronger name recognition and customer loyalty, long-standing relationships with our target customers and lower debt-leverage ratios. As a result, our ability to attract and retain customers may be adversely affected. Many of our competitors enjoy economies of scale that result in low cost structures for transmission and related costs that could cause significant pricing pressures within the industry.

Several long-distance carriers in the U.S., Canada and Australia and the major wireless carriers and cable companies have introduced pricing and product bundling strategies that provide for fixed, low rates or unlimited

plans for domestic and international calls. This strategy could have a material adverse effect on our net revenue per minute, results of operations and financial condition if our pricing, which we set to remain competitive, is not offset by similar declines in our costs. We compete on the basis of price, particularly with respect to our sales to other carriers, and also on the basis of customer service and our ability to provide a variety of telecommunications products and services. If such price pressures and bundling strategies intensify, we may not be able to compete successfully in the future, may face quarterly revenue and operating results variability, and may have heightened difficulty in estimating future revenues or results.

Given strong competition in delivering individual and bundled local, wireless, broadband, DSL, VoIP services, we may not be able to operate successfully or expand these parts of our business.

We have accelerated initiatives to become an integrated wireline, wireless and broadband service provider in order to counter competitive pricing pressures initiated by large incumbent providers in certain of the principal markets where we operate and to stem the loss of certain of our wireline voice and dial-up ISP customers to our competitors’ bundled wireline, wireless and broadband service offerings. Our primary competitors include incumbent telecommunications providers, cable companies and other ISPs that have a significant national or international presence. Many of these operators have substantially greater resources, capital and operational experience than we do. We are experiencing increased competition from traditional telecommunications carriers, cable companies and other new entrants that have expanded into the market for broadband, VoIP, Internet services, data and hosting and traditional voice services. In addition, regulatory developments may impair our ability to compete. Therefore, future operations involving these individual or bundled services may not succeed in the competitive environment, and we (1) may not be able to expand successfully; (2) may experience margin pressure; (3) may face quarterly revenue and operating results variability; (4) may have limited resources to

develop and to market the new services; and (5) have heightened difficulty in establishing future revenues or results. As a result, there can be no assurance that we will reverse revenue declines in our traditional long-distance voice and dial-up ISP services or maintain or increase revenues or be able to generate sufficient income from operations or net income in the future or on any predictable or timely basis.

Our repositioningpositioning in the marketplace and intense domestic and international competition in these services places a significant strain on our resources, and if not managed effectively, could result in operational inefficiencies and other difficulties.

Our repositioningpositioning in the marketplace to focus on Growth Services segments of the telecom market, including broadband, IP-based voice, local, wireless, data and data center solutions may place a significant strain on our management, operational and financial resources and increase demand on our systems and controls. However, the local and long-distance telecommunications, data, broadband, Internet, VoIP, data and hosting and wireless industries are intensely competitive, present relatively limited barriers to entry in the more deregulated countries in which we operate and involve numerous entities competing for the same customers. Recent and pending deregulation in various countries may encourage new entrants to compete, including ISPs, wireless companies, and cable television companies, who could offer voice, broadband, Internet access and television services, and electric power utilities, who could offer voice and broadband Internet access. For example, the U.S. and many other countries have committed to open their telecommunications markets to competition pursuant to an agreement under the World Trade Organization which began on January 1, 1998. Further, in the U.S., the major landline incumbent carriers (including AT&T Inc. and Verizon Communications Inc.) have for many years also provided long-distance services, and previously independent long-distance providers (including AT&T Inc. and MCI Inc.) have been acquired by the landline incumbents. In addition, many entities, including large cable television companies (including Comcast Corporation, Time Warner Cable Inc., Cablevision Systems Corporation and Charter Communications, Inc.) and utilities have been allowed to enter both the local service and long-distance telecommunications markets.

To manage our repositioningmarket positioning effectively, we must continue to implement and improve our operational and financial systems and controls, invest in critical network infrastructure to expand its coverage and capacity including the data centers expansion, maintain or improve our service quality levels, purchase and utilize other

transmission facilities, evolve our support and billing systems and train and manage our employee base. If we inaccurately forecast the movement of traffic onto our network, we could have insufficient or excessive transmission facilities and disproportionate fixed expenses. As we proceed with our development, operational difficulties could arise from additional demand placed on customer provisioning and support, billing and management information systems, product delivery and fulfillment, support, sales and marketing, administrative resources, network infrastructure, maintenance and upgrading. For instance, we may encounter delays or cost-overruns or suffer other adverse consequences in implementing new systems when required, such as our need to off-shore certain functions. In addition, our operating and financial control systems and infrastructure could be inadequate to ensure timely and accurate financial reporting, which could impact debt covenant compliance.

We have experienced significant historical, and may experience significant future, operating losses and net losses which may hinder our ability to meet our debt service or working capital requirements.

As of June 30, 2009, the Predecessor Company had an accumulated deficit of$1.06of $1.06 billion. Predecessor incurred net losses of $10.6 million in 2004, $149.2 million in 2005, $238.0 million in 2006 and $25.0 million in 2008. During the year ended December 31, 2007, Predecessor recognized net income of $15.7 million, of which $32.7 million of revenue was related to the positive impact of foreign currency transaction gains. Even with the elimination of our significant accumulated deficit and the reduction in indebtedness through our recent reorganization under Chapter 11 in 2009, future losses may continue. WeIn this regard, the Successor Company incurred a net loss of $19.1 million in 2010.

In addition, at September 30, 2010, Arbinet’s accumulated deficit was $134.4 million. Arbinet incurred a net loss of $8.7 million, $14.9 million, $6.9 million, and $0.4 million for the years ended 2009, 2008, 2007 and 2006, respectively. It is expected that the Arbinet business will incur significant future expenses, particularly with respect to the development of new products and services, deployment of additional infrastructure, and expansion in strategic global markets. In order for the Arbinet business to achieve profitability, it must: increase the usage of the Exchange by the members and carrier services customers and attract new customers in order to improve the liquidity of the Exchange; closely manage its expenses; deliver superior service to the members; mitigate the credit risks of its business; and develop and commercialize new products and services. The Arbinet business may not succeed in these activities and may never generate revenues that are significant or large enough to achieve profitability on a quarterly or annual basis.

In light of the foregoing we cannot assure you that we will recognize net income in future periods. If we cannot generate net income or sufficient operating profitability, we may not be able to meet our debt service or working capital requirements.

A deterioration in our relationships with facilities-based carriers could have a material adverse effect upon our business.

We primarily connect our customers’ telephone calls and data/Internet needs through transmission lines that we lease under a variety of arrangements with other facilities-based local, wireless, broadband, data and long-distance carriers. Many of these carriers are, or may become, our competitors. Our ability to maintain and expand our business depends on our ability to maintain favorable relationships with the facilities-based carriers from which we lease transmission lines. If our relationship with one or more of these carriers were to deteriorate or terminate, for any reason, it could have a material adverse effect upon our cost structure, service quality, network diversity, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

Uncertainties and risks associated with international markets and regulatory requirements could adversely impact our international operations.

We have significant international operations and, for the year ended December 31, 2009,2010, derived about 82%85% of our net revenues by providing services outside of the U.S. In international markets, we are smaller than the principal or incumbent telecommunications carrier that operates in each of the foreign jurisdictions where we

operate. In these markets, incumbent carriers: (1) are likely to modify and/or control access to, and pricing of, the local networks; (2) enjoy better brand recognition and brand and customer loyalty; (3) generally offer a wider range of product and services; and (4) have significant operational economies of scale, including a larger backbone network and longer term customer and supplier agreements on preferred and better terms. Moreover, the incumbent carrier may take many months to allow competitors, including us, to interconnect to their switches within our territory, and we are dependent upon their cooperation in migrating customers onto our network. There can be no assurance that we will be able to: (1) obtain the permits and operating licenses required for us to operate in the new service areas; (2) obtain access to local transmission facilities on economically acceptable terms; or (3) market services in international markets.

In addition, operating in international markets generally involves additional risks, including unexpected changes or uncertainties in regulatory requirements, taxes, tariffs, customs and duties. Given the nature of our operations and uncertainties in, or the absence of definitive regulations or interpretations concerning, the taxation of (including value added tax of) certain aspects of our business in certain international jurisdictions in which we conduct (or may be construed by such authorities as conducting or deriving taxable) operations or revenue, we may become subject to assessments for taxes (which may include penalties and interest) which are either unexpected, or have not been accrued for in our historical results of operations or both. This circumstance occurred during March 2008, when we concluded it was probable that assessments would be forthcoming concerning past European prepaid calling services operations, and it is possible that tax uncertainties concerning our international operations could arise in the future. Such developments, in addition to the other uncertainties and risks described above, could have adverse consequences that might result in restatement of prior period results of operations and unanticipated liquidity demands. Additional operating risks and uncertainties in operating in international markets include trade barriers, difficulties in staffing and managing foreign operations, problems in collecting accounts receivable, political risks, fluctuations in currency exchange rates, restrictions associated with the repatriation of funds, technology export and import restrictions, and seasonal reductions in business activity. Our ability to operate and grow our international operations successfully could be adversely impacted by these risks and uncertainties particularly in light of the fact that we derive such a large percentage of our revenues from outside of the U.S.

The telecommunications industry is rapidly changing, and if we are not able to adjust our strategy and resources effectively in the future to meet changing market conditions, we may not be able to compete effectively.

The telecommunications industry is changing rapidly due to deregulation, privatization, consolidation, technological improvements, availability of alternative services such as wireless, broadband, DSL, Internet, VoIP, data and hosting and wireless broadband through use of the fixed wireless spectrum, and the globalization

of the world’s economies. In addition, alternative services to traditional fixed wireline services, such as wireless, broadband, Internet and VoIP services, are a substantial competitive threat. As the overall market for domestic and international long-distance and dial-up Internet services continues to decline in favor of Internet-based, wireless, and broadband communications, revenue contribution from our Traditional Services which for the year ended December 31, 2009 comprised 43% of total revenue, has been consequently declining. If we do not adjust to meet changing market conditions or do not have adequate resources, we may not be able to compete effectively. The telecommunications industry is marked by the introduction of new product and service offerings and technological improvements. Achieving successful financial results will depend on our ability to anticipate, assess and adapt to rapid technological changes, and offer, on a timely and cost-effective basis, services, including the bundling of multiple services that meet evolving industry standards. If we do not anticipate, assess or adapt to such technological changes at a competitive price, maintain competitive services or obtain new technologies on a timely basis or on satisfactory terms, our financial results may be materially and adversely affected.

The rapid enhancement of VoIP and Internet technology may result in increasing levels of traditional domestic and international voice long-distance traffic being transmitted over the Internet, as opposed to

traditional telecommunication networks. Currently, there are significant capital investment savings and cost savings associated with carrying voice traffic employing VoIP technology, as compared to carrying calls over traditional networks. Thus, there exists the possibility that the price of traditional long-distance voice services will decrease in order to be competitive with VoIP. Additionally, competition is expected to be intense to switch customers to VoIP product offerings, as is evidenced by numerous recent market announcements in the U.S. and internationally from industry leaders and competitive carriers concerning significant VoIP initiatives. Our ability effectively to retain our existing customer base and generate new customers, either through our traditional network or our own VoIP offerings, may be adversely affected by accelerated competition arising as a result of VoIP initiatives, as well as regulatory developments that may impede our ability to compete, such as restrictions on access to broadband networks owned and operated by others and the requirements to provide enhanced 911 emergency services (“E911”).E911. As competition intensifies as a result of deregulatory, market or technological developments, our results of operations and financial condition could be adversely affected.

If we are not able to operate a cost-effective network, we may not be able to grow our business successfully.

Our long-term success depends on our ability to design, implement, operate, manage, maintain and upgrade a reliable and cost-effective network infrastructure, including data hosting centers. In addition, we rely on third party equipment and service vendors to enable us to expand and manage our global network and to provide local, broadband Internet, data and hosting and wireless services. If we fail to generate additional traffic on our network, if we experience technical or logistical impediments to our ability to develop necessary aspects of our network or to migrate traffic and customers onto our network, or if we experience difficulties with our third-party providers, we may not achieve desired economies of scale or otherwise be successful in growing our business.

If we are not able to use and protect intellectual property domestically and internationally, it could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Our ability to compete depends, in part, on our ability to use intellectual property in the U.S. and internationally. We rely on a combination of trade secrets, trademarks and licenses to protect our intellectual property. We are also subject to the risks of claims and litigation alleging infringement of the intellectual property rights of others. The telecommunications industry is subject to frequent litigation regarding patent and other intellectual property rights. We rely upon certain technology, including hardware and software, licensed from third parties. There can be no assurance that the technology licensed by us will continue to provide competitive features and functionality or that licenses for technology currently used by us or other technology that we may seek to license in the future will be available to us on commercially reasonable terms or at all. Although our existing intellectual property licenses are on standard commercial terms made generally available

by the companies providing the licenses and, individually, their costs and terms are not material to our business, the loss of, or our inability to maintain existing licenses, could result in shipment delays or reductions until equivalent technology or suitable alternative products could be developed, identified, licensed and integrated and could cause service disruption to our customers. Such delays or reductions in the aggregate could harm our business. We also generally rely on indemnification provisions in licensing contracts to protect against claims of infringement regarding the licensed technology, which indemnification could be affected by, among other things, the financial strength of the licensor.

The loss of key personnel could have a material adverse effect on our business.

The loss of the services of, K. Paul Singh, our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, or the services of our other key personnel, or our inability to attract and retain additional key management, technical and sales personnel, could have a material adverse effect upon our financial condition and results of operations.

RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH OUR FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Our disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting were determined not to be effective as of December 31, 2006, 2007, 2008 and 20082010 due to a material weakness that existed in our internal control over accounting for income taxes and as of December 31, 2009 due to a material weakness that existed in our internal control over accounting for foreign currency transaction gain (loss). If we fail to maintain effective internal control over financial reporting at a reasonable assurance level, we may not be able to accurately report our financial results, which could have a material adverse effect on our operations, investor confidence in our business and the trading prices of our securities.

Effective internal controls are necessary for us to provide reliable financial reports. In evaluating the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting, our management identified as of December 31, 2006, 2007, 2008 and 20082010 a control deficiency in our controls and procedures over accounting for income taxes and as of December 31, 2009 due to a control deficiencymaterial weakness over accounting for foreign currency transaction gain (loss), and management concluded in each case that the control deficiency in our internal controls over financial reporting constituted a material weakness. These deficiencies represented a material weakness in internal control over financial reporting on the basis that there is more than a remote likelihood that a material misstatement in our interim or annual financial statements could occur and would not be prevented or detected by our internal control over financial reporting. A material weakness is a deficiency, or combination of deficiencies, in internal control over financial reporting, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of annual or interim financial statements will not be prevented or detected on a timely basis.

Specifically, management’s assessment of our internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2006, 2007, 2008 and 20082010 identified a material weakness in internal control related to a lack of documentation, insufficient historical analysis and ineffective reconciliation procedures, primarily caused by lack of personnel with adequate expertise in income tax accounting matters. Since identifying the material weakness concerning accounting for income taxes at December 31, 2006, we have undertaken the following initiatives to remediate the material weakness –weakness: hired a new Corporate Tax Director and a Manager of Taxation in our Canadian operating unit; established functioning procedures for foreign finance personnel to communicate regularly any tax concerns with the Corporate Tax Director; purchased and implemented tax provision preparation software; and developed quarterly tax documentation formats. After remediating the material weakness during 2009, we completed in 2010 several complicated financial transactions that were not properly accounted for due to insufficient documentation of historical positions. In addition, the effective performance of our tax controls was limited due to the fact that we failed to completely document our key tax processes and controls, which prevented an effective knowledge transfer to the new Corporate Tax Director, who started in the position on January 3, 2011. Accordingly, as of December 31, 20092010 our management concluded thethat our internal controls surrounding accounting for income taxes are not effective.

In March 2010, the Company determined that an error existed related to accounting for foreign currency transaction gain (loss) on certain inter-company balances. Specifically, this error related to activity in the third quarter 2009 resulting in the Company amending its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2009. This amendment restated our financial statements in order to correct a non-cash error relating to accounting for unrealized foreign currency transaction losses associated with certain inter-company balances that were

permanent in nature and, therefore, should have been recorded as currency translation adjustment to accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) in the equity section of the balance sheet. Since identifying this, we have undertaken initiatives to remediate this material weakness by (a) performing additional recalculations and analysis of the foreign currency transaction gain (loss) recorded on these intercompany balances; (b) implementing an improved process for assessing the reasonableness of foreign currency transaction gain (loss) recorded on these intercompany balances; and (c) confirming intercompany settlements related to these balances at a transactional level. NotwithstandingAs a result of such efforts, the material weakness concerning currency transaction was downgraded to a control deficiency and will not be considered completely remediated until the new controls continue to operate for a sufficient period of time and are sufficiently tested to enable management to conclude that the controls are effective.operating effectively. As a result, as of December 31, 20092010, management concluded that thethere was a control deficiency concerning foreign currency transactions represented a material weakness.transactions. See “Item 9A. ControlsItem 9A, “Controls and Procedures” herein..

Our management will consider the design and operating effectiveness of our controls and necessary changes to such controls. However, we can not assure you that additional material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting will not be identified in the future. Any failure to maintain or implement required new or improved controls, or any difficulties we encounter in their implementation, could result in additional material weaknesses, and cause us to fail to timely meet our periodic reporting obligations or result in material misstatements in our financial statements. The existence of a material weakness could result in future errors in our financial statements that could result in a restatement of financial statements, cause us to fail to meet our reporting obligations and cause investors to lose confidence in our reported financial information.

Financial information in our future financial statements will not be comparable to our financial information from periods before July 1, 2009 due to our Reorganization and the application of fresh-start accounting to our financial statements.

Upon our Holding Companies’ emergence from Chapter 11 on July 1, 2009, we adopted fresh-start accounting in accordance with Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) 852, Reorganizations, pursuant to which our reorganization value, which represents the fair value of the entity before considering liabilities and approximates the amount a willing buyer would pay for the assets of the entity immediately after the Reorganization, has been allocated to the fair value of assets in conformity with ASC 805, Business Combinations, using the purchase method of accounting for business combinations. We stated liabilities, other than deferred taxes, at a present value of amounts expected to be paid. The amount remaining after allocation of the reorganization value to the fair value of identified tangible and intangible assets is reflected as goodwill, which is subject to periodic evaluation for impairment. In addition, under fresh-start accounting, our accumulated deficit ($1.06 billion at June 30, 2009) has been eliminated. In addition to fresh-start accounting, our consolidated financial statements reflect all effects of the transactions contemplated by the Plan of Reorganization. Thus, our future consolidated balance sheets and consolidated condensed statements of operations data will not be comparable in many respects to our consolidated balance sheets and consolidated condensed statements of operations data for periods prior to our adoption of fresh-start accounting and prior to accounting for the effects of the Reorganization.

RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH THE ARBINET BUSINESS

The members of the Arbinet Exchange may not trade on the Exchange or utilize Arbinet’s other services due to, among other things, the lack of a liquid market, which may materially harm the Arbinet business. Volatility in trading volumes may have a significant adverse effect on the Arbinet business’ financial condition and operating results.

Traditionally, communication services providers buy and sell network capacity in a direct, one-to-one process. The members may not trade on the Exchange unless it provides them with an active and liquid market. Liquidity depends on, among other things, the number of buyers and sellers and the number of competitively priced routes that actively trade on a particular communications route. Arbinet’s ability to increase the number of buyers that actively trade on the Exchange will depend on, among other things, the willingness and ability of prospective sellers to satisfy the quality criteria and price parameters imposed by prospective buyers and, upon the increased participation of competing sellers from which a buyer can choose in order to obtain favorable pricing, achieve cost savings and consistently gain access to the required quality services. Arbinet’s ability to increase the number of sellers that actively trade on the Exchange will depend upon the extent to which there are sufficient numbers of prospective buyers available to increase the likelihood that sellers will generate meaningful sales revenues. Alternatively, the members may not trade on the Exchange if they are not able to realize significant cost savings. This may also result in a decline in trading volume and liquidity of the Exchange. Trading volume is additionally impacted by the mix of hundreds of geographic markets traded on the Exchange. Each market has distinct characteristics, such as price and average call duration. Declines in the trading volume on the Exchange would result in lower revenues to Arbinet and would adversely affect Arbinet’s profitability because of Arbinet’s predominantly fixed cost structure.

The members may not trade on the Exchange because such members may conclude that the Exchange will replace their existing business at lower margins.

If the Exchange continues to be an active, liquid market in which lower-priced alternatives are available to buyers, sellers may conclude that further development of the Exchange will erode their profits and they may stop offering communications capacity on the Exchange. Since the Exchange provides full disclosure of prices offered by participating sellers, buyers may choose to purchase network capacity through the Exchange instead of sending traffic to their existing suppliers at pre-determined, and often higher, contract prices. If suppliers of communications capacity fear or determine that the price disclosure and spot market limit order mechanisms provided by the Exchange will “cannibalize” the greater profit-generating potential of their existing business, they may choose to withdraw from the Exchange, which ultimately could cause the Exchange to fail and materially harm Arbinet’s business.

The combined company’s carrier services strategy may adversely affect the activity of members on the Exchange.

Arbinet has traditionally operated as an anonymous Exchange. However, some of the members may view the merger with Primus as competitive to their businesses and may limit or eliminate their activity on the Exchange. Any such reduction could have a material adverse effect on the Arbinet business’ operating results.

The Arbinet business may incur losses on customer calls that do not match the expected distribution of calls to the offered destination in carrier services.

The trading Exchange operates using the Arbinet business’ defined codes so that the buyer is committed to pay the price for those codes and the seller is committing to offer termination using those codes. In the carrier services offering, Arbinet may compile a destination using multiple suppliers, each with their own prices for regions in that destination. However, portability of numbers between carriers at that destination may alter the price for termination. Arbinet is then offering to provide termination to the broader destination to its customers on the assumption that a certain blend of calling will be achieved. If the customer sends a blend of calls that is substantially different from what is expected and all of those calls are to the more expensive parts of a destination, Arbinet may receive invoices that are significantly greater than expected and may limit its ability to complete a sale to the buyer that is profitable for Arbinet.

The Arbinet business’ standard member enrollment cycle can be long and uncertain and may not result in revenues.

The member enrollment cycle for full membership on the Exchange can be long, and may take up to 12 months or even longer from Arbinet’s initial contact with a communication services provider until that provider signs the membership agreement. Because Arbinet offers a new method of purchasing and selling international long distance voice calls and Internet capacity, Arbinet must invest a substantial amount of time and resources to educate prospective members on services providers regarding the benefits of the Exchange. Factors that contribute to the length and uncertainty of the member enrollment cycle and which may reduce the likelihood that a member will purchase or sell communications traffic through the Exchange include:

Arbinet is exposed to the credit risk of the members not covered by its credit management programs with third parties, which could result in material losses.

There have been adverse changes in the public and private equity and debt markets for communication services providers that have affected their ability to obtain financing or to fund capital expenditures. In some cases, the significant debt burden carried by certain communication services providers has adversely affected their ability to pay their outstanding balances with Arbinet and some of the members have filed for bankruptcy as a result of their debt burdens. Although these members may emerge from bankruptcy proceedings in the future, unsecured creditors, such as Arbinet, often receive partial or no payment toward outstanding obligations. Furthermore, because Arbinet is an international business, Arbinet may be subject to the bankruptcy laws of other nations, which may provide Arbinet limited or no relief. Although these losses have not been significant to date, future losses, if incurred, could be significant, particularly as a result of the impact of adverse economic conditions and the potential further tightening of credit availability on customers, and could harm the Arbinet business and have a material adverse effect on our overall operating results and financial condition.

Arbinet may be unable to effectively manage the pricing risk, which could result in significant losses.

In certain instances, Arbinet offers its customers a fixed rate for specific markets for a set duration. Arbinet may assume the risk on the price of the minutes and Arbinet may not be able to secure the prices from sellers to

ensure Arbinet does not lose money on the minutes purchased by the buyers. Arbinet could incur significant losses related to having a higher cost of minutes sold in relation to the price offered to the buyer of this service.

Expanding and maintaining international operations will subject Arbinet to additional risks and uncertainties.

Arbinet expects to continue the expansion of its international operations, which will subject Arbinet to additional risks and uncertainties. Arbinet has established exchange delivery points in New York City, London, Frankfurt, Miami and Hong Kong, and Arbinet intends to expand its presence. Foreign operations are subject to a variety of additional risks that could have an adverse effect on Arbinet’s business, including:

Arbinet’s inability to manage these risks effectively could result in increased costs and distractions and may adversely affect Arbinet’s business, financial condition and operating results.

Arbinet’s pricing in the Exchange and new products and services may not be sustainable and may decline over time.

As prices for international long-distance minutes continue to decline, Arbinet needs to charge the members less for utilization of its services. Arbinet may also need to reduce its prices to drive incremental minutes on the Exchange. As Arbinet has a predominantly fixed-price operating cost structure, Arbinet is evaluating pricing programs that maximize the volume and aggregate fee revenues on the Exchange. Arbinet continues to explore additional volume discounting programs and alternative pricing programs to drive overall fee revenues. Arbinet’s fee revenue per minute may decline in the coming quarters as Arbinet explores these pricing initiatives. Arbinet cannot be certain that its pricing programs will drive significant enough increases in volume to offset the price reduction and, therefore, Arbinet’s aggregate fee revenues may decline due to these pricing programs.

System failures, human error and security breaches could cause Arbinet to lose members and expose Arbinet to liability.

The communications services providers that use Arbinet’s services depend on Arbinet’s ability to accurately track, rate, store and report the traffic and trades that are conducted on its platform. Software defects, system failures, natural disasters, human error and other factors could lead to inaccurate or lost information or the inability to access the exchange. From time to time, Arbinet has experienced temporary service interruptions. Arbinet’s systems could be vulnerable to computer viruses, physical and electronic break-ins and third party security breaches. In a few instances, Arbinet manually input trading data, such as bid and ask prices, at the request of the members, which could give rise to human error and miscommunication of trading information and may result in disputes with the members. Any loss of information or the delivery of inaccurate information due to human error, miscommunication or otherwise or a breach or failure of Arbinet’s security mechanisms that leads to unauthorized disclosure of sensitive information could lead to member dissatisfaction and possible claims against Arbinet for damages.

Undetected defects in Arbinet’s technology could adversely affect its operations.

Arbinet’s technology is complex and is susceptible to errors, defects or performance problems, commonly called “bugs.” Although Arbinet regularly tests its software and systems extensively, Arbinet cannot ensure that its testing will detect every potential error, defect or performance problem. Any such error, defect or performance problem could have an adverse effect on Arbinet’s operations. Users of Arbinet’s services may be particularly sensitive to any defects, errors or performance problems in Arbinet’s systems because a failure of Arbinet’s systems to monitor transactions accurately could adversely affect their own operations.

If Arbinet does not adequately maintain the members’ and customers’ confidential information, Arbinet could be subject to legal liability and its reputation could be harmed.

Any breach of security relating to confidential information of the members or customers could result in legal liability to Arbinet and a reduction in use of the Exchange or cancellation of Arbinet’s services, either of which could materially harm Arbinet’s business. Arbinet’s personnel often receive highly confidential information from buyers and sellers that is stored in Arbinet’s files and on its systems. Similarly, Arbinet receives sensitive pricing information that has historically been maintained as a matter of confidence within buyer and seller organizations.

Arbinet currently has practices, policies and procedures in place to ensure the confidentiality of the members’ and customers’ information. However, Arbinet’s practices, policies and procedures to protect against the risk of inadvertent disclosure or unintentional breaches of security might fail to adequately protect information that Arbinet is obligated to keep confidential. Arbinet may not be successful in adopting more effective systems for maintaining confidential information, so its exposure to the risk of disclosure of the confidential information of the members or customers may grow as Arbinet expands its business and increases the amount of information that it possessed. If Arbinet fails to adequately maintain the members’ or customers’ confidential information, some of them could end their business relationships with Arbinet and Arbinet could be subject to legal liability.

Arbinet may not be able to keep pace with rapid technological changes in the communications services industry.

The communications services industry is subject to constant and rapid technological changes. Arbinet cannot predict the effect of technological changes on its business. New services and technologies may be superior to Arbinet’s services and technologies, or may render Arbinet’s services and technologies obsolete.

To be successful, Arbinet must adapt to and keep pace with rapidly changing technologies by continually improving, expanding and developing new services and technologies to meet customer needs. Arbinet’s success will depend, in part, on its ability to respond to technological advances, meet the evolving needs of members and customers and conform to emerging industry standards on a cost-effective and timely basis, if implemented. Arbinet will need to spend significant amounts of capital to enhance and expand its services to keep pace with changing technologies. Failure to do so may materially harm Arbinet’s business.

Any failure of Arbinet’s physical infrastructure could lead to significant costs and disruptions that could reduce its revenue and harm its business reputation and financial results.

Arbinet’s business depends on providing customers with highly reliable service. Arbinet must protect its infrastructure and any colocated equipment of the members located in Arbinet’s exchange delivery points, or EDPs. Arbinet’s EDPs and the services Arbinet provides are subject to failure resulting from numerous factors, including:

Problems at one or more of Arbinet’s EDPs, whether or not within Arbinet’s control, could result in service interruptions or significant equipment damage. Any loss of services, equipment damage or inability to terminate voice calls or supply Internet capacity could reduce the confidence of the members and customers and could consequently impair Arbinet’s ability to obtain and retain members and customers, which would adversely affect both Arbinet’s ability to generate revenues and its operating results.

RISKS RELATING TO, OR FOLLOWING, THE ARBINET MERGER

Primus may not realize the anticipated benefits of the Arbinet merger.

Primus and Arbinet entered into the Merger Agreement with the expectation that the merger would result in various benefits including, among other things, synergies, cost savings, maintaining business and customer levels of activity and operating efficiencies. The success of the merger will depend, in part, on our ability to realize these anticipated benefits from combining the businesses of Primus and Arbinet.

The integration process is subject to a number of uncertainties. Although Primus’s plans for integration are focused on minimizing those uncertainties to help achieve the anticipated benefits, no assurance can be given that these benefits will be realized or, if realized, the timing of their realization. Integration efforts associated with the merger could divert management attention and resources away from operating and strategic objectives and could have an adverse effect on the businesses of both Primus and Arbinet during the transition period. Failure to achieve anticipated benefits could result in increased costs or decreases in the amount of expected revenues and could adversely affect Primus’s future business, financial condition, operating results and prospects. In addition,

we may not be able to eliminate duplicative costs or realize other efficiencies from integrating the businesses to offset part or all of the transaction and merger-related costs incurred by Primus and Arbinet.

The financial forecasts of Primus that include the Arbinet business that may be included in future announcements and disclosures from time to time involve risks, uncertainties and assumptions, many of which are beyond the control of Primus. As a result, they may not prove to be accurate and are not necessarily indicative of current or future values or future performance.

The financial forecasts of Primus that may be contained in future announcements and disclosures from time to time involve risks, uncertainties and assumptions and are not a guarantee of future performance. The future financial results of Primus may materially differ from those expressed in the financial forecasts due to factors that are beyond Primus’s ability to control or predict. Primus cannot provide any assurance that any of its financial forecasts will be realized or that future financial results will not materially vary from the financial forecasts. The financial forecasts may cover multiple years, and the information by its nature becomes subject to greater uncertainty with each successive year. The financial forecasts do not take into account any circumstances or events occurring after the date they were prepared.

The financial forecasts:

The financial forecasts may not be prepared with a view toward public disclosure or compliance with published guidelines of the SEC or the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants for preparation and presentation of prospective financial information or United States generally accepted accounting principles, or U.S. GAAP, and may not reflect the effect of any proposed or other changes in U.S. GAAP that may be made in the future.

The market value of Primus common stock could decline if large amounts of its common stock are sold following the Merger.

Following the Merger, stockholders of Primus and former stockholders of Arbinet will own interests in a combined company operating an expanded business with more assets and a different mix of liabilities. Current stockholders of Primus and Arbinet may not wish to continue to invest in the additional operations of the combined company, or may wish to reduce their investment in the combined company, or for other reasons may wish to dispose of some or all of their interests in Primus following the Merger. If, following the Merger, large amounts of Primus common stock are sold, the price of its common stock could decline.

The Merger may not be accretive and may cause dilution to Primus’s earnings per share, which may negatively affect the market price of Primus’s common stock.

As of the filing date of this Form 10-K, Primus currently anticipates that the Arbinet merger will be accretive to U.S. GAAP earnings per share in 2012 and on an adjusted earnings per share basis in 2011. This expectation is based on preliminary estimates that may materially change. Primus could also encounter additional transaction and integration-related costs or other factors such as the failure to realize all of the benefits

anticipated in the merger. All of these factors could cause dilution to Primus’s earnings per share or decrease or delay the expected accretive effect of the merger and cause a decrease in the price of Primus’s common stock.

Primus’s efforts to have Primus common stock listed for trading on the NASDAQ has not yet been successful, which results in limited liquidity for its stockholders.

Primus has not yet succeeded in having its common stock listed on the NASDAQ, Arbinet stockholders would receive shares of Primus common stock that are not listed on a national securities exchange in return for their shares of Arbinet common stock, which were listed on the NASDAQ Global Market.

RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH OUR LIQUIDITY NEEDS AND DEBT SECURITIES

We may not be able to generate sufficient cash to service all of our indebtedness, and may be forced to take other actions to satisfy our obligations under our indebtedness that may not be successful.

Our ability to satisfy our debt obligations will depend upon, among other things, our future financial and operating performance, which will be affected by prevailing economic conditions and financial, business, regulatory and other factors, many of which are beyond our control. We cannot assure you that our business will generate cash flow from operations in an amount sufficient to fund our liquidity needs. If our cash flows and capital resources are insufficient to service our indebtedness, we may be forced to reduce or delay capital expenditures, sell assets, seek additional capital or restructure or refinance our indebtedness. These alternative measures may not be successful and may not permit us to meet our scheduled debt service obligations. Our

ability to restructure or refinance our debt will depend on the condition of the capital markets and our financial condition at such time. Any refinancing of our debt could be at higher interest rates and may require us to comply with more onerous covenants, which could further restrict our business operations. In addition, the terms of existing or future debt agreements may restrict us from adopting some of these alternatives. In the absence of such operating results and resources, we could face substantial liquidity problems and might be required to dispose of material assets or operations to meet our debt service and other obligations. We may not be able to consummate those dispositions for fair market value or at all. Furthermore, any proceeds that we could realize from any such disposition may not be adequate to meet our debt service obligations then due.

A significant portion of our future cash flow may need to be committed to repurchasing or redeeming certain outstanding debt prior to its stated maturity, rather than for use in our business operations.

If Group and its “restricted subsidiaries” have Excess Cash Flow (as defined below) for any fiscal year commencing with the fiscal year ending December 31, 2010, then the issuers of the 13% Senior Secured Notes due 2016 (the “13% Notes”) are obligated to jointly apply an amount equal to 50% of such Excess Cash Flow for such period (the “Excess Cash Flow Offer Amount”) and to make a joint offer to the holders of the 13% Notes to repurchase all or a portion of such notes as Units with an aggregate repurchase price in cash equal to the Excess Cash Flow Offer Amount (an “Excess Cash Flow Offer”). Excess Cash Flow means for any such fiscal year (a) the excess of (1) consolidated EBITDAearnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (“EBITDA”) over (2) the sum, subject to certain exceptions, represented by: (i) capital expenditures; (ii) consolidated interest expense paid in cash; (iii) income and franchise taxes paid in cash; and (iv) reductions in certain indebtednessmminusinus(b) the absolute value of negative Excess Cash Flow, if any. See Note 7 to our Consolidated Financial Statements.

Within 110 days after the end of any fiscal year with respect to which an Excess Cash Flow Offer is required, an offer must be sent to each holder of 13% Notes stating the repurchase date, which must be no earlier than 30 days nor later than 60 days from the date such notice is mailed. With respect to each Excess Cash Flow Offer, the Issuers are entitled to reduce the applicable Excess Cash Flow Offer Amount by an amount equal to the sum of (x) the aggregate repurchase price paid for any 13% Notes repurchased by the Issuers in the open market or privately negotiated transaction (and, in each case, cancelled by the Issuers) and (y) the aggregate redemption price paid for any 13% Notes redeemed pursuant to one or more optional redemptions, subject to certain limitations.

If our outstanding 14 ¼% ¹/4% Senior Subordinated Secured Notes due May 2013 (the “14 ¼% ¹/4% Notes”) have not been refinanced in accordance with the terms of its indenture on or prior to January 21, 2013, then the Issuers will be required to redeem the 13% Notes in advance of the 14 ¼% ¹/4% Notes scheduled maturity at a price equal to the then applicable optional redemption price.

If such early redemption of the 13% Notes are required or an Excess Cash Flow Offer is made, there can be no assurance that the Issuers will have available funds sufficient to pay for such redemption or for the Excess Cash Flow purchase price for all the 13% Notes that might be delivered by holders seeking to accept the Excess Cash Flow Offer. Any such failure could have a material adverse effect on us.

We must repay or refinance the 14 ¼% ¹/4% Notes prior to the maturity of the 13% Notes. Failure to do so could have a material adverse effect upon us.

The maturity of the 14 ¼% ¹/4% Notes is earlier than the maturity of the 13% Notes. While we expect to refinance the 14 ¼% ¹/4% Notes, we may not be able to do so or refinancing may not be available on commercially reasonable terms. Our ability to complete a refinancing of the 14 ¼% ¹/4% Notes prior to their maturity is subject to a number of conditions beyond our control. For example, if disruption in the financial markets were to occur at the time that we intended to refinance the 14 ¼% ¹/4% Notes, we might be restricted in our ability to refinance that indebtedness. If we are unable to refinance the 14 ¼% ¹/4% Notes our alternatives would consist of negotiating an extension of such indebtedness with the holders and seeking or raising new capital. If we were unsuccessful, the holders of the 14 ¼% ¹/4% Notes could demand repayment of the indebtedness owed to them on May 20, 2013. As a result, our ability to pay the principal of and interest on such indebtedness would be adversely affected.

We may not be able to repurchase the 14¼14 ¹/4% Notes or 13% Notes upon a change of control.

Upon the occurrence of certain specific kinds of change of control events, we (or our subsidiaries) will be required to jointly offer to repurchase all outstanding notes at 101% of the principal amount thereof plus, without duplication, accrued and unpaid interest and additional interest, if any, to the date of repurchase. However, it is possible that they will not have sufficient funds at the time of the change of control to make the required repurchase of all notes delivered by holders seeking to exercise their repurchase rights, particularly as that change of control may trigger a similar repurchase requirement for, or result in an event of a default under a debt indenture and may also constitute a cross-default on other indebtedness existing at that time. In addition, certain important corporate events, such as leveraged recapitalization that would increase the level of our indebtedness, would not constitute a “Change of Control” under the indenture.

Our indentures governing our 14¼14 ¹/4% Notes and 13% Notes contain significant operating and financial restrictions which may limit our ability and our restricted subsidiaries’ ability to operate their business.

The indentures governing our 14 ¼% ¹/4% Notes and 13% Notes contain significant operating and financial restrictions on us and our subsidiaries. These restrictions limit the ability of us and our restricted subsidiaries to, among other things:

These restrictions could limit the ability of us and our subsidiaries to finance future operations or capital needs, make acquisitions or pursue available business opportunities. We may be required to take action to reduce their debt or act in a manner contrary to our business objectives to satisfy these covenants. Events beyond our control, including changes in economic and business conditions in the markets in which we operate, may affect our ability to do so. We may not be able to satisfy these covenants. A breach of any of the covenants in our debt could result in a default under such debt, which could lead to that debt becoming immediately due and payable and, if such debt is secured, foreclosure on our assets that secure that obligation. A default under a debt instrument could, in turn, result in a default under other obligations and result in other creditors accelerating the payment of other obligations and foreclosing on asset security such debt, if any. Any such defaults could materially impair our financial conditions and liquidity.

Despite current indebtedness levels and restrictive covenants, we and our subsidiaries may still be able to incur substantial additional debt, which could exacerbate the risks described above.

We may be able to incur additional debt in the future, including debt secured by the collateral that secures our 14¼14 ¹/4% Notes and 13% Notes, as well as other assets that do not secure such notes. Although the terms of the agreements governing our indebtedness contain restrictions on our ability to incur additional indebtedness, those restrictions are subject to a number of exceptions, and the indebtedness incurred in compliance with those restrictions could be substantial. In addition, if we are able to designate some of the restricted subsidiaries under the indenture governing the notes as unrestricted subsidiaries, those unrestricted subsidiaries would be permitted to borrow beyond the limitations specified in the indenture and engage in other activities in which restricted

subsidiaries may not engage. If we incur any additional secured debt that ranks equally with the 13% Notes, the holders of that debt will be entitled to share ratably with the holders of the 13% Notes in any proceeds distributed in connection with any bankruptcy, liquidation, reorganization or similar proceedings. Adding new debt to current debt levels could intensify the related risks that we now face.

The issuance of the 13% Notes may subject us to additional currency exchange risks.

The 13% Notes were issued and paid for, and the interest to be paid on those notes will be paid, in U.S. dollars. However, the Canadian issuer of such notes receives revenues primarily in Canadian dollars (“CAD”). As a result, the financial condition of the Canadian issuer might be materially adversely affected if the U.S. dollar appreciates against the CAD. From time to time, if we determine it is appropriate and advisable to do so, we may seek to lessen the effect of exchange rate fluctuations through the use of derivative financial instruments. However, we cannot assure you that we will be successful in these efforts.

ADDITIONAL RISKS RELATED TO REGULATION

We are subject to constantly changing regulation, both in the U.S. and abroad, including the imposition of fees and taxes, the potential adverse effects which may have a material adverse impact on our competitive position, growth and financial performance.

Our operations are subject to constantly changing regulation. There can be no assurance that future regulatory changes will not have a material adverse effect on us, or that domestic, foreign or international regulators or third parties will not raise material issues with regard to our compliance or noncompliance with applicable regulations, any of which could have a material adverse effect upon our competitive position, growth and financial performance. As a multinational telecommunications company, we are subject to varying degrees of regulation in each of the jurisdictions in which we provide our services. Local laws and regulations, and the interpretation of such laws and regulations, differ significantly among the jurisdictions in which we operate. Enforcement and interpretations of these laws and regulations can be unpredictable and are often subject to the

informal views of government officials. Potential future regulatory, judicial, legislative, and government policy changes in jurisdictions where we operate could have a material adverse effect on us. Many regulatory actions are underway or are being contemplated by governmental agencies. For example, in connection with the promulgation of the “National Broadband Plan” announced in March 2010, in April 2010 the FCC stated its intention to initiate dozens of new proceedings to impose new requirements, or modify existing requirements, affecting essentially all entities involved in the provision of communications services. It is impossible to predict at this time what specific rules or requirements the FCC will propose or adopt, or how any such rules or requirements would affect our business or financial results.

The Federal Communications Commission or Congress may revise how companies like us contribute to certain federal programs that could increase our costs, reduce our profitability, or make our services less competitive in the communications marketplace.

In the U.S., the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the “Communications Act”), and associated Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”)FCC regulations, requiresrequire that every provider of interstate telecommunications carrier contribute, on an equitable and non-discriminatory basis, to federal universal service mechanisms established by the FCC, which affects our cost of providing services. At present, these contributions are calculated based on contributors’ interstate and international revenue derived from U.S. end users for telecommunications or telecommunications services, as those terms are defined under FCC regulations. On April 21, 2010, the FCC issued certain specific new proposals regarding contributions to the universal service fund that, if adopted, could materially affect our own contributions to the fund. These new proposals would affect most of our competitors, but not all of our competitors would be affected in the same way or to the same degree as we would be. The FCC has also announced its intention to propose new rules regarding the universal service program during the first quarter of 2011. It is impossible to predict the impact of these new proposals, if adopted, on our operations and financial results. In addition, AT&T Inc. filed a “Petition for Immediate Commission Action” on July 10, 2009, requesting that the FCC adopt a new mechanism for calculating federal universal service fund contribution that would be applicable to all contributors, including us. The specific proposal, which has been pending at the FCC for some time, is to determine contributions to the Universal Service Fund (“USF”)USF based on “assessable telephone numbers” rather than interstate and international revenues. This AT&T proposal remains pending. We cannot predict whether the FCC will adopt this or some other contribution methodology, nor can we predict the potential impact on our business at this time. But a revised contribution methodology could increase our contribution obligation, including increasing our contribution disproportionately compared to some of our competitors. In such event, we may need to either raise the total amount of our consumer’s bills, potentially making us less competitive with other providers of communications services, or reduce our profit margins.

In the United States and Canada, there is increasing regulation of Voice over Internet Protocol service offerings. Increased regulation may increase our costs, reduce our profit margins, or make our services less competitive in the communications marketplace.

Increasingly, laws, regulations or rulings that apply to traditional telephone services are being extended to commerce and communications services that utilize Internet Protocol, including VoIP. The increasing growth of the VoIP market and popularity of VoIP products and services heighten the risk that governmental agencies will continue to increase the level of regulation applied to VoIP and the Internet.

We are unable to predict the impact, if any, that future legislation, judicial decisions or regulations concerning Internet Protocol products and services may have on our business, financial condition, and results of operations. Regulation may be targeted

towards, among other things, fees, charges, surcharges, and taxation of VoIP services, liability for information retrieved from or transmitted over the Internet, online content regulation, user privacy, data protection, pricing, content, copyrights, distribution, electronic contracts and other communications, filing requirements, consumer protection, public safety issues like E911, the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (“CALEA”),CALEA, the provision of online payment services, broadband residential Internet access, and the characteristics and quality of products

and services, any of which could restrict our business or increase our cost of doing business. The rules that the FCC has already extended to interconnected VoIP providers include:

In Canada the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (“CRTC”)CRTC has extended rules to interconnected VoIP providers that are similar to certain of those described above for the U.S., which rules are also subject to change from time to time. In addition, the CRTC is currently conducting public proceedings on whether to recover its operating fees from all telecommunications service providers, including resellers such as us, rather than only from Canadian carriers; and on whether and how to redefine the Basic Service Objectives, for whose subsidization we and other telecom service providers are required to contribute a proportion of our Canadian telecom service revenues.

We may become subject to increased obligations with regard to accessibility obligations for people with disabilities and more of our service offerings may become subject to disabilities access obligations

In October 2010, the “Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act” was signed into law. The increasing growthnew law requires the FCC to initiate a proceeding to determine what services should be required to offer access for people with disabilities and what those accessibility requirements should entail. The FCC has initiated its rulemaking but the process is in its infancy. At this time, we cannot predict whether we will be subject to

additional accessibility requirements or whether any of the VoIP market and popularity of VoIP products and services heighten the riskour service offerings that governmental agenciesare not currently subject to disabilities access requirements will continuebe subject to increase the level of regulation applied to VoIP and the Internet.such obligations.

Proposed future U.S. federal income tax legislation could impact the Company’s effective tax rate.

In May 2009, President Obama’s administration announced proposed future tax legislation that could substantially modify the rules governing the U.S. taxation of certain non-U.S. subsidiaries. These potential changes include, but are not limited to: (1) limitations on the deferral of U.S. taxation of foreign earnings; (2) limitations on the ability to claim and utilize foreign tax credits; and (3) deferral of various tax deductions until non-U.S. earnings are repatriated to the U.S. Each of these proposals would be effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2010. Many details of the proposal remain unknown, although if any of these proposals are enacted into law they could materially impact our effective tax rate.

The applicability of changes in tax policy to our services will increase their cost to consumers thereby decreasing our competitive price advantage over the competing alternatives available to the customer. Further, we may be subject to liabilities for past taxes, surcharges, fees, penalties and interest.

Unlike those of our competitors who offer traditional landline or wireless services, with respect to our VoIP services, we currently do not collect or remit state or municipal taxes, fees or surcharges on the retail charges we collect from our customers, except where we have determined we are required to do so based on tax law. In some jurisdictions we also did not collect and remit 911 surcharges. In some instances, we have received inquiries or demands from state and municipalities for taxes, fees or surcharges, including, in some instances, 911 fees. Depending on the state, statute or municipal code, we have maintained that these taxes, fees, or surcharges, including 911 fees, do not apply to us. However, recent changes in the law, at the federal, state and local level, may change our legal obligations. Accordingly, some taxes, fees or surcharges, including 911 fees, could apply to us retroactively and we could be subject to penalties and interest.

Other international governmental regulation could limit our ability to provide our services, make them more expensive and may have a material adverse impact on our competitive position, growth and financial performance.

Our international operations are also subject to regulatory risks, including the risk that regulations in some jurisdictions will prohibit us from providing our services cost-effectively or at all, which could limit our growth. We cannot assure youmake assurances that these conditions will not have a material effect on our revenues and growth in the future. International regulatory considerations that affect or limit our business include:

Any adverse developments implicating the foregoing could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, result of operations and prospects.

We may be exposed to significant liability resulting from our noncompliance with FCC orders regarding E911 services.

FCC rules require VoIP providers interconnected to the public switched telephone network to provide E911 service in a manner similar to traditional wireline carriers. This requirement took effect as of November 2005. Like many interconnected VoIP providers, Lingo, Inc. (“Lingo”), a subsidiary of ours which sells such services, was able to meet this deadline for some but not all of its customers. We sought a waiver from the FCC asking for additional time to complete deploying our E911 service. The FCC has not yet addressed our waiver petition. As

of December 31, 2009,September 30, 2010, approximately 99% of our Lingo customers were equipped with E911 service as required by the FCC’s rules. If and to the extent that we are determined to be out of compliance with the FCC order regarding E911 services we may be subject to fines, penalties, cease and desist orders prohibiting Lingo from providing service on the federal and state levels or any combination of the foregoing.

The FCC rules also require interconnected VoIP providers to distribute stickers and labels informing customers of the limitations on their emergency services as compared with traditional landline E911 service, as well as to notify and obtain affirmative acknowledgement from customers that they are aware of those limitations. The FCC’s Enforcement Bureau released an order providing that the Enforcement Bureau will not pursue enforcement against interconnected VoIP providers that have received affirmative acknowledgement from at least 90% of their subscribers. We have received affirmative acknowledgement from substantially all of our customers, and, therefore, believe that we have effectively satisfied this requirement.

We may be exposed to significant liability based on the differences between our E911 services and those delivered by traditional providers of telephony services.

Lingo’s current E911 services, like those offered by other providers of VoIP services, are more limited than the 911 services offered by traditional wireline telephone companies. These limitations may cause significant delays, or even failures, in callers’ receipt of emergency assistance. Despite the fact that we have notified our customers and received affirmative acknowledgement from substantially all of our customers that they understand the differences between the access Lingo provides to emergency services as compared to those available through traditional wireline telephony providers, affected parties may attempt to hold us responsible for any loss, damage, personal injury or death suffered as a result of certain failures to comply with the FCC mandated E911 service for interconnected VoIP providers. Our resulting liability could be significant.

On June 1, 2007, the FCC released Notice of Proposed Rulemaking considering the imposition of additional E911 obligations on interconnected VoIP providers. Specifically, the FCC is considering requiring interconnected VoIP providers to determine automatically the physical location of their customer rather than allowing customers to manually register their location. Moreover, the notice includes a tentative conclusion that all interconnected VoIP service providers that allow customers to use their service in more than one location (nomadic VoIP service providers such as us) must utilize automatic location technology that meets the same accuracy standards applicable to providers of mobile phone service providers. At this time, we are unable to predict the outcome of this proceeding or its impact on us.

In July 2008, the “New and Emerging Technologies 911 Improvement Act of 2008” was signed into law. Previously, interconnected VoIP providers, like us, did not have the same protection from potential liability as applied wireline or wireless 911 emergency calling services. This law provides public safety entities, interconnected VoIP providers and others involved in handling 911 calls the same liability protections when handling 911 calls from interconnected VoIP users as from mobile or wired telephone service users. In October 2008, the FCC issued regulations implementing the provisions of the new law that require other entities involved in the provision of E911 services to make the technical capabilities used in such services available to VoIP providers, like us, on reasonable terms. The applicability of the liability protection to 911 calling services that do not conform to the FCC’s rules is unclear. Additionally, any liability associated with 911 call placement and handling prior to the enactment of this new law would not be covered. Therefore, while this law provides significant liability protection to interconnected VoIP providers such as us, we may still face significant and material liability with respect to any past, present or future failures of our E911 service to function properly.

We may be similarly exposed to liability in Canada in connection with emergency services associated with our VoIP services. A description of our regulatory obligations associated with our VoIP services in Canada is set forth under “Regulation.“Government Regulation.”

The Federal Communications Commission may impose additional E911 obligations on VoIP providers, like us, that may increase our cost, decrease our profits, or make our services less competitive with other providers of calling services.

In September 2010, the FCC released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking considering the imposition of additional E911 obligations on interconnected VoIP providers. Specifically, the FCC is considering requiring interconnected VoIP providers to determine automatically the physical location of their customer rather than allowing customers to manually register their location. Moreover, the Notice includes a tentative conclusion that all interconnected VoIP service providers that allow customers to use their service in more than one location (nomadic VoIP service providers such as us) must utilize automatic location technology that meets the same accuracy standards applicable to providers of mobile phone service providers. At this time, we are unable to predict the outcome of this proceeding or its impact on us.

In September 2010, the FCC released a Further Notice of Inquiry seeking additional comments on a number of issues including, but not limited to, whether nomadic interconnected VoIP providers, like us, should be required to offer automatic location information of their users without customers providing location information. The FCC also seeks comment on how far it can extend E911 obligations to other types of companies including device manufacturers, software developers and others. At this time we cannot predict the outcome of this proceeding nor can we predict its potential impact on our business.

The rates we pay to interconnected telecommunications carriers in the U.S. may increase, which may reduce our profitability or increase the retail price of our service.

The FCC is considering reform of the methodology that regulated telecommunications carriers use to determine the appropriate payments for the exchange of traffic that is necessary to complete telephone calls to

the traditional telephone network. In April 2010 the FCC announced its intention to issue a ruling clarifying network operators’ interconnection obligations. The FCC also announced its intention to issue proposed new rules governing the payments carriers make and receive in connection with the exchange of telecommunications traffic. This FCC proposal is now likely to be issued during the first quarter of 2011. The result of these actions, as well as any action the FCC’s proceedingFCC may take in currently pending proceedings bearing on these issues, may be an increase in the rates we pay to such carriers to send traffic to or receive traffic from the traditional telephone network, which would increase our costs. Such a cost increase may result in us increasing the retail price of our service, which may make us less competitive in the communications marketplace, or may reduce our profitability. We cannot predict the outcome of this proceeding.

We may not be able to comply with recent FCC requirements regarding the transfer of telephone numbers to other providers when customers change providers.

In 2008, the FCC clarified that interconnected VoIP providers, such as us, are subject to its rules regarding transferring the telephone numbers of customers that choose to obtain service from other providers, including both interconnected VoIP providers and traditional carriers. In 2009, the FCC released an order that reduces the amount of time within which voice service providers must transfer a telephone number to a new provider. ToWe, along with other VoIP providers, are now required to transfer telephone numbers on the shortened timeframe. We rely on our underlying, third party carriers to comply with these newrules. Our third party, underlying carriers are currently in compliance with the FCC’s rules and we expect that they will likely have to implement new procedures and may have to increase staffing levels. Should this occur, we may need to increase the price ofremain in compliance. But should our retail service offering, which may make us less competitive with other providers of communications services or reduce our profitability. Should we not be ableunderlying carriers fail to comply with the order,FCC rules, we may be subject to fines, penalties, or cease and desist orders. At this time, we cannot accurately predict the full impact of this order on our business, as the industry is still developing the technical standards that will govern the new expedited number transfer procedures.

The FCC or federal courts may allow statesStates in the U.S. tomay subject our service to state universal service fundUniversal Service Fund obligations.

Several states have attempted to require nomadic interconnected VoIP providers to contribute to state universal service funds.USFs. One state, Nebraska, engaged in litigation with a provider of interconnected VoIP services similar to ours. The U.S. District Court for Nebraska issued a preliminary injunction on March 3, 2008, finding that the Nebraska Public Service Commission did not have jurisdiction to require universal service fund contributions from nomadic interconnected VoIP providers. A panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the U.S. District court ruling on May 1, 2009. Subsequently, the Nebraska Public Service Commission requested a rehearing that the Court denied on June 5, 2009. On the basis of this litigation, we do not believe that existing law allows states to subject us to state universal service fund contribution obligations.

us. On July 16, 2009, Kansas and Nebraska filed a petition with the FCC requesting a declaratory ruling that states are

not preempted from requiring nomadic interconnected VoIP providers to contribute to state universal service funds.USFs. The petition also seekssought a retroactive rulingrule finding that states have been able to collect such contributions for an uncertain time period. On November 5, 2010, the FCC released an order granting the petition in part, clarifying that on a time period that isprospective basis states may extend USF contribution requirements to cover intrastate revenues of nomadic VoIP providers, so long as the state’s particular requirements do not clearly definedconflict with federal law or policies. We cannot predict which states may seek to impose such contributions on us. Decisions by states to collect state USF contributions may result in the petition.increased state regulation of our service and increased costs associated with our services, which may lead to either low profits or a less competitively priced service. Typically, state USF fees would be passed on to consumers. At this time, we cannot predict the outcome of individual state decisions or the impact such decisions might have on our business.

We may become subject to state regulation for certain service offerings

A number of states have adopted the position that offerings by VoIP companies like us are subject to state regulation. These states generally base their jurisdiction to regulate such offerings based on whether a VoIP company is able to determine the beginning and end points of communications and whether such communications occur entirely within the boundaries of the respective state. We believe that the Federal Communications Commission has preempted states from regulating VoIP offerings. We cannot predict how this proceedingissue will be resolved nor its impact on our business.business at this time but we could be subject to increased costs, reduced profitability, and fines or penalties.

We require access to the Internet by us and our users in order to offer our services. If Internet access providers or other companies involved in handling Internet traffic are able to block, degrade or charge us so that we were requiredcan offer quality services, we could incur additional costs or lose customers.

Our service offerings require that customers have access to pay retroactively into state-level universalbroadband Internet access at a sufficient bandwidth in order to support call quality and other related services. We and our customers rely on service funds,providers that have significant market power in the broadband Internet access marketplace including incumbent providers of wireline telephone services, cable companies and wireless companies. It is possible that some of these providers could havetake measures to degrade or disrupt our services, or increase the cost to us or our users to obtain access to certain levels of bandwidth necessary to make our service offerings. The FCC’s jurisdiction to prohibit or regulate these activities is unclear due to a material negative impact2009 ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The FCC has taken the position that it has sufficient jurisdiction to issue regulations in this area. While interference with access to our products and services seems unlikely such broadband Internet access provider interference has occurred, in very limited circumstances in the U.S., and could result in a loss of existing users and increased costs, and could impair our ability to attract new users, thereby harming our revenue and growth.

We are subject to the requirements of the Federal Trade Commission’s new “Red Flag” identity theft rules.

We must comply with Section 114 of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 (“FACTA”) and rules of the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) that require “creditors” to develop and effectuate written internal programs to detect, prevent, and mitigate identity theft in connection with their accounts. The rules became effective on our earnings.January 1, 2011, and we may be deemed to be a “creditor” as defined in the FACTA. We are taking steps to ensure compliance with the FTC’s rules, but if and to the extent that we are determined to be out of compliance with the rules we may be subject to fines, penalties, compliance orders or any combination of the foregoing.

None.

We currently lease our corporate headquarters facility, which is located in McLean, Virginia. Additionally, we lease administrative, technical and sales office space, as well as space for our switches and data centers, in various locations in the countries in which we operate. TotalAs of December 31, 2010 total leased space in the United States, Australia, Canada, Brazil and the United Kingdom, as well as other countries in which we operate, approximates 593,000580,000 square feet and the total annual lease costs are approximately $15.0$15.2 million. The operating leases expire at various times with the longest commitment expiring in 2019. We believe that our present administrative and sales office

facilities are adequate for our anticipated operations and that similar space can be obtained readily as needed, and we further believe that the current leased facilities are adequate to house existing communications equipment.

Certain communications equipment which includes network switches and transmission lines are leased through operating leases, capital leases and vendor financing agreements.

The Company and its subsidiaries are subject to claims and legal proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of its business. Each of these matters is subject to various uncertainties, and it is possible that some of these matters may be decided unfavorably. The Company believes that any aggregate liability that may result from the resolution of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

PART II

Common Stock

Primus Telecommunications Group, Incorporated (“we” or “us”) common stock has traded on the OTC Bulletin Board under the ticker symbol “PMUG” since July 1, 2009, (the “New Common Stock”). Shares of our common stock issued and outstanding immediately prior to July 1, 2009 (the “Old Common Stock”) traded on the over-the-counter market, both through listings on the OTC Bulletin Board and in the National Quotation Bureau “Pink Sheets.” The ticker symbol “PRTL” was assigned to our Old Common Stock for over the counter quotations. On June 30, 2009 share of our outstanding Old Common Stock were cancelled pursuant to the terms of our Plan of Reorganization and 9,600,000 shareshares of New Common Stock were issued. We have no continuing obligations with respect to the Old Common Stock.

The following table provides the high and low sale prices for our common stock authorized in connection with our emergence from bankruptcy as reported on the over-the-counter market for the period beginning July 1, 2009 and for our Old Common Stock for the periods through June 30, 2009. These prices do not include retail markups, markdowns or commissions.

Dividend Policy

We have not paid any cash dividends on our common stock to date. The payment of dividends, if any, in the future is within the discretion of the Board of Directors and will depend on our earnings, our capital requirements and financial condition. Dividends are currently restricted by the senior secured notes and the senior subordinated secured notes indentures, and may be restricted by other credit arrangements entered into in the future by us. It is the present intention of the Board of Directors to retain all earnings, if any, for use in our business operations, and accordingly, the Board of Directors does not expect to declare or pay any dividends in the foreseeable future.

Contingent Value Rights Distribution Agreement

Pursuant to the terms of the Plan, Group issued to holders of Old Common Stock contingent value rights (“Contingent Value Rights” or “CVRs”) to receive up to an aggregate of 2,665,000 shares (the “CVR Shares”) of New Common Stock. In connection with the issuance of the Contingent Value Rights, Group entered into a Contingent Value Rights Distribution Agreement (the “CVR Agreement”), in favor of holders of CVRs thereunder, dated as of the Effective Date.

The CVRs may not be transferred by the holder thereof except in certain limited circumstances. Subject to the terms of the CVR Agreement, holders of CVRs will receive their pro rata share of up to 2,665,000 CVR Shares. A distribution of CVR Shares is required to be made by Group if, as of any determination date (described below), Group’s equity value (assuming cash exercise in full on such date of in-the-money warrants and options of Group) divided by the sum of the number of shares of New Common Stock then issued and outstanding plus the number of shares of New Common Stock underlying warrants, options and similar securities of Group (other than CVRs) that are then in-the-money exceeds $35.95. The aggregate number of such shares of New Common Stock is referred to as the “Applicable Shares;” the price per share of $35.95, subject to adjustment as described below, is referred to as the “CVR Strike Price;” and the per share amount of any such excess over the CVR Strike Price is referred to as the “Excess Equity Value Per Share.” If such a distribution is required, the number of CVR Shares to be distributed by Group equals the product of Excess Equity Value Per Share multiplied by the number of Applicable Shares divided by the CVR Strike Price. Such product of Excess Equity Value Per Share and the number of Applicable Shares is referred to as the “Excess Equity Value.”

Group will determine if and to the extent a distribution of CVR Shares is required on January 1 and July 1 of each year, commencing on the first such date (but in no event later than July 1, 2013) on which data is available to confirm that Group’s adjusted EBITDA for the immediately preceding four fiscal quarters is equal to at least $100 million, and upon a change of control of Group. Distributions of CVR Shares (if any) will be made within 45 calendar days of a determination by Group that a distribution is required. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no distribution of CVR Shares is required to be made by Group unless Excess Equity Value exceeds $1 million as of any determination date.

The number of CVR Shares and the CVR Strike Price will be adjusted from time to time in connection with any stock dividend or distribution, or subdivision, split, combination, reclassification or recapitalization of the New Common Stock. In addition, if Group distributes to holders of New Common Stock any of its assets (including but not limited to cash), securities or rights to purchase securities of Group (other than any regular cash dividend not to exceed in any fiscal year 45% of the consolidated net income of Group for the immediately preceding fiscal year), then the number of CVR Shares will be increased and the CVR Strike Price will be decreased, in each case pursuant to the terms of the CVR Agreement. Additionally, in case of any reclassification, merger, consolidation, capital reorganization or other change in the capital stock of Group (other than in connection with a change of control) in which all or substantially all of the outstanding shares of New Common Stock are converted into or exchanged for stock, other securities or other property, Group shall make appropriate provision so that the holders of Contingent Value Rights shall thereafter be entitled to receive, at such time such holder would have otherwise been entitled to receive a distribution under the CVR Agreement, the kind and amount of stock and other securities and property having a value substantially equivalent to the value of New Common Stock that the holders of Contingent Value Rights would have been entitled to receive in connection with a distribution of CVR Shares immediately prior to such reclassification, merger, consolidation, reorganization or other change in the capital stock of Group at a CVR Strike Price that, in each case, is reasonably determined by the board of directors of Group after consultation with an independent valuation advisor to preserve, to the extent practicable, the intrinsic value of such CVR immediately prior to such event.

The Contingent Value Rights will expire and the CVR Agreement will terminate upon the earliest to occur of: (1) the date upon which no further CVR Shares are available for distribution, (2) the consummation of a change of control (subject to any potential distribution of CVR Shares as a result thereof), and (3) July 1, 2019.

The foregoing description of the CVR Agreement does not purport to be complete and is qualified in its entirety by reference to the full text of such agreement, a copy of which is attached as an exhibit to Group’s Form 8-A filed with the SEC on July 1, 2009 and such exhibit is incorporated herein by reference.

Holders of Common Stock

As of February 28, 2010, we2011, the Company had one holderthree holders of record of our common stock. The Company believes that this represents approximately 700 beneficial owners.

Recent Sales of Unregistered Securities

There are no unregistered sales of securities for 2009,2010, other than the transactions that have been previously reported in our quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009,2010, which description is incorporated herein by reference.

Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

The following shares of Common Stock were withheld to satisfy tax withholding obligations during the year ended December 2010. Upon vesting of restricted stock awarded by the Company to employees, the Company withholds shares to cover employees’ tax withholding obligations, other than for employees who have chosen to satisfy their tax withholding requirements in the form of a cash payment. The table below reflects the only repurchases of equity securities made by the Company in the year 2010. The Company does not have a stock repurchase program.

Stock Performance Graph

The following graph, furnished voluntarily further to Instruction 6 to Item 201(e) of Regulations S-K, compares the cumulative total returns during the period from July 1, 2009 to December 31, 2010 of our common stock to the Standard & Poor’s Midcap 400 Index and the Standard & Poor’s Telecommunications Index. The comparison assumes $100 was invested on July 1, 2009 in each of the New Common Stock of the Company and the indices and assumes that all dividends were reinvested. The reorganized company’s New Common Stock began trading on the over the counter bulletin board on July 1, 2009. The company’s Old Common Stock, which was actively traded prior to July 1, 2009, does not provide meaningful comparison and the performance of the Old Common Stock has not been provided.

The performance graph will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference by means of any general statement incorporating by reference this Form 10-K into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, except to the extent that Primus specifically incorporates such information by reference, and shall not otherwise be deemed filed under such Acts.

The selected consolidated financial data set forth below should be read in conjunction with (i) Item 7 entitled “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations Overview” andOverview,” (ii) our consolidated audited annual financial statements and the notes thereto, each of which are contained in Item 8 entitled “Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.” and (iii) the information described below under “European Retail Discontinued Operations.”

As of July 1, 2009, the Company adopted fresh-start accounting in accordance with Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) No. 852. The adoption of fresh-start accounting resulted in the Company becoming a new entity for financial reporting purposes. Accordingly, the financial statements on or prior to July 1, 2009 are not comparable with the financial statements for periods after July 1, 2009. The consolidated condensed statements of operations and any references to “Successor” or “Successor Company” for the six months ended December 31, 2009, show the operations of the reorganized Company from and including July 1, 2009, the Effective Date, through December 31, 2009. References to “Predecessor” or “Predecessor Company” refer to the operations of the Company prior to July 1, 2009, except for Predecessor’s July 1, 2009 statements of operations which reflect only the effect of the plan adjustments and fresh-start accounting as of such date and do not reflect any operating results.

In accordance with ASC No. 805, the preliminary allocation of the reorganization value is subject to additional adjustment until the Company has completed its analysis, but not to exceed one year after emergence from bankruptcy, to provide the Company with the time to complete the valuation of its assets and liabilities. The final determination of the fair value of individual assets and liabilities and the final allocation of the reorganization value may differwas finalized during the first six months of 2010.

European Retail Discontinued Operations.Subsequent to its December 31, 2009 year-end, the Company had sold or held for sale its Europe segment, which is also known as European retail operations, and classified the components of these operations as discontinued operations. As a result, the Company has applied retrospective adjustments for 2009, 2008 and 2007 to reflect the effects of the discontinued operations that occurred subsequent to December 31, 2009. Accordingly, revenue, costs, and expenses of the discontinued operations have been excluded from the amounts includedrespective captions in the consolidated statements of operations. The net operating results of the discontinued operations have been reported, net of applicable income taxes as income, or loss, as applicable, from discontinued operations. The Company did not retrospectively adjust its 2009 or 2008 Consolidated Balance Sheet, as held for sale criteria were not met until the third quarter of 2010; as such, financial statements and there can be no assurance thatinformation for the Europe segment will appear, as applicable, where certain balance sheet information is presented. The following selected financial information has been recast to reflect such adjustments will not be material.retrospective classification of the Company’s European retail operations.

PRIMUS TELECOMMUNICATIONS GROUP, INCORPORATED

CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS

(in thousands, except per share amounts)

Balance Sheet Data:

Discontinued Operations Data: