Avaya and ConvergeOne, now branded C1, are in a federal contract dispute within the US District Courtroom for the Southern District of New York (SDNY), an unprecedented public flashpoint in a vendor–channel accomplice relationship that has lengthy been a distinguished a part of enterprise unified communications and get in touch with middle deployments.
A number of filings within the case are beneath seal, limiting what might be confirmed publicly in regards to the underlying claims and treatments sought.
An Avaya spokesperson informed UC At this time:
“We will acknowledge that Avaya initiated authorized proceedings in opposition to C1 within the NY courts and thru arbitration, and is dedicated to pursuing this matter.”
“The corporate has retained Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, a specialist legislation agency in enterprise litigation and arbitration, to signify Avaya in addressing the state of affairs by the correct authorized channels,” the spoksperson added. “Our precedence on this matter is the safety of our enterprise and the pursuits of our clients. We is not going to be commenting additional and don’t intend to make extra public statements as that is an ongoing authorized matter.”
UC At this time has additionally reached out to C1 for remark.
What’s Occurring in Courtroom?
The case, Avaya LLC v. ConvergeOne, Inc. (1:26-cv-00381), entered SDNY on January 15, 2026, after C1 eliminated the matter from New York state courtroom to federal courtroom. The docket categorizes the matter as a contract dispute and exhibits no jury demand.
Public docket summaries point out the courtroom convened a phone convention to handle Avaya’s emergency motions. In response to a minute entry summarized on the docket:
“The Courtroom denied the movement for a short lived restraining order, denied the movement for expedited discovery, granted Avaya and ConvergeOne’s motions to seal, Dkts. 7, 20, and denied Avaya’s movement to unseal, Dkt. 18.”
The identical docket abstract states the events “shall file a standing letter by February 9, 2026.”
With key paperwork sealed, the courtroom document at present seen to the general public provides restricted confirmed perception into the industrial particulars on the middle of the dispute. Nonetheless, the early procedural indicators are clear. The courtroom declined to grant a short lived restraining order or expedited discovery at this stage, whereas permitting each events to maintain delicate supplies beneath seal.
Close to-term, the February 9 standing letter deadline might present the subsequent public sign of the place the case is headed.
The Context Behind Avaya and C1’s Courtroom Case
Even with out entry to the sealed filings, the lawsuit lands in a UC and get in touch with middle market formed by years of monetary and strategic upheaval, notably for each firms.
C1’s rebrand adopted a interval of balance-sheet stress. In April 2024, C1’s Chapter 11 chapter submitting acknowledged that the corporate had greater than $1.8 billion in debt and that greater rates of interest between March 2022 and August 2023 elevated curiosity on its funded debt by roughly $55 million on an annualized foundation. The submitting cited buyer buying delays tied to the monetary misery of a serious OEM accomplice within the interval round Avaya’s February 2023 Chapter 11 course of.
Avaya’s personal current historical past provides one other layer of context. The corporate entered Chapter 11 in February 2023 and moved shortly by a prepackaged restructuring. In March 2023, Avaya mentioned courtroom affirmation of its plan would “cut back Avaya’s complete debt by greater than 75 %” and “enhance its liquidity place to over $650 million.” By Might 2023, Avaya mentioned it had emerged from chapter “with roughly $650 million in liquidity.”
Since then, Avaya has additionally confronted broadly reported workforce reductions and a strategic reorientation, an effort to re-center on bigger enterprise accounts and reshape its enterprise mannequin after years of churn. That mixture of monetary restructuring, headcount modifications, and a tighter strategic focus has made Avaya’s accomplice ecosystem a recurring level of scrutiny amongst clients, companions, and opponents alike.
What do the Consultants Assume?
“After I first noticed this, I used to be very stunned as I’ve by no means heard of a vendor submitting swimsuit in opposition to a accomplice,” Zeus Kerravala, Founder and Principal Analyst at ZK Analysis, informed UC At this time. “C1 has been Avaya’s accomplice of the 12 months 17 instances, and yearly, it is likely one of the greatest. It could be akin to Cisco suing World Large Tech.”
Kerravala emphasised that many underlying filings are sealed and that neither firm mentioned the precise allegations with him. “In full disclosure, neither get together would remark to me on the main points of the lawsuit, so my information relies on third-party conversations,” Kerravala clarified.
On condition that limitation, Kerravala mentioned his impression was that disputes of this type, after they come up, can typically relate to the industrial mechanics of channel relationships, similar to advertising exercise, accomplice positioning, and the dealing with of buyer migrations, quite than purely technical points.
He added that, in his view, vendor–accomplice litigation can carry reputational and ecosystem dangers past the rapid case: “Generally, I’d say suing a accomplice is dangerous for enterprise long run, as it’s going to probably precipitate companions holding their distance from Avaya.”
