Disclaimer and Legal Context
This page identifies individuals who, based on documented evidence and good-faith analysis, are reasonably believed to have participated in, enabled, or failed to act in connection with the fraudulent acquisition of Fiber Network Solutions, Inc. and its subsequent concealment. The information presented here has been submitted in formal whistleblower disclosures to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the Department of Justice, the Internal Revenue Service – Criminal Investigation Division, and other federal agencies.
This list does not assert criminal guilt. Instead, it reflects a factual and evidentiary account of each individual’s known or alleged role, behavior, or response pattern—particularly where actions or omissions may be relevant to public interest, fiduciary duty, or federal investigations.
This page is published in accordance with protections under federal whistleblower law and the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
For an in-depth, comprehensive overview of the documentary timeline regarding the fraudulent acquisition of Fiber Network Solutions, Inc. by Cogent Communications (NASDAQ: CCOI), visit the Download PDF's page, or read the html versions at the Read Doc's On-Line page.
Bill Kelly (William J. Kelly, Jr.)
William J. Kelly, Jr. is a corporate governance and securities attorney with decades of experience advising companies on mergers and acquisitions, venture financing, and regulatory compliance. Over the course of his career, he held senior roles at major law firms, including Partner at Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur LLP and later Member at Dickinson Wright PLLC, where he focused on complex business transactions, corporate structuring, and securities law matters.
Professional Background
Public professional profiles identify William J. Kelly as a senior corporate attorney specializing in mergers and acquisitions, corporate governance, and securities law. His work focused on advising entrepreneurial businesses, venture-backed companies, and public issuers on structuring, financing, and regulatory compliance.
Mr. Kelly served as a Partner at Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur LLP from 1983 to 2014, where he led and participated in complex business transactions across multiple industries. He later joined Dickinson Wright PLLC as a Member, where he continued advising clients until his retirement in 2021.
His areas of concentration included corporate governance, mergers and acquisitions, venture and private equity financing, securities law reporting and compliance, and strategic business transactions involving both private and public companies.
Honors & Recognition
Mr. Kelly has received multiple recognitions from Best Lawyers in America® for his work in corporate law and corporate governance. He was named “Lawyer of the Year” in Corporate Law and Corporate Governance Law in Columbus, Ohio, including honors in 2012, 2014–2015, and 2017.
These distinctions reflect long-standing peer recognition within the legal community for his work in complex corporate transactions and governance matters.
Education
Mr. Kelly earned his Juris Doctor, summa cum laude, from The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law (1973–1976), where he was a member of the Order of the Coif and the Ohio State Law Journal.
He received a Bachelor of Arts, cum laude, in Political Science and Economics from The Ohio State University (1969–1973), and was inducted into Phi Beta Kappa.
Professional Affiliations & Activities
Mr. Kelly has been active in the American Bar Association’s Section of Business Law, including participation in committees focused on private equity, venture capital, mergers and acquisitions, and middle-market business transactions.
He also served as Chairman of the Ohio State Bar Association’s Corporation Law Committee and participated in its Legislative Review Subcommittee, contributing to the review and development of Ohio business entity statutes.
In addition, Mr. Kelly has been affiliated with advisory and investment networks supporting early-stage business development, including participation in Ohio-based venture and technology initiatives.
Role in Fiber Network Solutions Transaction
William J. Kelly, Jr. served as general counsel to Fiber Network Solutions, Inc. from its formation through June 2000, during which time he was directly involved in the legal structuring, governance, and financing framework of the company.
A formal grievance submitted to the Columbus Bar Association by FNSI corporate counsel alleges that Mr. Kelly engaged in multiple undisclosed conflicts of interest during his representation of the company. These include simultaneous representation of FNSI and certain investors—specifically members of the Bacon family—without disclosure or waiver, in violation of applicable disciplinary rules.
The same grievance further alleges that Mr. Kelly authored and implemented a stock option plan under which he received personal equity interests without making the disclosures required for such transactions, and that he maintained access to confidential company information while holding interests adverse to those of the company.
In addition, Mr. Kelly is alleged to have attempted to influence internal corporate control by encouraging the removal of company leadership while still serving as general counsel, and to have communicated directly with represented parties in violation of professional conduct rules.
Separate documentary evidence associated with the February 23, 2003 transaction includes proxy materials executed in connection with the proposed sale of FNSI assets to Cogent Communications. These materials are cited within whistleblower submissions as part of the documentary record surrounding the transaction and its execution.
Taken together, these materials place Mr. Kelly in a position of direct involvement in the legal, structural, and documentary framework underlying the events that led to the transfer of FNSI’s assets.
Narrative Interpretation and Alleged Conduct
The documented conduct attributed to William J. Kelly, Jr. reflects a pattern in which the boundaries between independent legal counsel and participant in corporate control became blurred. As general counsel, his role required strict adherence to fiduciary duty, conflict disclosure, and the protection of client interests. The materials reviewed suggest repeated departures from those obligations.
The grievance filed by FNSI counsel describes a sequence of actions in which undisclosed conflicts, personal financial interests, and divided loyalties intersected with key corporate decisions. These actions are characterized not as isolated errors, but as part of a broader pattern of conduct that impacted governance, shareholder equity, and internal control of the company.
In this context, Mr. Kelly’s involvement is viewed as extending beyond traditional legal advisory functions. His participation in structuring relationships between the company and its investors, combined with his alleged efforts to influence internal leadership outcomes, placed him in a position where legal authority and corporate influence operated simultaneously.
Whistleblower materials further interpret these actions as contributing to an environment in which control of the company could be redirected without full transparency to all stakeholders. These interpretations are based on documentary evidence, internal communications, and formal submissions currently under review by federal authorities.
Legal Exposure
William J. Kelly, Jr. is identified in federal whistleblower submissions supported by documentary evidence, including corporate records, legal filings, and internal communications provided to multiple federal agencies.
The conduct described in these materials has been presented for review to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Internal Revenue Service – Criminal Investigation Division (IRS-CI), U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and the United States Attorney’s Office.
In addition to potential federal review, the formal grievance submitted to the Columbus Bar Association outlines alleged violations of multiple Disciplinary Rules governing attorney conduct, including provisions related to conflicts of interest, misuse of client confidences, failure to disclose material interests, and conduct adverse to a client.
Based on the nature of the conduct described, the materials submitted for review reference potential applicability of federal statutes relating to conspiracy, wire fraud, obstruction of justice, false statements, and racketeering activity. These references reflect the legal frameworks under which the documented conduct may be evaluated and do not constitute findings of guilt.
All matters described remain subject to review by the appropriate regulatory and investigative authorities.
He may be subject to review under the following federal statutes:
• 18 U.S.C. § 371 – Conspiracy to defraud the United States
• 18 U.S.C. § 1343 – Wire fraud
• 18 U.S.C. § 1349 – Attempt and conspiracy to commit fraud
• 18 U.S.C. § 1956 – Money laundering
• 18 U.S.C. § 1001 – False statements or material concealment
• 18 U.S.C. § 1512 – Obstruction of justice
• 18 U.S.C. § 1513(e) – Retaliation against a whistleblower
• 26 U.S.C. § 7201 – Tax evasion
• 18 U.S.C. § 1962 – Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO)
Closing Statement
William J. Kelly, Jr.’s role in the history of Fiber Network Solutions, Inc. is defined by the intersection of legal authority, fiduciary responsibility, and the outcomes that followed his involvement. As general counsel, he was entrusted with safeguarding the legal integrity of the company and protecting the interests of its shareholders.
The materials reviewed present a markedly different picture—one in which conflicts of interest, undisclosed financial involvement, and participation in key structural decisions coincided with a period of significant corporate transition. These issues have been formally documented and submitted for review through appropriate legal and regulatory channels.
This page reflects a synthesis of publicly available information, internal records, and formal whistleblower submissions. It is intended to document the evidentiary record as it exists and to preserve the factual framework surrounding Mr. Kelly’s involvement.
Any determinations regarding liability, professional discipline, or criminal exposure remain within the jurisdiction of the relevant authorities.
See full list of individuals: The Conspirators