16. Commitments and Contingencies

Commitments

As of December 31, 2013, future maturities of our long-term debt, capital lease and contractual obligations are summarized as follows:

	Payments due by period
	Total		2014		2015		2016		2017		2018		Thereafter
	(In thousands)
Long-term debt obligations	$	13,430,769	$	1,007,851	$	758,232	$	1,506,742	$	906,975	$	1,207,269	$	8,043,700
Capital lease obligations	220,115		27,042		27,372		30,058		32,993		36,175		66,475
Interest expense on long-term debt and capital lease obligations	4,740,541		839,650		742,084		656,798		600,634		530,523		1,370,852
Satellite-related obligations	1,957,898		386,086		335,625		230,138		225,464		225,246		555,339
Operating lease obligations from continuing operations	179,355		45,868		36,205		31,792		15,150		8,438		41,902
Purchase obligations	3,051,767		1,858,654		444,657		322,254		165,059		136,059		125,084
Total	$	23,580,445	$	4,165,151	$	2,344,175	$	2,777,782	$	1,946,275	$	2,143,710	$	10,203,352

In certain circumstances the dates on which we are obligated to make these payments could be delayed. These amounts will increase to the extent we procure insurance for our satellites or contract for the construction, launch or lease of additional satellites.

On February 20, 2014, we entered into agreements with EchoStar to implement a transaction pursuant to which, among other things: (i) on March 1, 2014, we will transfer to EchoStar and Hughes Satellite Systems Corporation (“HSSC”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of EchoStar, five satellites (EchoStar I, EchoStar VII, EchoStar X, EchoStar XI and EchoStar XIV, including related in-orbit incentive obligations and interest payments of approximately $59 million) and approximately $11 million in cash in exchange for shares of a series of preferred tracking stock issued by EchoStar and shares of a series of preferred tracking stock issued by HSSC; and (ii) beginning on March 1, 2014, we will lease back certain satellite capacity on these five satellites (collectively, the “Satellite and Tracking Stock Transaction”). The Satellite and Tracking Stock Transaction with EchoStar for EchoStar I, EchoStar VII, EchoStar X, EchoStar XI and EchoStar XIV will result in operating lease obligations of $148 million due 2014, $175 million due 2015, $123 million due 2016, $102 million due 2017, $102 million due 2018 and $329 million due thereafter. These obligations are not included in the table above. The Satellite and Tracking Stock Transaction with EchoStar for EchoStar I, EchoStar VII, EchoStar X, EchoStar XI and EchoStar XIV will also result in a reduction of our long-term debt obligations associated with our in-orbit incentive payments of $5 million due 2014, $5 million due 2015, $4 million due 2016, $4 million due 2017, $4 million due 2018 and $22 million due thereafter and a reduction in our interest expense associated with our in-orbit incentive payments of $3 million due 2014, $2 million due 2015, $2 million due 2016, $2 million due 2017, $1 million due 2018 and $5 million due thereafter. See Note 21 for further discussion of our Subsequent Events.

In addition, the table above does not include $151 million of liabilities associated with unrecognized tax benefits that were accrued, as discussed in Note 12 and are included on our Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 2013. We do not expect any portion of this amount to be paid or settled within the next twelve months.

Wireless Spectrum

On March 2, 2012, the FCC approved the transfer of 40 MHz of AWS-4 wireless spectrum licenses held by DBSD North America and TerreStar to us. On March 9, 2012, we completed the DBSD Transaction and the TerreStar Transaction, pursuant to which we acquired, among other things, certain satellite assets and wireless spectrum licenses held by DBSD North America and TerreStar. The total consideration to acquire the DBSD North America and TerreStar assets was approximately $2.860 billion.

Our consolidated FCC applications for approval of the license transfers from DBSD North America and TerreStar were accompanied by requests for waiver of the FCC’s MSS “integrated service” and spare satellite requirements and various technical provisions. On March 21, 2012, the FCC released a Notice of Proposed Rule Making proposing the elimination of the integrated service, spare satellite and various technical requirements associated with the AWS-4 licenses. On December 11, 2012, the FCC approved rules that eliminated these requirements and gave notice of its proposed modification of our AWS-4 authorizations to, among other things, allow us to offer single-mode terrestrial terminals to customers who do not desire satellite functionality. On February 15, 2013, the FCC issued an order, which became effective on March 7, 2013, modifying our AWS-4 licenses to expand our terrestrial operating authority. That order imposed certain limitations on the use of a portion of this spectrum, including interference protections for other spectrum users and power and emission limits that we presently believe could render 5 MHz of our uplink spectrum (2000-2005 MHz) effectively unusable for terrestrial services and limit our ability to fully utilize the remaining 15 MHz of our uplink spectrum (2005-2020 MHz) for terrestrial services. These limitations could, among other things, impact the ongoing development of technical standards associated with our wireless business, and may have a material adverse effect on our ability to commercialize these licenses. That order also mandated certain interim and final build-out requirements for the licenses. By March 2017, we must provide terrestrial signal coverage and offer terrestrial service to at least 40% of the aggregate population represented by all of the areas covered by the licenses (the “AWS-4 Interim Build-Out Requirement”). By March 2020, we were required to provide terrestrial signal coverage and offer terrestrial service to at least 70% of the population in each area covered by an individual license (the “AWS-4 Final Build-Out Requirement”). On December 20, 2013, the FCC issued a further order that, among other things, extended the AWS-4 Final Build-Out Requirement by one year to March 2021 (the “Modified AWS-4 Final Build-Out Requirement”). If we fail to meet the AWS-4 Interim Build-Out Requirement, the Modified AWS-4 Final Build-Out Requirement may be accelerated by one year, from March 2021 to March 2020. If we fail to meet the Modified AWS-4 Final Build-Out Requirement, our terrestrial authorization for each license area in which we fail to meet the requirement may terminate.

The FCC’s December 20, 2013 order also conditionally waived certain FCC rules for our AWS-4 spectrum licenses to allow us to repurpose 20 MHz of our uplink spectrum (2000-2020 MHz) for downlink (the “AWS-4 Downlink Waiver”). The AWS-4 Downlink Waiver and the Modified AWS-4 Final Build-Out Requirement are conditioned upon us bidding at least a net clearing price equal to the aggregate reserve price of $1.56 billion in the auction of wireless spectrum known as the “H Block.” The auction commenced January 22, 2014. Under the FCC’s anti-collusion and anonymous bidding rules for this auction, we are not permitted to disclose publicly our interest level or activity level in the auction, if any, at this time. If we fail to meet this bidding condition, or if we fail to notify the FCC whether we intend to use our uplink spectrum for downlink by June 20, 2016, the AWS-4 Downlink Waiver will terminate, and the Modified AWS-4 Final Build-Out Requirement will revert back to the AWS-4 Final Build-Out Requirement. The FCC has adopted rules for the H Block spectrum band that is adjacent to our AWS-4 spectrum licenses. Depending on the outcome of the standard-setting process for the H Block and our ultimate decision regarding the AWS-4 Downlink Waiver, the rules that the FCC adopted for the H Block could further impact the remaining 15 MHz of our uplink spectrum (2005-2020 MHz), which may have a material adverse effect on our ability to commercialize the AWS-4 licenses.

In 2008, we paid $712 million to acquire certain 700 MHz wireless spectrum licenses, which were granted to us by the FCC in February 2009. At the time they were granted, these licenses were subject to certain interim and final build-out requirements. By June 2013, we were required to provide signal coverage and offer service to at least 35% of the geographic area in each area covered by each individual license (the “700 MHz Interim Build-Out Requirement”). By June 2019, we were required to provide signal coverage and offer service to at least 70% of the geographic area in each area covered by each individual license (the “700 MHz Final Build-Out Requirement”). As discussed below, these requirements have since been modified by the FCC.

On September 9, 2013, we filed a letter with the FCC in support of a voluntary industry solution to resolve certain interoperability issues affecting the lower 700 MHz spectrum band (the “Interoperability Solution”). On October 29, 2013, the FCC issued an order approving the Interoperability Solution (the “Interoperability Solution Order”), which requires us to reduce power emissions on our 700 MHz licenses. As part of the Interoperability Solution Order, the FCC, among other things, approved our request to modify the 700 MHz Interim Build-Out Requirement so that by March 2017 (rather than the previous deadline of June 2013), we must provide signal coverage and offer service to at least 40% of our total E Block population (the “Modified 700 MHz Interim Build-Out Requirement”). The FCC also approved our request to modify the 700 MHz Final Build-Out Requirement so that by March 2021 (rather than the previous deadline of June 2019), we must provide signal coverage and offer service to at least 70% of the population in each of our E Block license areas (the “Modified 700 MHz Final Build-Out Requirement”). These requirements replaced the previous build-out requirements associated with our 700 MHz licenses. While the modifications to our 700 MHz licenses would provide us additional time to complete the build-out requirements, the reduction in power emissions could have an adverse impact on our ability to fully utilize our 700 MHz licenses. If we fail to meet the Modified 700 MHz Interim Build-Out Requirement, the Modified 700 MHz Final Build-Out Requirement may be accelerated by one year, from March 2021 to March 2020, and we could face the reduction of license area(s). If we fail to meet the Modified 700 MHz Final Build-Out Requirement, our authorization may terminate for the geographic portion of each license in which we are not providing service.

We will need to make significant additional investments or partner with others to, among other things, finance the commercialization and build-out requirements of these licenses and our integration efforts, including compliance with regulations applicable to the acquired licenses. Depending on the nature and scope of such commercialization, build-out, and integration efforts, any such investment or partnership could vary significantly. There can be no assurance that we will be able to develop and implement a business model that will realize a return on these spectrum licenses or that we will be able to profitably deploy the assets represented by these spectrum licenses, which may affect the carrying value of these assets and our future financial condition or results of operations.

Guarantees

In connection with the Spin-off, we distributed certain satellite lease agreements to EchoStar and remained the guarantor under those capital leases for payments totaling approximately $50 million over approximately the next 14 months.

During the third quarter 2009, EchoStar entered into a new satellite transponder service agreement for Nimiq 5 through 2024. We sublease this capacity from EchoStar and also guarantee a certain portion of EchoStar’s obligation under its satellite transponder service agreement through 2019. As of December 31, 2013, the remaining obligation of our guarantee was $375 million.

As of December 31, 2013, we have not recorded a liability on the balance sheet for any of these guarantees.

Purchase Obligations

Our 2014 purchase obligations primarily consist of binding purchase orders for receiver systems and related equipment, digital broadcast operations, satellite and transponder leases, engineering services, and products and services related to the operation of our DISH branded pay-TV service. Our purchase obligations also include certain fixed contractual commitments to purchase programming content. Our purchase obligations can fluctuate significantly from period to period due to, among other things, management’s control of inventory levels, and can materially impact our future operating asset and liability balances, and our future working capital requirements.

Programming Contracts

In the normal course of business, we enter into contracts to purchase programming content in which our payment obligations are generally contingent on the number of Pay-TV subscribers to whom we provide the respective content. These programming commitments are not included in the “Commitments” table above. The terms of our contracts typically range from one to ten years with annual rate increases. Our programming expenses will continue to increase to the extent we are successful in growing our Pay-TV subscriber base. In addition, our margins may face further downward pressure from price increases and the renewal of long-term Pay-TV programming contracts on less favorable pricing terms.

Rent Expense

Total rent expense for operating leases related to our continuing operations was $307 million, $254 million and $267 million in 2013, 2012 and 2011, respectively.

Patents and Intellectual Property

Many entities, including some of our competitors, have or may in the future obtain patents and other intellectual property rights that cover or affect products or services that we offer or that we may offer in the future. We may not be aware of all intellectual property rights that our products or services may potentially infringe. Damages in patent infringement cases can be substantial, and in certain circumstances can be trebled. Further, we cannot estimate the extent to which we may be required in the future to obtain licenses with respect to patents held by others and the availability and cost of any such licenses. Various parties have asserted patent and other intellectual property rights with respect to components within our direct broadcast satellite system. We cannot be certain that these persons do not own the rights they claim, that our products do not infringe on these rights, and/or that these rights are not valid. Further, we cannot be certain that we would be able to obtain licenses from these persons on commercially reasonable terms or, if we were unable to obtain such licenses, that we would be able to redesign our products to avoid infringement.

Contingencies

Separation Agreement

In connection with the Spin-off, we entered into a separation agreement with EchoStar that provides, among other things, for the division of certain liabilities, including liabilities resulting from litigation. Under the terms of the separation agreement, EchoStar has assumed certain liabilities that relate to its business including certain designated liabilities for acts or omissions that occurred prior to the Spin-off. Certain specific provisions govern intellectual property related claims under which, generally, EchoStar will only be liable for its acts or omissions following the Spin-off and we will indemnify EchoStar for any liabilities or damages resulting from intellectual property claims relating to the period prior to the Spin-off as well as our acts or omissions following the Spin-off.

Litigation

We are involved in a number of legal proceedings (including those described below) concerning matters arising in connection with the conduct of our business activities. Many of these proceedings are at preliminary stages, and many of these proceedings seek an indeterminate amount of damages. We regularly evaluate the status of the legal proceedings in which we are involved to assess whether a loss is probable or there is a reasonable possibility that a loss or an additional loss may have been incurred and to determine if accruals are appropriate. If accruals are not appropriate, we further evaluate each legal proceeding to assess whether an estimate of the possible loss or range of possible loss can be made.

For certain cases described on the following pages, management is unable to provide a meaningful estimate of the possible loss or range of possible loss because, among other reasons, (i) the proceedings are in various stages; (ii) damages have not been sought; (iii) damages are unsupported and/or exaggerated; (iv) there is uncertainty as to the outcome of pending appeals or motions; (v) there are significant factual issues to be resolved; and/or (vi) there are novel legal issues or unsettled legal theories to be presented or a large number of parties (as with many patent-related cases). For these cases, however, management does not believe, based on currently available information, that the outcomes of these proceedings will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, though the outcomes could be material to our operating results for any particular period, depending, in part, upon the operating results for such period.

c4cast.com, Inc.

On May 7, 2012, c4cast.com, Inc. filed a complaint against us and our wholly-owned subsidiary Blockbuster L.L.C., in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, alleging infringement of United States Patent No. 7,958,204 (the “204 patent”), which is entitled “Community-Selected Content.” The 204 patent relates to systems, methods and techniques for providing resources to participants over an electronic network. On August 29, 2013, c4cast.com, Inc. dismissed the action with prejudice, pursuant to a settlement under which we made an immaterial payment in exchange for a license to us and EchoStar of certain patents and patent applications.

California Institute of Technology

On October 1, 2013, the California Institute of Technology (“Caltech”) filed complaints against us and our wholly-owned subsidiaries DISH Network L.L.C. and dishNET Satellite Broadband L.L.C., as well as Hughes Communications, Inc. and Hughes Network Systems, LLC, which are wholly-owned subsidiaries of EchoStar, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint alleges infringement of United States Patent Nos. 7,116,710 (the “710 patent”), 7,421,032 (the “032 patent”), 7,916,781 (the “781 patent”) and 8,284,833 (the “833 patent”), each of which is entitled “Serial Concatenation of Interleaved Convolutional Codes forming Turbo-Like Codes.” Caltech alleges that encoding data as specified by the DVB-S2 standard infringes each of the asserted patents.

We intend to vigorously defend this case. In the event that a court ultimately determines that we infringe the asserted patents, we may be subject to substantial damages, which may include treble damages, and/or an injunction that could require us to materially modify certain features that we currently offer to consumers. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages.

CRFD Research, Inc. (a subsidiary of Marathon Patent Group, Inc.)

On January 17, 2014, CRFD Research, Inc. (“CRFD”) filed a complaint against us, our wholly-owned subsidiaries DISH DBS and DISH Network L.L.C., EchoStar, and its wholly-owned subsidiary EchoStar Technologies L.L.C., in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging infringement of United States Patent No. 7,191,233 (the “233 patent”). The 233 patent is entitled “System for Automated, Mid-Session, User-Directed, Device-to-Device Session Transfer System,” and relates to transferring an ongoing software session from one device to another. CRFD alleges that our Hopper and Joey set-top boxes infringe the 233 patent. On the same day, CRFD filed similar complaints against AT&T Inc., Comcast Corp., DirecTV, Time Warner Cable Inc., Cox Communications, Inc., Level 3 Communications, Inc., Akamai Technologies, Inc., Cablevision Systems Corp. and Limelight Networks, Inc. CRFD is an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein.

We intend to vigorously defend this case. In the event that a court ultimately determines that we infringe the asserted patent, we may be subject to substantial damages, which may include treble damages, and/or an injunction that could require us to materially modify certain features that we currently offer to consumers. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages.

Custom Media Technologies LLC

On August 15, 2013, Custom Media Technologies LLC (“Custom Media”) filed complaints against us, AT&T Inc., Charter Communications, Inc., Comcast Corp., Cox Communications, Inc., DirecTV, Time Warner Cable Inc. and Verizon Communications, Inc., in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging infringement of United States Patent No. 6,269,275 (the “275 patent”). The 275 patent, which is entitled “Method and System for Customizing and Distributing Presentations for User Sites,” relates to the provision of customized presentations to viewers over a network, such as “a cable television network, an Internet or other computer network, a broadcast television network, and/or a satellite system.” Custom Media is an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein.

Cyberfone Systems, LLC (f/k/a LVL Patent Group, LLC)

On September 15, 2011, LVL Patent Group, LLC filed a complaint against our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Network L.L.C., as well as EchoStar, EchoStar Technologies L.L.C., a wholly-owned subsidiary of EchoStar, and DirecTV, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging infringement of United States Patent No. 6,044,382, which is entitled “Data Transaction Assembly Server.” DirecTV was dismissed from the case on January 4, 2012. On July 12, 2012, Cyberfone Systems, LLC (f/k/a LVL Patent Group, LLC) filed the operative second amended complaint making the same claim. On January 24, 2013, Cyberfone Systems, LLC voluntarily dismissed the action against us and the EchoStar entities without prejudice.

Do Not Call Litigation

On March 25, 2009, our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Network L.L.C. was sued in a civil action by the United States Attorney General and several states in the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and Telephone Sales Rules, as well as analogous state statutes and state consumer protection laws. The plaintiffs allege that we, directly and through certain independent third-party retailers and their affiliates, committed certain telemarketing violations. On December 23, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment, which indicated for the first time that the state plaintiffs are seeking civil penalties and damages of approximately $270 million and that the federal plaintiff is seeking an unspecified amount of civil penalties (which could substantially exceed the civil penalties and damages being sought by the state plaintiffs). The plaintiffs are also seeking injunctive relief that if granted would, among other things, enjoin DISH Network L.L.C., whether acting directly or indirectly through authorized telemarketers or independent third-party retailers, from placing any outbound telemarketing calls to market or promote its goods or services for five years, and enjoin DISH Network L.L.C. from accepting activations or sales from certain existing independent third-party retailers and from certain new independent third-party retailers, except under certain circumstances. We have also filed a motion for summary judgment, seeking dismissal of all claims.

We intend to vigorously defend this case. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages.

Dragon Intellectual Property, LLC

On December 20, 2013, Dragon Intellectual Property, LLC (“Dragon IP”) filed complaints against our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Network L.L.C., as well as Apple Inc., AT&T, Inc., Charter Communications, Inc., Comcast Corp., Cox Communications, Inc., DirecTV, Sirius XM Radio Inc., Time Warner Cable Inc. and Verizon Communications, Inc., in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging infringement of United States Patent No. 5,930,444 (the “444 patent”), which is entitled “Simultaneous Recording and Playback Apparatus.” Dragon IP alleges that various of our DVR receivers infringe the 444 patent. Dragon IP is an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein.

ESPN

During 2008, our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Network L.L.C. filed a lawsuit against ESPN, Inc., ESPN Classic, Inc., ABC Cable Networks Group, Soapnet L.L.C. and International Family Entertainment (collectively, “ESPN”) for breach of contract in New York State Supreme Court. Our complaint alleges that ESPN failed to provide us with certain HD feeds of the Disney Channel, ESPN News, Toon and ABC Family. In October 2011, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants, which the New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department (the “First Department”) affirmed on April 2, 2013. We sought leave to further appeal, which the New York Court of Appeals denied on August 27, 2013 on jurisdictional grounds. On September 19, 2013, we appealed the trial court’s final judgment to the First Department. The parties have submitted a stipulation to adjourn our appeal pending resolution of a motion by ESPN to strike our appeal.

ESPN had asserted a counterclaim alleging that we owed approximately $35 million under the applicable affiliation agreements. On April 15, 2009, the New York State Supreme Court granted, in part, ESPN’s motion for summary judgment on the counterclaim, finding that we are liable for some of the amount alleged to be owing but that the actual amount owing was disputed. On December 29, 2010, the First Department affirmed the partial grant of ESPN’s motion for summary judgment on the counterclaim. After the partial grant of ESPN’s motion for summary judgment, ESPN sought an additional $30 million under the applicable affiliation agreements. On March 15, 2010, the New York State Supreme Court ruled that we owe the full amount of approximately $66 million under the applicable affiliation agreements. As of December 31, 2010, we had $42 million recorded as a “Litigation accrual” on our Consolidated Balance Sheets.

On June 21, 2011, the First Department affirmed the New York State Supreme Court’s ruling that we owe approximately $66 million under the applicable affiliation agreements and, on October 18, 2011, denied our motion for leave to appeal that decision to New York’s highest court, the New York Court of Appeals. We sought leave to appeal directly to the New York Court of Appeals and, on January 10, 2012, the New York Court of Appeals dismissed our motion for leave on the ground that the ruling upon which we appealed does not fully resolve all claims in the action. As a result of the First Department’s June 2011 ruling, we recorded $24 million of “Litigation Expense” on our Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income (Loss) during 2011. On October 11, 2012, the New York State Supreme Court awarded ESPN $5 million in attorneys’ fees as the prevailing party on both our claim and ESPN’s counterclaim. As a result, we recorded $5 million of “General and administrative expenses” and increased our “Litigation accrual” to a total of $71 million related to this case as of December 31, 2012. During the first quarter 2013, we paid $71 million to ESPN related to the counterclaim and attorneys’ fees and $12 million for accrued interest, which amounts we may be able to recover if our further appeals are successful. We intend to vigorously prosecute and defend this case.

Garnet Digital, LLC

On September 9, 2013, Garnet Digital, LLC (“Garnet Digital”) filed a complaint against us and our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Network L.L.C., in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, alleging infringement of United States Patent No. 5,379,421 (the “421 patent”), which is entitled “Interactive Terminal for the Access of Remote Database Information.” The 421 patent relates to methods for accessing information from a remote computerized database and related devices. On the same day, Garnet Digital filed similar complaints in the same court against 15 other defendants, including AT&T Inc., Comcast Corp., DirecTV, TiVo, Inc., and Verizon Communications, Inc. Garnet Digital is an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein.

The Hopper Litigation

On May 24, 2012, our wholly-owned subsidiary, DISH Network L.L.C., filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., CBS Corporation, Fox Entertainment Group, Inc., Fox Television Holdings, Inc., Fox Cable Network Services, L.L.C. and NBCUniversal, LLC. In the lawsuit, we are seeking a declaratory judgment that we are not infringing any defendant’s copyright, or breaching any defendant’s retransmission consent agreement, by virtue of the PrimeTime Anytime™ and AutoHop™ features of our Hopper® set-top box. A consumer can use the PrimeTime Anytime feature, at his or her option, to record certain primetime programs airing on ABC, CBS, Fox, and/or NBC up to every night, and to store those recordings for up to eight days. A consumer can use the AutoHop feature, at his or her option, to watch certain recordings the subscriber made with our PrimeTime Anytime feature, commercial-free, if played back the next day after the show’s original airing.

Later on May 24, 2012, (i) Fox Broadcasting Company, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. and Fox Television Holdings, Inc. filed a lawsuit against us and DISH Network L.L.C. in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, alleging that the PrimeTime Anytime feature, the AutoHop feature, as well as Sling placeshifting functionality infringe their copyrights and breach their retransmission consent agreements, (ii) NBC Studios LLC, Universal Network Television, LLC, Open 4 Business Productions LLC and NBCUniversal, LLC filed a lawsuit against us and DISH Network L.L.C. in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, alleging that the PrimeTime Anytime feature and the AutoHop feature infringe their copyrights, and (iii) CBS Broadcasting Inc., CBS Studios Inc. and Survivor Productions LLC filed a lawsuit against us and DISH Network L.L.C. in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, alleging that the PrimeTime Anytime feature and the AutoHop feature infringe their copyrights.

As a result of certain parties’ competing venue-related motions brought in both the New York and California actions, and certain networks’ filing various counterclaims and amended complaints, the claims are presently pending in the following venues: (1) the copyright and contract claims regarding the ABC and CBS parties are pending in New York; and (2) the copyright and contract claims regarding the Fox and NBC parties are pending in California.

California Actions. The NBC plaintiffs and Fox plaintiffs filed amended complaints in their respective California actions adding copyright claims against EchoStar and EchoStar Technologies L.L.C. (“EchoStar Technologies”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of EchoStar. In addition, the Fox plaintiffs’ amended complaint added claims challenging the Hopper Transfers™ feature of our second-generation Hopper set-top box.

On November 7, 2012, the California court denied the Fox plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the Hopper set-top box’s PrimeTime Anytime and AutoHop features, and the Fox plaintiffs appealed. On March 27, 2013, at the request of the parties, the Central District of California granted a stay of all proceedings in the action brought by the NBC plaintiffs, pending resolution of the appeal by the Fox plaintiffs. On July 24, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of the Fox plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction as to the PrimeTime Anytime and AutoHop features. On August 7, 2013, the Fox plaintiffs filed a petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc, which was denied on January 24, 2014.

In addition, on February 21, 2013, the Fox plaintiffs filed a second motion for preliminary injunction against: (i) us seeking to enjoin the Hopper Transfers feature in our second-generation Hopper set-top box, alleging breach of their retransmission consent agreement; and (ii) us and EchoStar Technologies seeking to enjoin the Sling placeshifting functionality in our second-generation Hopper set-top box, alleging copyright infringement and breach of their retransmission consent agreement. On September 23, 2013, the California court denied the Fox plaintiffs’ motion and on October 22, 2013, the Fox plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. The Fox claims are set for trial on January 13, 2015.

New York Actions. Both the ABC and CBS parties filed counterclaims in the New York action adding copyright claims against EchoStar Technologies, and the CBS parties have filed a counterclaim alleging that we fraudulently concealed the AutoHop feature when negotiating renewal of our CBS retransmission consent agreement. On November 23, 2012, the ABC plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the Hopper set-top box’s PrimeTime Anytime and AutoHop features. On September 18, 2013, the New York court denied that motion. The ABC plaintiffs appealed, and oral argument on the appeal began on February 20, 2014 before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The ABC and CBS claims are set to be trial-ready on April 17, 2015.

We intend to vigorously prosecute and defend our position in these cases. In the event that a court ultimately determines that we infringe the asserted copyrights, or are in breach of any of the retransmission consent agreements, we may be subject to substantial damages, and/or an injunction that could require us to materially modify certain features that we currently offer to consumers. In addition, as a result of this litigation, we may not be able to renew certain of our retransmission consent agreements and other programming agreements on favorable terms or at all. If we are unable to renew these agreements, there can be no assurance that we would be able to obtain substitute programming, or that such substitute programming would be comparable in quality or cost to our existing programming. Loss of access to existing programming could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations, including, among other things, our gross new subscriber activations and subscriber churn rate. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of these suits or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages.

Lightsquared/Harbinger Capital Partners LLC (LightSquared Bankruptcy)

As previously disclosed in our public filings, L-Band Acquisition, LLC (“LBAC”), our wholly-owned subsidiary, entered into a Plan Support Agreement (the “PSA”) with certain senior secured lenders to LightSquared LP (the “LightSquared LP Lenders”) on July 23, 2013, which contemplated the purchase by LBAC of substantially all of the assets of LightSquared LP and certain of its subsidiaries (the “LBAC Bid”) that are debtors and debtors in possession in the LightSquared bankruptcy cases pending in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Bankruptcy Court”), which cases are jointly administered under the caption In re LightSquared Inc., et. al., Case No. 12 12080 (SCC).

Pursuant to the PSA, LBAC was entitled to terminate the PSA in certain circumstances, certain of which required three business days’ written notice, including, without limitation, in the event that certain milestones specified in the PSA were not met. On January 7, 2014, LBAC delivered written notice of termination of the PSA to the LightSquared LP Lenders. As a result, the PSA terminated effective on January 10, 2014, and the LBAC Bid was withdrawn.

On August 6, 2013, Harbinger Capital Partners LLC and other affiliates of Harbinger (collectively, “Harbinger”), a shareholder of LightSquared Inc., filed an adversary proceeding against us, LBAC, EchoStar, Charles W. Ergen (our Chairman), SP Special Opportunities, LLC (“SPSO”) (an entity controlled by Mr. Ergen), and certain other parties, in the Bankruptcy Court. Harbinger alleged, among other things, claims based on fraud, unfair competition, civil conspiracy and tortious interference with prospective economic advantage related to certain purchases of LightSquared secured debt by SPSO. Subsequently, LightSquared intervened to join in certain claims alleged against certain defendants other than us, LBAC and EchoStar.

On October 29, 2013, the Bankruptcy Court dismissed all of the claims against LBAC and us in Harbinger’s complaint in their entirety, but granted leave for LightSquared to file its own complaint in intervention. On November 15, 2013, LightSquared filed its complaint, which included various claims against us, EchoStar, Mr. Ergen and SPSO. On December 2, 2013, Harbinger filed an amended complaint, asserting various claims against SPSO. On December 12, 2013, the Bankruptcy Court dismissed several of the claims asserted by LightSquared and Harbinger. The surviving claims include, among others, LightSquared’s claims against SPSO for declaratory relief, breach of contract and statutory disallowance; LightSquared’s tortious interference claim against us, EchoStar and Mr. Ergen; and Harbinger’s claim against SPSO for equitable disallowance. These claims proceeded to a non-jury trial on January 9, 2014, which concluded on January 17. 2014. The parties are in the process of post-trial briefing and a hearing for closing arguments has been set for March 12, 2014.

We intend to vigorously defend this proceeding and cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of this proceeding or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages.

LightSquared Transaction Shareholder Derivative Actions

On August 9, 2013, a purported shareholder of the Company, Jacksonville Police and Fire Pension Fund (“Jacksonville PFPF”), filed a putative shareholder derivative action in the District Court for Clark County, Nevada alleging, among other things, breach of fiduciary duty claims against the members of the Company’s Board of Directors as of that date: Charles W. Ergen; Joseph P. Clayton; James DeFranco; Cantey M. Ergen; Steven R. Goodbarn; David K. Moskowitz; Tom A. Ortolf; and Carl E. Vogel (collectively, the “Director Defendants”). In its operative amended complaint, Jacksonville PFPF claims that Mr. Ergen breached his fiduciary duty to the Company in connection with certain purchases of LightSquared debt by SPSO, an entity controlled by Mr. Ergen, and that the other Director Defendants aided and abetted that alleged breach of duty. The Jacksonville PFPF claims allege that (1) the debt purchases created an impermissible conflict of interest and (2) put at risk the LBAC Bid, which as noted above has been withdrawn. Jacksonville PFPF further claims that most members of the Company’s Board of Directors are beholden to Mr. Ergen to an extent that prevents them from discharging their duties in connection with the Company’s participation in the LightSquared bankruptcy auction process. Jacksonville PFPF is seeking an unspecified amount of damages. Jacksonville PFPF dismissed its claims against Mr. Goodbarn on October 8, 2013.

Jacksonville PFPF sought a preliminary injunction that would enjoin Mr. Ergen and all of the Director Defendants other than Mr. Goodbarn from influencing the Company’s efforts to acquire certain assets of LightSquared in the bankruptcy proceeding. On November 27, 2013, the Court denied that request but granted narrower relief enjoining Mr. Ergen and anyone acting on his behalf from participating in negotiations related to one aspect of the LBAC Bid, which as noted above has been withdrawn.

Five alleged shareholders have filed substantially similar putative derivative complaints in state and federal courts alleging the same or substantially similar claims. On September 18, 2013, DCM Multi-Manager Fund, LLC filed a duplicative putative derivative complaint in the District Court for Clark County, Nevada, which was consolidated with the Jacksonville PFPF action on October 9, 2013. Between September 25, 2013 and October 2, 2013, City of Daytona Beach Police Officers and Firefighters Retirement System, Louisiana Municipal Police Employees’ Retirement System and Iron Worker Mid-South Pension Fund filed duplicative putative derivative complaints in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. Also on October 2, 2013, Iron Workers District Council (Philadelphia and Vicinity) Retirement and Pension Plan filed its complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. None of the plaintiffs in these actions is seeking a preliminary injunction.

On October 11, 2013, Iron Worker Mid-South Pension Fund dismissed its claims without prejudice. On October 30, 2013, Louisiana Municipal Police Employees’ Retirement System dismissed its claims without prejudice and, on January 2, 2014, filed a new complaint in the District Court for Clark County, Nevada. On December 13, 2013, City of Daytona Beach Police Officers and Firefighters Retirement System voluntarily dismissed its claims without prejudice. The United States District Court for the District of Nevada has stayed the action by Iron Workers District Council (Philadelphia and Vicinity) Retirement and Pension Plan until April 16, 2014.

Our Board of Directors has established a Special Litigation Committee to review the factual allegations and legal claims in these actions. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of these suits or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages.

Norman IP Holdings, LLC

On September 15, 2011, Norman IP Holdings, LLC (“Norman”) filed a patent infringement complaint (the “2011 Action”) against Lexmark International Corporation (“Lexmark”) and Brother International Corporation (“Brother”), in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, alleging infringement of United States Patent Nos. 5,592,555 (the “555 patent”), 5,530,597 (the “597 patent”) and 5,502,689 (the “689 patent”) by Lexmark, and infringement of the 555 patent and the 689 patent by Brother. On January 27, 2012, Norman filed a second amended complaint in the 2011 Action that added us as a defendant, among others, in which it asserted the 555 patent and the 689 patent against us. On September 21, 2012, Norman served us with preliminary infringement contentions related to the 555 patent and the 689 patent, as well as the 597 patent, which outlined Norman’s claims with respect to certain DISH products. On February 8, 2013, Norman filed a third amended complaint in the 2011 Action, in which it added claims against us alleging infringement of the 597 patent. On April 8, 2013, Norman filed a fourth amended complaint in the 2011 Action, in which it added new claims against us alleging infringement of additional DISH products. On May 1, 2013, Norman filed a fifth amended complaint in the 2011 Action, in which it named Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Xerox Corporation, ZTE (USA) Inc., and ZTE Solutions, Inc. as defendants, in addition to us. On July 9, 2013, the Court ordered Norman to file a new sixth amended complaint limiting Norman’s claims against us to those specifically referenced in its September 21, 2012 preliminary infringement contentions. As a result, on July 10, 2013, Norman filed a sixth amended complaint in the 2011 Action, in which it asserted claims against our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Network L.L.C. replacing us as defendant, alleging that the use of certain Broadcom chipsets in DISH DVR systems infringes the 689 patent. In addition, Norman withdrew all infringement claims against us regarding the 555 patent and the 597 patent. On July 12, 2013, we filed a motion to dismiss the 2011 Action, because Norman failed to comply with the Court’s July 9, 2013 order.

In addition, on May 10, 2013, Norman filed a separate patent infringement complaint (the “2013 Action”) against us in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, asserting infringement of the 555, 597 and 689 patents, as well as United States Patent Nos. 5,608,873 (the “873 patent”) and 5,771,394 (the “394 patent”). The infringement claims asserted in the 2013 Action relate to different DISH products than Norman identified in the 2011 Action. On June 26, 2013, we filed a motion to dismiss the 2013 Action, because Norman failed to join necessary parties. Our motion to dismiss is pending, and no trial date has been set for the 2013 Action.

On October 18, 2013, the parties stipulated that Norman will dismiss all of its claims against DISH Network L.L.C. in the 2011 Action, and re-assert them in the 2013 Action.

The 689 patent relates to a clock generator capable of shut-down mode and clock generation method, the 555 patent relates to a wireless communications privacy method and system, the 597 patent relates to an interrupt enable circuit that allows devices to exit processes without using a hardware reset, the 873 patent relates to a device and method for providing inter-processor communication in a multi-processor architecture, and the 394 patent relates to a servo loop control apparatus having a master microprocessor and at least one autonomous streamlined signal processor. Norman is an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein.

We intend to vigorously defend these cases. In the event that a court ultimately determines that we infringe any of the asserted patents, we may be subject to substantial damages, which may include treble damages, and/or an injunction that could cause us to materially modify certain features that we currently offer to consumers. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of these suits or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages.

Olympic Developments AG, LLC

On January 20, 2011, Olympic Developments AG, LLC (“Olympic”) filed suit against our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Network L.L.C., Atlantic Broadband, Inc., Bright House Networks, LLC, Cable One, Inc., Cequel Communications Holdings I, LLC, CSC Holdings, LLC, GCI Communication Corp., Insight Communications Company, Inc., Knology, Inc., Mediacom Communications Corporation and RCN Telecom Services, LLC, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, alleging infringement of United States Patent Nos. 5,475,585 and 6,246,400. The patents relate to on-demand services. Olympic is an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein. On June 13, 2011, the case was transferred to the Northern District of California. On November 7, 2011, the case was stayed pending reexamination by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. On March 12, 2013, Olympic voluntarily dismissed its claims against us without prejudice.

Personalized Media Communications, Inc.

During 2008, Personalized Media Communications, Inc. (“PMC”) filed suit against us, EchoStar and Motorola Inc., in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, alleging infringement of United States Patent Nos. 5,109,414, 4,965,825, 5,233,654, 5,335,277 and 5,887,243, which relate to satellite signal processing. PMC is an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein. Subsequently, Motorola Inc. settled with PMC, leaving us and EchoStar as defendants. On July 18, 2012, pursuant to a Court order, PMC filed a Second Amended Complaint that added Rovi Guides, Inc. (f/k/a/ Gemstar-TV Guide International, Inc.) and TVG-PMC, Inc. (collectively, “Gemstar”) as a party, and added a new claim against all defendants seeking a declaratory judgment as to the scope of Gemstar’s license to the patents in suit, under which we and EchoStar are sublicensees. No trial date is currently set.

We intend to vigorously defend this case. In the event that a court ultimately determines that we infringe any of the asserted patents, we may be subject to substantial damages, which may include treble damages, and/or an injunction that could cause us to materially modify certain features that we currently offer to consumers. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages.

Pragmatus Telecom, LLC

On December 5, 2012, Pragmatus Telecom, LLC (“Pragmatus”) filed a patent infringement lawsuit against us, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging infringement of United States Patent Nos. 6,311,231, 6,668,286, and 7,159,043. Pragmatus alleges that the click-to-chat and click-to-call customer support features of the DISH website and call center management systems infringe these patents. Pragmatus has brought similar complaints against more than 40 other companies, including Comcast Corporation, AT&T Inc., Sprint Spectrum LP dba Sprint PCS, Frontier Communications Corp., Bright House Networks L.L.C., United Parcel Services Inc., FedEx Corporation, General Motors Company and Ford Motor Company. Pragmatus is an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein. On March 5, 2013, Pragmatus voluntarily dismissed with prejudice all claims in the action relating to allegedly infringing features provided by certain of our vendors. Pragmatus also voluntarily dismissed without prejudice all remaining claims in the action.

Premier International Associates, LLC

On August 3, 2012, Premier International Associates, LLC (“Premier International”) filed a complaint against us, our wholly-owned subsidiaries DISH DBS and DISH Network L.L.C., and EchoStar and its wholly-owned subsidiary EchoStar Technologies L.L.C., in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging infringement of United States Patent No. 6,243,725 (the “725 patent”), which is entitled “List Building System.” The 725 patent relates to a system for building an inventory of audio/visual works. Premier International is an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein. On March 27, 2013, Premier International dismissed the action against us and the EchoStar entities with prejudice, pursuant to a settlement under which we and the EchoStar entities made an immaterial payment in exchange for a license to certain patents and patent applications.

Preservation Technologies, LLC

In December 2011, Preservation Technologies, LLC (“Preservation Technologies”) filed suit against us in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. In the Operative Seventh Amended Complaint, filed on March 22, 2013, Preservation Technologies also names Netflix, Inc., Hulu, LLC, AT&T Services, Inc., Cox Communications, Inc., Disney Online, American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., Yahoo! Inc., Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Vudu, Inc. and ESPN Internet Ventures as defendants. Preservation Technologies alleges that our BLOCKBUSTER On Demand, DISH branded pay-TV and DISH Online services and our Hopper and Joey® set-top boxes infringe United States Patent Nos. 5,813,014, 5,832,499, 6,092,080, 6,353,831, 6,574,638, 6,199,060, 5,832,495, 6,549,911, 6,212,527 and 6,477,537. The patents relate to digital libraries, the management of multimedia assets and the cataloging of multimedia data. Preservation Technologies is an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein.

Ronald A. Katz Technology Licensing, L.P.

During 2007, Ronald A. Katz Technology Licensing, L.P. (“Katz”) filed a patent infringement action against our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Network L.L.C., in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The suit originally alleged infringement of 19 patents owned by Katz. The patents relate to interactive voice response, or IVR, technology. The case has been transferred and consolidated for pretrial purposes in the United States District Court for the Central District of California by order of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. Only four patents remain in the case against us, of which all are expired and two are subject to granted reexamination proceedings before the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

Technology Development and Licensing L.L.C.

On January 22, 2009, Technology Development and Licensing L.L.C. (“TDL”) filed suit against us and EchoStar, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging infringement of United States Patent No. Re. 35,952, which relates to certain favorite channel features. TDL is an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein. In July 2009, the Court granted our motion to stay the case pending two reexamination petitions before the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

We intend to vigorously defend this case. In the event that a court ultimately determines that we infringe the asserted patent, we may be subject to substantial damages, which may include treble damages, and/or an injunction that could cause us to materially modify certain features that we currently offer to consumers. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages.

TQP Development, LLC

On April 4, 2012, TQP Development, LLC (“TQP”) filed suit against our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Network L.L.C., in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, alleging infringement of United States Patent No. 5,412,730, which is entitled “Encrypted Data Transmission System Employing Means for Randomly Altering the Encryption Keys.” TQP is an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein. On August 9, 2013, all claims in the action were dismissed with prejudice.

Tse

On May 30, 2012, Ho Keung Tse filed a complaint against our wholly-owned subsidiary Blockbuster L.L.C., in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, alleging infringement of United States Patent No. 6,665,797 (the “797 patent”), which is entitled “Protection of Software Again [sic] Against Unauthorized Use.” Mr. Tse is the named inventor on the 797 patent. On the same day that he sued Blockbuster, Mr. Tse filed a separate action in the same court alleging infringement of the same patent against Google Inc., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC and HTC America Inc. He also has earlier-filed litigation on the same patent pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against Sony Connect, Inc., Napster, Inc., Apple Computer, Inc., Realnetworks, Inc., and MusicMatch, Inc. On March 8, 2013, the Court granted Blockbuster’s motion to transfer the matter to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, the same venue where the matter against Google Inc., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC and HTC America Inc. also was transferred. On December 11, 2013, the Court granted our motion for summary judgment based on invalidity of the 797 patent. Mr. Tse filed a notice of appeal on January 8, 2014.

Voom HD Holdings

In January 2008, Voom HD Holdings LLC (“Voom”) filed a lawsuit against our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Network L.L.C., in New York Supreme Court, alleging breach of contract and other claims arising from our termination of the affiliation agreement governing carriage of certain Voom HD channels on the DISH branded pay-TV service and seeking over $2.5 billion in damages.

On October 21, 2012, we entered into a confidential settlement agreement and release (the “Voom Settlement Agreement”) with Voom and CSC Holdings, LLC (“Cablevision”), and for certain limited purposes, MSG Holdings, L.P., The Madison Square Garden Company and EchoStar. The Voom Settlement Agreement resolved the litigation between the parties relating to the Voom programming services. Pursuant to the terms of the Voom Settlement Agreement, among other things: (i) the litigation between the parties relating to the Voom programming services was dismissed with prejudice and the parties released each other for all claims against each other related thereto; (ii) we agreed to pay $700 million in cash to Voom; (iii) DISH Media Holdings Corporation, our wholly-owned subsidiary, agreed to enter into an agreement to transfer its ownership interest in Voom to Rainbow Programming Holdings, LLC, an affiliate of Voom; and (iv) an affiliate of Cablevision agreed to enter into an agreement to transfer certain of its wireless multichannel video distribution and data service licenses (the “MVDDS Licenses”) to us. On October 23, 2012, we paid Voom $700 million.

Separately, we entered into a multi-year affiliation agreement with AMC Network Entertainment LLC, WE: Women’s Entertainment LLC, The Independent Film Channel, The Sundance Channel L.L.C, each of which are subsidiaries of AMC Networks Inc., and Fuse Channel LLC, a subsidiary of The Madison Square Garden Company, for the carriage of AMC, WE, IFC, Sundance Channel and the Fuse channel.

Since the Voom Settlement Agreement and the multi-year affiliation agreement were entered into contemporaneously, we accounted for all components of both agreements at fair value in the context of the Voom Settlement Agreement. We determined the fair value of the multi-year affiliation agreement and the MVDDS Licenses using a market-based approach and a probability-weighted discounted cash flow analysis, respectively. Based on market data and similar agreements we have with other content providers, we allocated $54 million of the payments under the multi-year affiliation agreement to the fair value of the Voom Settlement Agreement. The resulting liability was recorded on our Consolidated Balance Sheets as “Accrued Programming” and is being amortized as contra “Subscriber-related expenses” on a straight-line basis over the term of the agreement. Evaluating all potential uses for the MVDDS Licenses, we assessed their fair value at $24 million and recorded these on our Consolidated Balance Sheets as “FCC Authorizations.” The fair value of the Voom Settlement Agreement was assessed at $730 million and was recorded as “Litigation expense” on our Consolidated Statement of Operations and Comprehensive Income (Loss) for the year ended December 31, 2012.

Waste Disposal Inquiry

The California Attorney General and the Alameda County (California) District Attorney are investigating whether certain of our waste disposal policies, procedures and practices are in violation of the California Business and Professions Code and the California Health and Safety Code. We expect that these entities will seek injunctive and monetary relief. The investigation appears to be part of a broader effort to investigate waste handling and disposal processes of a number of industries. While we are unable to predict the outcome of this investigation, we do not believe that the outcome will have a material effect on our results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.

Other

In addition to the above actions, we are subject to various other legal proceedings and claims which arise in the ordinary course of business, including, among other things, disputes with programmers regarding fees. In our opinion, the amount of ultimate liability with respect to any of these actions is unlikely to materially affect our financial condition, results of operations or liquidity, though the outcomes could be material to our operating results for any particular period, depending, in part, upon the operating results for such period.