Commitments and Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2018

Commitments and Contingencies

Commitments and Contingencies

9.Commitments and Contingencies

Commitments

Since 2008, we have directly invested over $11 billion to acquire certain wireless spectrum licenses and related assets and made over $10 billion in non-controlling investments in certain entities, for a total of over $21 billion, as described further below.

DISH Network Spectrum

We have directly invested over $11 billion to acquire certain wireless spectrum licenses and related assets.

700 MHz Licenses.  In 2008, we paid $712 million to acquire certain 700 MHz E Block (“700 MHz”) wireless spectrum licenses, which were granted to us by the FCC in February 2009.  These licenses are subject to certain build-out requirements.  By March 2020, we must provide signal coverage and offer service to at least 70% of the population in each of our E Block license areas (the “700 MHz Build-Out Requirement”).  If the 700 MHz Build-Out Requirement is not met with respect to any particular E Block license area, our authorization may terminate for the geographic portion of that license area in which we are not providing service.  These wireless spectrum licenses expire in March 2020 unless they are renewed by the FCC.  There can be no assurances that the FCC will renew these wireless spectrum licenses.

AWS-4 Licenses.  On March 2, 2012, the FCC approved the transfer of 40 MHz of wireless spectrum licenses held by DBSD North America, Inc. (“DBSD North America”) and TerreStar Networks, Inc. (“TerreStar”) to us.  On March 9, 2012, we completed the acquisition of 100% of the equity of reorganized DBSD North America (the “DBSD Transaction”) and substantially all of the assets of TerreStar (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.

On February 15, 2013, the FCC issued an order, which became effective on March 7, 2013, modifying our licenses to expand our terrestrial operating authority with AWS-4 authority (“AWS-4”).  These licenses are subject to certain build-out requirements.  By March 2020, we are 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 Build-Out Requirement”).  If the AWS-4 Build-Out Requirement is not met with respect to any particular individual license, our terrestrial authorization for that license area may terminate.  The FCC’s December 20, 2013 order also conditionally waived certain FCC rules for our AWS-4 licenses to allow us to repurpose all 20 MHz of our uplink spectrum (2000-2020 MHz) for terrestrial downlink operations.  On June 1, 2016, we notified the FCC that we had elected to use our AWS-4 uplink spectrum for terrestrial downlink operations, and effective June 7, 2016, the FCC modified our AWS-4 licenses, resulting in all 40 MHz of our AWS-4 spectrum being designated for terrestrial downlink operations.  These wireless spectrum licenses expire in March 2023 unless they are renewed by the FCC.  There can be no assurances that the FCC will renew these wireless spectrum licenses.

H Block Licenses.  On April 29, 2014, the FCC issued an order granting our application to acquire all 176 wireless spectrum licenses in the H Block auction.  We paid approximately $1.672 billion to acquire these H Block licenses, including clearance costs associated with the lower H Block spectrum.  The H Block licenses are subject to certain interim and final build-out requirements.  By April 2018, we must provide reliable signal coverage and offer service to at least 40% of the population in each area covered by an individual H Block license (the “H Block Interim Build-Out Requirement”).  By April 2024, we must provide reliable signal coverage and offer service to at least 75% of the population in each area covered by an individual H Block license (the “H Block Final Build-Out Requirement”).  If the H Block Interim Build-Out Requirement is not met, the H Block license term and the H Block Final Build-Out Requirement may be accelerated by two years (from April 2024 to April 2022) for each H Block license area in which we do not meet the requirement.  If the H Block Final Build-Out Requirement is not met, our authorization for each H Block license area in which we do not meet the requirement may terminate.  These wireless spectrum licenses expire in April 2024 unless they are renewed by the FCC.  There can be no assurances that the FCC will renew these wireless spectrum licenses.

600 MHz Licenses.  The broadcast incentive auction in the 600 MHz frequency range (“Auction 1000”) began on March 29, 2016 and concluded on March 30, 2017.  On April 13, 2017, the FCC announced that ParkerB.com Wireless L.L.C. (“ParkerB.com”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of DISH Network, was the winning bidder for 486 wireless spectrum licenses (the “600 MHz Licenses”) with aggregate winning bids totaling approximately $6.211 billion.  On April 27, 2017, ParkerB.com filed an application with the FCC to acquire the 600 MHz Licenses.  On July 1, 2016, we paid $1.5 billion to the FCC as a deposit for Auction 1000.  On May 11, 2017, we paid the remaining balance of our winning bids of approximately $4.711 billion.  On June 14, 2017, the FCC issued an order granting ParkerB.com’s application to acquire the 600 MHz Licenses.

The 600 MHz Licenses are subject to certain interim and final build-out requirements.  By June 2023, we must provide reliable signal coverage and offer wireless service to at least 40% of the population in each area covered by an individual 600 MHz License (the “600 MHz Interim Build-Out Requirement”).  By June 2029, we must provide reliable signal coverage and offer wireless service to at least 75% of the population in each area covered by an individual 600 MHz License (the “600 MHz Final Build-Out Requirement”).  If the 600 MHz Interim Build-Out Requirement is not met, the 600 MHz License term and the 600 MHz Final Build-Out Requirement may be accelerated by two years (from June 2029 to June 2027) for each 600 MHz License area in which we do not meet the requirement.  If the 600 MHz Final Build-Out Requirement is not met, our authorization for each 600 MHz License area in which we do not meet the requirement may terminate.  In addition, certain broadcasters will have up to 39 months (ending July 13, 2020) to relinquish their 600 MHz spectrum, which may impact the timing for our ability to commence operations using certain 600 MHz Licenses.  The FCC has issued the 600 MHz Licenses prior to the clearance of the spectrum, and the build-out deadlines are based on the date that the 600 MHz Licenses were issued to us, not the date that the spectrum is cleared.  These wireless spectrum licenses expire in June 2029 unless they are renewed by the FCC.  There can be no assurances that the FCC will renew these wireless spectrum licenses.

MVDDS Licenses.  We have multichannel video distribution and data service (“MVDDS”) licenses in 82 out of 214 geographical license areas, including Los Angeles, New York City, Chicago and several other major metropolitan areas.  By August 2014, we were required to meet certain FCC build-out requirements related to our MVDDS licenses, and we are subject to certain FCC service rules applicable to these licenses.  In January 2015, the FCC granted our application to extend the build-out requirements related to our MVDDS licenses.  We now have until 2019 to provide “substantial service” on our MVDDS licenses.  Our MVDDS licenses may be terminated, however, if we do not provide substantial service in accordance with the new build-out requirements.  These wireless spectrum licenses expire in August 2024 unless they are renewed by the FCC.  There can be no assurances that the FCC will renew these wireless spectrum licenses.

In 2016, the MVDDS 5G Coalition, of which we are a member, filed a petition for rulemaking requesting the FCC to consider updating the rules to allow us to provide two-way 5G services using our MVDDS licenses.  We cannot predict when or if the FCC will grant the petition and proceed with a rulemaking.  If the FCC adopts rules that would allow us to provide two-way 5G services using our MVDDS licenses, the requests of OneWeb and others for authority to use the band for service from NGSO satellite systems may hinder our ability to provide 5G services using our MVDDS licenses.

LMDS Licenses.  As a result of the completion of the Share Exchange on February 28, 2017, we acquired from EchoStar certain Local Multipoint Distribution Service (“LMDS”) licenses in four markets: Cheyenne, Kansas City, Phoenix, and San Diego.  The “substantial service” milestone has been met with respect to each of the licenses.  In addition, through the FCC’s Spectrum Frontiers proceeding, a portion of each of our LMDS licenses will be reassigned to the Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service band (27.5-28.35 GHz), which will allow for a more flexible use of the licenses, including, among other things, 5G mobile operations.  These wireless spectrum licenses expire in September 2018 unless they are renewed by the FCC.  There can be no assurances that the FCC will renew these wireless spectrum licenses.

Commercialization of Our Wireless Spectrum Licenses and Related Assets. We have made substantial investments to acquire certain wireless spectrum licenses and related assets.  We will need to make significant additional investments or partner with others to, among other things, commercialize, build-out, and integrate these licenses and related assets, and any additional acquired licenses and related assets; and comply with regulations applicable to such licenses.  Depending on the nature and scope of such commercialization, build-out, integration efforts, and regulatory compliance, any such investments or partnerships could vary significantly.  In addition, as we consider our options for the commercialization of our wireless spectrum, we will incur significant additional expenses and will have to make significant investments related to, among other things, research and development, wireless testing and wireless network infrastructure.  In March 2017, we notified the FCC that we plan to deploy a next-generation 5G-capable network, focused on supporting narrowband IoT.  The first phase of our network deployment will be completed by March 2020, with subsequent phases to be completed thereafter.  We may also determine that additional wireless spectrum licenses may be required to commercialize our wireless business and to compete with other wireless service providers. 

We may need to raise significant additional capital in the future to fund the efforts described above, which may not be available on acceptable terms or at all.  There can be no assurance that we will be able to develop and implement a business model that will realize a return on these wireless spectrum licenses or that we will be able to profitably deploy the assets represented by these wireless spectrum licenses, which may affect the carrying amount of these assets and our future financial condition or results of operations.

DISH Network Non-Controlling Investments in the Northstar Entities and the SNR Entities Related to AWS-3 Wireless Spectrum Licenses

Non-Controlling Investments

Through our wholly-owned subsidiaries American II and American III, we have made over $10 billion in certain non-controlling investments in Northstar Spectrum, the parent company of Northstar Wireless, and in SNR HoldCo, the parent company of SNR Wireless, respectively.  Under the applicable accounting guidance in ASC 810, Northstar Spectrum and SNR HoldCo are considered variable interest entities and, based on the characteristics of the structure of these entities and in accordance with the applicable accounting guidance, we consolidate these entities into our financial statements.  See Note 2 for further information.

Northstar Investment.  Through American II, we own an 85% non-controlling interest in Northstar Spectrum.  Northstar Manager, LLC (“Northstar Manager”) owns a 15% controlling interest in, and is the sole manager of, Northstar Spectrum.  As of March 31, 2018, the total equity contributions from American II and Northstar Manager to Northstar Spectrum were approximately $7.621 billion and $133 million, respectively.  As of March 31, 2018, the total loans from American II to Northstar Wireless under the Northstar Credit Agreement (as defined below) for payments to the FCC related to the Northstar Licenses (as defined below) were approximately $500 million.

SNR Investment.  Through American III, we own an 85% non-controlling interest in SNR HoldCo.  SNR Wireless Management, LLC (“SNR Management”) owns a 15% controlling interest in, and is the sole manager of, SNR HoldCo.  As of March 31, 2018, the total equity contributions from American III and SNR Management to SNR HoldCo were approximately $5.590 billion and $93 million, respectively.  As of March 31, 2018, the total loans from American III to SNR Wireless under the SNR Credit Agreement (as defined below) for payments to the FCC related to the SNR Licenses (as defined below) were approximately $500 million.

AWS-3 Auction

Northstar Wireless and SNR Wireless each filed applications with the FCC to participate in Auction 97 (the “AWS-3 Auction”) for the purpose of acquiring certain AWS-3 Licenses.  Each of Northstar Wireless and SNR Wireless applied to receive bidding credits of 25% as designated entities under applicable FCC rules. 

Northstar Wireless was the winning bidder for AWS-3 Licenses with gross winning bid amounts totaling approximately $7.845 billion, which after taking into account a 25% bidding credit, was approximately $5.884 billion.  SNR Wireless was the winning bidder for AWS-3 Licenses with gross winning bid amounts totaling approximately $5.482 billion, which after taking into account a 25% bidding credit, was approximately $4.112 billion.  In addition to the net winning bids, SNR Wireless made a bid withdrawal payment of approximately $8 million.

FCC Order and October 2015 Arrangements.  On August 18, 2015, the FCC released a Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 15-104 (the “Order”) in which the FCC determined, among other things, that DISH Network has a controlling interest in, and is an affiliate of, Northstar Wireless and SNR Wireless, and therefore DISH Network’s revenues should be attributed to them, which in turn makes Northstar Wireless and SNR Wireless ineligible to receive the 25% bidding credits (approximately $1.961 billion for Northstar Wireless and $1.370 billion for SNR Wireless).

Letters Exchanged between Northstar Wireless and the FCC Wireless Bureau.  As outlined in letters exchanged between Northstar Wireless and the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau of the FCC (the “FCC Wireless Bureau”), Northstar Wireless paid the gross winning bid amounts for 261 AWS-3 Licenses (the “Northstar Licenses”) totaling approximately $5.619 billion through the application of funds already on deposit with the FCC.  Northstar Wireless also notified the FCC that it would not be paying the gross winning bid amounts for 84 AWS-3 Licenses totaling approximately $2.226 billion.

As a result of the nonpayment of those gross winning bid amounts, the FCC retained those licenses and Northstar Wireless owed the FCC an additional interim payment of approximately $334 million (the “Northstar Interim Payment”), which is equal to 15% of $2.226 billion.  The Northstar Interim Payment was recorded during the fourth quarter 2015 in “FCC auction expense” on our Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income (Loss) in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015.  Northstar Wireless immediately satisfied the Northstar Interim Payment through the application of funds already on deposit with the FCC and an additional loan from American II of approximately $69 million. As a result, the FCC will not deem Northstar Wireless to be a “current defaulter” under applicable FCC rules.

In addition, the FCC Wireless Bureau acknowledged that Northstar Wireless’ nonpayment of those gross winning bid amounts does not constitute action involving gross misconduct, misrepresentation or bad faith. Therefore, the FCC concluded that such nonpayment will not affect the eligibility of Northstar Wireless, its investors (including DISH Network) or their respective affiliates to participate in future spectrum auctions (including Auction 1000 and any re-auction of the AWS-3 licenses retained by the FCC).  At this time, DISH Network (through itself, a subsidiary or another entity in which it may hold a direct or indirect interest) expects to participate in any re-auction of those AWS-3 licenses.

If the winning bids from re-auction or other award of the AWS-3 licenses retained by the FCC are greater than or equal to the winning bids of Northstar Wireless, no additional amounts will be owed to the FCC.  However, if those winning bids are less than the winning bids of Northstar Wireless, then Northstar Wireless will be responsible for the difference less any overpayment of the Northstar Interim Payment (which will be recalculated as 15% of the winning bids from re-auction or other award) (the “Northstar Re-Auction Payment”).  For example, if the winning bids in a re-auction are $1, the Northstar Re-Auction Payment would be approximately $1.892 billion, which is calculated as the difference between $2.226 billion (the Northstar winning bid amounts) and $1 (the winning bids from re-auction) less the resulting $334 million overpayment of the Northstar Interim Payment.  As discussed above, at this time, DISH Network (through itself, a subsidiary or another entity in which it may hold a direct or indirect interest) expects to participate in any re-auction.  We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the timing or outcome of any re-auction or the amount of any Northstar Re-Auction Payment.

DISH Network Guaranty in Favor of the FCC for Certain Northstar Wireless Obligations.  On October 1, 2015, DISH Network entered into a guaranty in favor of the FCC (the “FCC Northstar Guaranty”) with respect to the Northstar Interim Payment (which was satisfied on October 1, 2015) and any Northstar Re-Auction Payment.  The FCC Northstar Guaranty provides, among other things, that during the period between the due date for the payments guaranteed under the FCC Northstar Guaranty and the date such guaranteed payments are paid:  (i) Northstar Wireless’ payment obligations to American II under the Northstar Credit Agreement will be subordinated to such guaranteed payments; and (ii) DISH Network or American II will withhold exercising certain rights as a creditor of Northstar Wireless.

Letters Exchanged between SNR Wireless and the FCC Wireless Bureau.As outlined in letters exchanged between SNR Wireless and the FCC Wireless Bureau, SNR Wireless paid the gross winning bid amounts for 244 AWS-3 Licenses (the “SNR Licenses”) totaling approximately $4.271 billion through the application of funds already on deposit with the FCC and a portion of an additional loan from American III in an aggregate amount of approximately $344 million (which included an additional bid withdrawal payment of approximately $3 million).  SNR Wireless also notified the FCC that it would not be paying the gross winning bid amounts for 113 AWS-3 Licenses totaling approximately $1.211 billion.

As a result of the nonpayment of those gross winning bid amounts, the FCC retained those licenses and SNR Wireless owed the FCC an additional interim payment of approximately $182 million (the “SNR Interim Payment”), which is equal to 15% of $1.211 billion.  The SNR Interim Payment was recorded during the fourth quarter 2015 in “FCC auction expense” on our Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income (Loss) in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015.  SNR Wireless immediately satisfied the SNR Interim Payment through a portion of an additional loan from American III in an aggregate amount of approximately $344 million.  As a result, the FCC will not deem SNR Wireless to be a “current defaulter” under applicable FCC rules.

In addition, the FCC Wireless Bureau acknowledged that SNR Wireless’ nonpayment of those gross winning bid amounts does not constitute action involving gross misconduct, misrepresentation or bad faith.  Therefore, the FCC concluded that such nonpayment will not affect the eligibility of SNR Wireless, its investors (including DISH Network) or their respective affiliates to participate in future spectrum auctions (including Auction 1000 and any re-auction of the AWS-3 licenses retained by the FCC).  At this time, DISH Network (through itself, a subsidiary or another entity in which it may hold a direct or indirect interest) expects to participate in any re-auction of those AWS-3 licenses.

If the winning bids from re-auction or other award of the AWS-3 licenses retained by the FCC are greater than or equal to the winning bids of SNR Wireless, no additional amounts will be owed to the FCC.  However, if those winning bids are less than the winning bids of SNR Wireless, then SNR Wireless will be responsible for the difference less any overpayment of the SNR Interim Payment (which will be recalculated as 15% of the winning bids from re-auction or other award) (the “SNR Re-Auction Payment”).  For example, if the winning bids in a re-auction are $1, the SNR Re-Auction Payment would be approximately $1.029 billion, which is calculated as the difference between $1.211 billion (the SNR winning bid amounts) and $1 (the winning bids from re-auction) less the resulting $182 million overpayment of the SNR Interim Payment. As discussed above, at this time, DISH Network (through itself, a subsidiary or another entity in which it may hold a direct or indirect interest) expects to participate in any re-auction.  We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the timing or outcome of any re-auction or the amount of any SNR Re-Auction Payment.

DISH Network Guaranty in Favor of the FCC for Certain SNR Wireless Obligations.  On October 1, 2015, DISH Network entered into a guaranty in favor of the FCC (the “FCC SNR Guaranty”) with respect to the SNR Interim Payment (which was satisfied on October 1, 2015) and any SNR Re-Auction Payment.  The FCC SNR Guaranty provides, among other things, that during the period between the due date for the payments guaranteed under the FCC SNR Guaranty and the date such guaranteed payments are paid:  (i) SNR Wireless’ payment obligations to American III under the SNR Credit Agreement will be subordinated to such guaranteed payments; and (ii) DISH Network or American III will withhold exercising certain rights as a creditor of SNR Wireless.

FCC Licenses.  On October 27, 2015, the FCC granted the Northstar Licenses to Northstar Wireless and the SNR Licenses to SNR Wireless, respectively, which are recorded in “FCC authorizations” on our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.  The AWS-3 Licenses are subject to certain interim and final build-out requirements.  By October 2021, Northstar Wireless and SNR Wireless must provide reliable signal coverage and offer service to at least 40% of the population in each area covered by an individual AWS-3 License (the “AWS-3 Interim Build-Out Requirement”).  By October 2027, Northstar Wireless and SNR Wireless must provide reliable signal coverage and offer service to at least 75% of the population in each area covered by an individual AWS-3 License (the “AWS-3 Final Build-Out Requirement”).  If the AWS-3 Interim Build-Out Requirement is not met, the AWS-3 License term and the AWS-3 Final Build-Out Requirement may be accelerated by two years (from October 2027 to October 2025) for each AWS-3 License area in which Northstar Wireless and SNR Wireless do not meet the requirement.  If the AWS-3 Final Build-Out Requirement is not met, the authorization for each AWS-3 License area in which Northstar Wireless and SNR Wireless do not meet the requirement may terminate.  These wireless spectrum licenses expire in October 2027 unless they are renewed by the FCC.  There can be no assurances that the FCC will renew these wireless spectrum licenses.

Qui Tam.  On September 23, 2016, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia unsealed a qui tam complaint that was filed by Vermont National Telephone Company (“Vermont National”) against us; our wholly-owned subsidiaries, American AWS-3 Wireless I L.L.C., American II, American III, and DISH Wireless Holding L.L.C.; Charles W. Ergen (our Chairman) and Cantey M. Ergen (a member of our board of directors); Northstar Wireless; Northstar Spectrum; Northstar Manager; SNR Wireless; SNR HoldCo; SNR Management; and certain other parties.  See “Contingencies – Litigation – Vermont National Telephone Company” for further information.

D.C. Circuit Court Opinion.  On August 29, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the “D.C. Circuit”) in SNR Wireless LicenseCo, LLC, et al. v. Federal Communications Commission, 868 F.3d 1021 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (the “Appellate Decision”) affirmed the Order in part, and remanded the matter to the FCC to give Northstar Wireless and SNR Wireless an opportunity to seek to negotiate a cure of the issues identified by the FCC in the Order (a “Cure”).  On January 26, 2018, SNR Wireless and Northstar Wireless filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, asking the United States Supreme Court to hear an appeal from the Appellate Decision.  We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the timing or outcome of these proceedings.

Order on Remand.    On January 24, 2018, the FCC released an Order on Remand, DA 18-70 (the “Order on Remand”) purporting to establish a procedure to afford Northstar Wireless and SNR Wireless the opportunity to implement a Cure pursuant to the Appellate Decision.  The Order on Remand provides that Northstar Wireless and SNR Wireless each have until April 24, 2018 to file the necessary documentation to demonstrate that, in light of such changes, each of Northstar Wireless and SNR Wireless qualifies for the very small business bidding credit that it sought in the AWS-3 Auction.  Additionally, the Order on Remand provides that if either Northstar Wireless or SNR Wireless needs additional time to negotiate new or amended agreements, it may request to extend the deadline for such negotiations for an additional 45 days (extending the deadline to June 8, 2018).  On April 16, 2018, the FCC approved Northstar Wireless’ and SNR Wireless’ requests to extend the deadline for such negotiations to June 8, 2018.  SNR Wireless and Northstar Wireless have submitted several requests for meetings with the FCC regarding a Cure.  To date, the FCC has responded in writing to one of those requests by declining to grant a meeting and has not responded to the other requests.  SNR Wireless and Northstar Wireless have filed a Joint Application for Review of the Order on Remand, which remains pending.  We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the timing or outcome of these proceedings.

Northstar Operative Agreements

Northstar LLC Agreement.Northstar Spectrum is governed by a limited liability company agreement by and between American II and Northstar Manager (the “Northstar Spectrum LLC Agreement”).  Pursuant to the Northstar Spectrum LLC Agreement, American II and Northstar Manager made pro-rata equity contributions in Northstar Spectrum. 

On March 31, 2018, American II, Northstar Spectrum, and Northstar Manager amended and restated the Northstar Spectrum LLC Agreement, to, among other things:  (i) exchange $6.870 billion of the amounts outstanding and owed by Northstar Wireless to American II pursuant to the Northstar Credit Agreement (as defined below) for 6,870,493 Class A Preferred Interests in Northstar Spectrum (the “Northstar Preferred Interests”); (ii) replace the existing investor protection provisions with the investor protections described by the FCC in Baker Creek Communications, LLC, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 18709, 18715 (1998); (iii) delete the obligation of Northstar Manager to consult with American II regarding budgets and business plans; and (iv) remove the requirement that Northstar Spectrum’s systems be interoperable with ours.  The Northstar Preferred Interests: (a) are non-voting; (b) have a 12 percent mandatory quarterly distribution, which can be paid in cash or additional face amount of Northstar Preferred Interests at the sole discretion of Northstar Manager; and (c) have a liquidation preference equal to the then-current face amount of the Northstar Preferred Interests plus accrued and unpaid mandatory quarterly distributions in the event of certain liquidation events or deemed liquidation events (e.g., a merger or dissolution of Northstar Spectrum, or a sale of substantially all of Northstar Spectrum’s assets).  As a result of the exchange noted in (i) above, a principal amount of $500 million of debt remains under the Northstar Credit Agreement, as described below.

Northstar Wireless Credit Agreement.On October 1, 2015, American II, Northstar Wireless and Northstar Spectrum amended the First Amended and Restated Credit Agreement dated October 13, 2014, by and among American II, as Lender, Northstar Wireless, as Borrower, and Northstar Spectrum, as Guarantor (as amended, the “Northstar Credit Agreement”), to provide, among other things, that:  (i) the Northstar Interim Payment and any Northstar Re-Auction Payment will be made by American II directly to the FCC and will be deemed as loans under the Northstar Credit Agreement; (ii) the FCC is a third-party beneficiary with respect to American II’s obligation to pay the Northstar Interim Payment and any Northstar Re-Auction Payment; (iii) in the event that the winning bids from re-auction or other award of the AWS-3 licenses retained by the FCC are less than the winning bids of Northstar Wireless, the purchaser, assignee or transferee of any AWS-3 Licenses from Northstar Wireless is obligated to pay its pro-rata share of the difference (and Northstar Wireless remains jointly and severally liable for such pro-rata share); and (iv) during the period between the due date for the payments guaranteed under the FCC Northstar Guaranty (as discussed below) and the date such guaranteed payments are paid, Northstar Wireless’ payment obligations to American II under the Northstar Credit Agreement will be subordinated to such guaranteed payments.

On March 31, 2018, American II, Northstar Wireless, and Northstar Spectrum amended and restated the Northstar Credit Agreement, to, among other things: (i) lower the interest rate on the remaining $500 million principal balance under the Northstar Credit Agreement from 12 percent per annum to six percent per annum; (ii) eliminate the higher interest rate that would apply in the case of an event of default; and (iii) modify and/or remove certain obligations of Northstar Wireless to prepay the outstanding loan amounts.

SNR Operative Agreements

SNR LLC Agreement.  SNR HoldCo is governed by a limited liability company agreement by and between American III and SNR Management (the “SNR HoldCo LLC Agreement”).  Pursuant to the SNR HoldCo LLC Agreement, American III and SNR Management made pro-rata equity contributions in SNR HoldCo. 

On March 31, 2018, American III, SNR Holdco, SNR Wireless Management, and John Muleta amended and restated the SNR HoldCo LLC Agreement, to, among other things: (i) exchange $5.065 billion of the amounts outstanding and owed by SNR Wireless to American III pursuant to the SNR Credit Agreement (as defined below) for 5,065,415 Class A Preferred Interests in SNR Holdco (the “SNR Preferred Interests”); (ii) replace the existing investor protection provisions with the investor protections described by the FCC in Baker Creek Communications, LLC, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 18709, 18715 (1998); (iii) delete the obligation of SNR Management to consult with American III regarding budgets and business plans; and (iv) remove the requirement that SNR Management’s systems be interoperable with ours.  The SNR Preferred Interests: (a) are non-voting; (b) have a 12 percent mandatory quarterly distribution, which can be paid in cash or additional face amount of SNR Preferred Interests at the sole discretion of SNR Management; and (c) have a liquidation preference equal to the then-current face amount of the SNR Preferred Interests plus accrued and unpaid mandatory quarterly distributions in the event of certain liquidation events or deemed liquidation events (e.g., a merger or dissolution of SNR Holdco, or a sale of substantially all of SNR Holdco’s assets).  As a result of the exchange noted in (i) above, a principal amount of $500 million of debt remains under the SNR Credit Agreement, as described below.



SNR Credit Agreement.  On October 1, 2015, American III, SNR Wireless and SNR HoldCo amended the First Amended and Restated Credit Agreement dated October 13, 2014, by and among American III, as Lender, SNR Wireless, as Borrower, and SNR HoldCo, as Guarantor (as amended, the “SNR Credit Agreement”), to provide, among other things, that:  (i) the SNR Interim Payment and any SNR Re-Auction Payment will be made by American III directly to the FCC and will be deemed as loans under the SNR Credit Agreement; (ii) the FCC is a third-party beneficiary with respect to American III’s obligation to pay the SNR Interim Payment and any SNR Re-Auction Payment;

(iii) in the event that the winning bids from re-auction or other award of the AWS-3 licenses retained by the FCC are less than the winning bids of SNR Wireless, the purchaser, assignee or transferee of any AWS-3 Licenses from SNR Wireless is obligated to pay its pro-rata share of the difference (and SNR Wireless remains jointly and severally liable for such pro-rata share); and (iv) during the period between the due date for the payments guaranteed under the FCC SNR Guaranty (as discussed below) and the date such guaranteed payments are paid, SNR Wireless’ payment obligations to American III under the SNR Credit Agreement will be subordinated to such guaranteed payments. 

On March 31, 2018, American III, SNR Wireless, and SNR Holdco amended and restated SNR Credit Agreement, to, among other things: (i) lower the interest rate on the remaining $500 million principal balance under the SNR Credit Agreement from 12 percent per annum to six percent per annum; (ii) eliminate the higher interest rate that would apply in the case of an event of default; and (iii) modify and/or remove certain obligations of SNR Wireless to prepay the outstanding loan amounts.

The Northstar Entities and/or the SNR Entities may need to raise significant additional capital in the future, which may be obtained from third party sources or from us, so that the Northstar Entities and the SNR Entities may commercialize, build-out and integrate the Northstar Licenses and the SNR Licenses, comply with regulations applicable to the Northstar Licenses and the SNR Licenses, and make any potential payments related to the Northstar Re-Auction Payment and the SNR Re-Auction Payment for the AWS-3 licenses retained by the FCC.  Depending upon the nature and scope of such commercialization, build-out, integration efforts, regulatory compliance, and potential Northstar Re-Auction Payment and SNR Re-Auction Payment, any loans, equity contributions or partnerships could vary significantly.  There can be no assurance that we will be able to obtain a profitable return on our non-controlling investments in the Northstar Entities and the SNR Entities.

Guarantees

During the third quarter 2009, EchoStar entered into a 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 March 31, 2018, the remaining obligation of our guarantee was $111 million.

As of March 31, 2018, we have not recorded a liability on the balance sheet for this guarantee.

Contingencies

Separation Agreement

On January 1, 2008, we completed the distribution of our technology and set-top box business and certain infrastructure assets (the “Spin-off”) into a separate publicly-traded company, EchoStar.  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.  On February 28, 2017, we and EchoStar completed the Share Exchange pursuant to which certain assets that were transferred to EchoStar in the Spin-off were transferred back to us.  The Share Exchange Agreement contains additional indemnification provisions between us and EchoStar for certain liabilities and legal proceedings.

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.  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.

ClearPlay, Inc.

On March 13, 2014, ClearPlay, Inc. (“ClearPlay”) filed a complaint against us, our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Network L.L.C., EchoStar, and its then wholly-owned subsidiary EchoStar Technologies L.L.C., in the United States District Court for the District of Utah.  The complaint alleges infringement of United States Patent Nos. 6,898,799 (the “799 patent”), entitled “Multimedia Content Navigation and Playback”; 7,526,784 (the “784 patent”), entitled “Delivery of Navigation Data for Playback of Audio and Video Content”; 7,543,318 (the “318 patent”), entitled “Delivery of Navigation Data for Playback of Audio and Video Content”; 7,577,970 (the “970 patent”), entitled “Multimedia Content Navigation and Playback”; and 8,117,282 (the “282 patent”), entitled “Media Player Configured to Receive Playback Filters From Alternative Storage Mediums.”  ClearPlay alleges that the AutoHop™ feature of our Hopper set-top box infringes the asserted patents.  On February 11, 2015, the case was stayed pending various third-party challenges before the United States Patent and Trademark Office regarding the validity of certain of the patents asserted in the action.  In those third-party challenges, the United States Patent and Trademark Office found that all claims of the 282 patent are unpatentable, and that certain claims of the 784 patent and 318 patent are unpatentable.  ClearPlay appealed as to the 784 patent and the 318 patent, and on August 23, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the findings of the United States Patent and Trademark Office.  On October 31, 2016, the stay was lifted.  No trial date has been set.

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.

Customedia Technologies, L.L.C.

On February 10, 2016, Customedia Technologies, L.L.C. (“Customedia”) 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.  The complaint alleges infringement of four patents: United States Patent No. 8,719,090 (the “090 patent”); United States Patent No. 9,053,494 (the “494 patent”); United States Patent No. 7,840,437 (the “437 patent”); and United States Patent No. 8,955,029 (the “029 patent”).  Each patent is entitled “System for Data Management And On-Demand Rental And Purchase Of Digital Data Products.”  Customedia alleges infringement in connection with our addressable advertising services, our DISH Anywhere feature, and our Pay-Per-View and video-on-demand offerings.  In December 2016 and January 2017, DISH Network L.L.C. filed petitions with the United States Patent and Trademark Office challenging the validity of the asserted claims of each of the asserted patents.  On June 12, 2017, the United States Patent and Trademark Office agreed to institute proceedings on our petitions challenging the 090 patent and the 437 patent; on July 18, 2017, it agreed to institute proceedings on our petitions challenging the 029 patent; and on July 28, 2017, it agreed to institute proceedings on our petitions challenging the 494 patent.  These instituted proceedings cover all asserted claims of each of the asserted patents.  Pursuant to an agreement between the parties, on December 20, 2017, DISH Network L.L.C. dismissed its petitions challenging the 029 patent in the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and on January 9, 2018, the parties dismissed their claims, counterclaims and defenses as to that patent in the litigation.  On March 5, 2018, the United States Patent and Trademark Office conducted a trial on the remaining petitions.  The litigation in the District Court has been stayed since August 8, 2017 pending resolution of the proceedings at the United States Patent and Trademark Office.  Customedia is an entity that seeks to license a 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 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.

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.  On December 23, 2014, DISH Network L.L.C. filed a petition before the United States Patent and Trademark Office challenging the validity of certain claims of the 444 patent.  On April 10, 2015, the Court granted DISH Network L.L.C.’s motion to stay the action in light of DISH Network L.L.C.’s petition and certain other defendants’ petitions pending before the United States Patent and Trademark Office challenging the validity of certain claims of the 444 patent.  On July 17, 2015, the United States Patent and Trademark Office agreed to institute a proceeding on our petition.  Pursuant to a stipulation between the parties, on April 27, 2016, the Court entered an order of non-infringement and judgment in favor of DISH Network L.L.C.  On June 15, 2016, the United States Patent and Trademark Office entered an order that the patent claims being asserted against DISH Network L.L.C. with respect to the 444 patent are unpatentable.  On August 8, 2016, Dragon filed notices of appeal with respect to the Court’s judgment and the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s decision and, on October 5, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit heard oral argument.  On November 1, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the unpatentability of the 444 patent based on the petition filed in the United States Patent and Trademark Office by DISH Network L.L.C., and dismissed as moot the appeal of the order of non-infringement from the District Court. 

On December 1, 2017, Dragon IP filed a petition for panel rehearing with the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which the Court of Appeals denied on January 31, 2018.  On March 16, 2018, Dragon IP filed a petition asking the United States Supreme Court to hear a further appeal on the constitutionality of the procedure by which the United States Patent and Trademark Office invalidated the asserted claims of the 444 patent.

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.

Grecia

On March 27, 2015, William Grecia (“Grecia”) filed a complaint against our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Network L.L.C. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging infringement of United States Patent No. 8,533,860 (the “860 patent”), which is entitled “Personalized Digital Media Access System –  PDMAS Part II.”  Grecia alleges that we violate the 860 patent in connection with our digital rights management.  Grecia is the named inventor on the 860 patent.  On June 22, 2015, the case was transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.  On November 18, 2015, Grecia filed an amended complaint adding allegations that we infringe United States Patent No. 8,402,555 (the “555 patent”), which is entitled “Personalized Digital Media Access System (PDMAS).”  Grecia is the named inventor on the 555 patent.  Grecia alleges that we violate the 555 patent in connection with our digital rights management.  Grecia dismissed his action with prejudice on February 3, 2016.

On February 3, 2016, Grecia filed a new complaint against our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Network L.L.C. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging infringement of United States Patent No. 8,887,308 (the “308 patent”), which is entitled “Digital Cloud Access – PDMAS Part III,” on which Grecia is also the named inventor.  Grecia alleges that we violate the 308 patent in connection with our DISH Anywhere feature.  On July 29, 2016, DISH Network L.L.C. filed a petition before the United States Patent and Trademark Office challenging the validity of certain claims of the 308 patent.  On January 19, 2017, the United States Patent and Trademark Office declined to institute a proceeding on our petition.  The litigation in the District Court, which had been stayed since June 13, 2016 pending resolution of DISH Network L.L.C.’s petition to the United States Patent and Trademark Office, was further stayed on February 23, 2017 pending a claim construction order from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in a separate action in which Grecia is asserting the same patent.

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.

IPA Technologies Inc.

On December 9, 2016, IPA Technologies Inc. (“IPA”) filed suit against us and our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Network L.L.C. in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.  IPA alleges that our Voice Remote with Hopper 3 infringes United States Patent Number 6,742,021 (the “021 patent”), which is entitled “Navigating Network-based Electronic Information Using Spoken Input with Multimodal Error Feedback”; United States Patent Number 6,523,061 (the “061 patent”), which is entitled “System, Method, and Article of Manufacture for Agent-Based Navigation in a Speech-Based Data Navigation System”; and United States Patent Number 6,757,718 (the “718 patent”), which is entitled “Mobile Navigation of Network-Based Electronic Information Using Spoken Input.”  IPA is an entity that seeks to license a patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein.On December 20, 2017, we and DISH Network L.L.C. filed petitions with the United States Patent and Trademark Office challenging the validity of select claims of each of the asserted patents. 

On April 10, 2018, the litigation in the District of Delaware was dismissed with prejudice, and on April 23, 2018, DISH Network L.L.C.’s and our petitions before the United States Patent and Trademark Office were terminated.  This matter is now concluded.

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 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 included, 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 statutory disallowance.  These claims proceeded to a non-jury trial on January 9, 2014.  In its Post-Trial Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law entered on June 10, 2014, the Bankruptcy Court rejected all claims against us and EchoStar, and it rejected some but not all claims against the other defendants.  On July 7, 2015, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied Harbinger’s motion for an interlocutory appeal of certain Bankruptcy Court orders in the adversary proceeding. 

We intend to vigorously defend any claims against us in 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.

Michael Heskiaoff, Marc Langenohl, and Rafael Mann

On July 10, 2015, Messrs. Michael Heskiaoff and Marc Langenohl, purportedly on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, filed suit against our subsidiary Sling Media, Inc. (now known as “Sling Media L.L.C.,” which we acquired as a result of the completion of the Share Exchange on February 28, 2017) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.  The complaint alleges that Sling Media Inc.’s display of advertising to its customers violates a number of state statutes dealing with consumer deception.  On September 25, 2015, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, and Mr. Rafael Mann, purportedly on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, filed an additional complaint alleging similar causes of action.  On November 16, 2015, the cases were consolidated.  On August 12, 2016, the Court granted our motion to dismiss the consolidated case.  On September 12, 2016, the plaintiffs moved the Court for leave to file an amended complaint, which we opposed.  On March 22, 2017, the Court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file an amended complaint and entered judgment in favor of Sling Media L.L.C.  On April 17, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which heard oral argument on November 7, 2017.  On November 22, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the trial court’s judgment in favor of Sling Media L.L.C.  This matter is now concluded.

Realtime Data LLC and Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC

On June 6, 2017, Realtime Data LLC d/b/a IXO (“Realtime”) filed an amended complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (the “Original Texas Action”) against us; our wholly-owned subsidiaries DISH Network L.L.C., DISH Technologies L.L.C. (then known as EchoStar Technologies L.L.C.), Sling TV L.L.C. and Sling Media L.L.C.; EchoStar, and EchoStar’s wholly-owned subsidiary Hughes Network Systems, LLC; and Arris Group, Inc.  Realtime’s initial complaint in the Original Texas Action, filed on February 14, 2017, had named only EchoStar and Hughes Network Systems, LLC as defendants.  The amended complaint in the Original Texas Action alleges infringement of United States Patent No. 8,717,204 (the “204 patent”), entitled “Methods for encoding and decoding data”; United States Patent No. 9,054,728 (the “728 patent”), entitled “Data compression systems and methods”; United States Patent No. 7,358,867 (the “867 patent”), entitled “Content independent data compression method and system”; United States Patent No. 8,502,707 (the “707 patent”), entitled “Data compression systems and methods”; United States Patent No. 8,275,897 (the “897 patent”), entitled “System and methods for accelerated data storage and retrieval”; United States. Patent No. 8,867,610 (the “610 patent”), entitled “System and methods for video and audio data distribution”; United States Patent No. 8,934,535 (the “535 patent”), entitled “Systems and methods for video and audio data storage and distribution”; and United States Patent No. 8,553,759 (the “759 patent”), entitled “Bandwidth sensitive data compression and decompression.”  Realtime alleges that DISH, Sling TV, Sling Media and Arris streaming video products and services compliant with various versions of the H.264 video compression standard infringe the 897 patent, the 610 patent and the 535 patent, and that the data compression system in Hughes’ products and services infringe the 204 patent, the 728 patent, the 867 patent, the 707 patent and the 759 patent. 

On July 19, 2017, the Court severed Realtime’s claims against us, DISH Network L.L.C., Sling TV L.L.C., Sling Media L.L.C. and Arris Group, Inc. (alleging infringement of the 897 patent, the 610 patent and the 535 patent) from the Original Texas Action into a separate action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (the “Second Texas Action”).  On August 31, 2017, Realtime dismissed the claims against us, Sling TV L.L.C., Sling Media Inc., and Sling Media L.L.C. from the Second Texas Action and refiled these claims (alleging infringement of the 897 patent, the 610 patent and the 535 patent) against Sling TV L.L.C., Sling Media Inc., and Sling Media L.L.C. in a new action in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado (the “Colorado Action”).  Also on August 31, 2017, Realtime dismissed EchoStar Technologies L.L.C. from the Original Texas Action, and on September 12, 2017, added it as a defendant in an amended complaint in the Second Texas Action.  On November 6, 2017, Realtime filed a joint motion to dismiss the Second Texas Action without prejudice, which the Court entered on November 8, 2017.

On October 10, 2017, Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC (“Realtime Adaptive Streaming”) filed suit against our wholly-owned subsidiaries DISH Network L.L.C. and EchoStar Technologies L.L.C., as well as Arris Group, Inc., in a new action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (the “Third Texas Action”), alleging infringement of the 610 patent and the 535 patent.  Also on October 10, 2017, an amended complaint was filed in the Colorado Action, substituting Realtime Adaptive Streaming as the plaintiff instead of Realtime, and alleging infringement of only the 610 patent and the 535 patent, but not the 897 patent.  On November 6, 2017, Realtime Adaptive Streaming filed a joint motion to dismiss the Third Texas Action without prejudice, which the court entered on November 8, 2017.  Also on November 6, 2017, Realtime Adaptive Streaming filed a second amended complaint in the Colorado Action, adding our wholly-owned subsidiaries DISH Network L.L.C. and EchoStar Technologies L.L.C., as well as Arris Group, Inc., as defendants.

As a result, neither we nor any of our subsidiaries is a defendant in the Original Texas Action; the Court has dismissed without prejudice the Second Texas Action and the Third Texas Action; and our wholly-owned subsidiaries DISH Network L.L.C., DISH Technologies L.L.C., Sling TV L.L.C. and Sling Media L.L.C. as well as Arris Group, Inc., are defendants in the Colorado Action, which now has Realtime Adaptive Streaming as the named plaintiff.  The Court has set trial for December 16, 2019.

Realtime Adaptive Streaming 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 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 this suit or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages.

Telemarketing 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 (the “FTC Action”), alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) and the Telemarketing Sales Rule (“TSR”), as well as analogous state statutes and state consumer protection laws.  The plaintiffs alleged 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 were seeking civil penalties and damages of approximately $270 million and that the federal plaintiff was seeking an unspecified amount of civil penalties (which could substantially exceed the civil penalties and damages being sought by the state plaintiffs).  The plaintiffs were 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 also filed a motion for summary judgment, seeking dismissal of all claims.  On December 12, 2014, the Court issued its opinion with respect to the parties’ summary judgment motions.  The Court found that DISH Network L.L.C. was entitled to partial summary judgment with respect to one claim in the action.  In addition, the Court found that the plaintiffs were entitled to partial summary judgment with respect to ten claims in the action, which included, among other things, findings by the Court establishing DISH Network L.L.C.’s liability for a substantial amount of the alleged outbound telemarketing calls by DISH Network L.L.C. and certain of its independent third-party retailers that were the subject of the plaintiffs’ motion.  The Court did not issue any injunctive relief and did not make any determination on civil penalties or damages, ruling instead that the scope of any injunctive relief and the amount of any civil penalties or damages were questions for trial. 

In pre-trial disclosures, the federal plaintiff indicated that it intended to seek up to $900 million in alleged civil penalties, and the state plaintiffs indicated that they intended to seek as much as $23.5 billion in alleged civil penalties and damages.  The plaintiffs also modified their request for injunctive relief.  Their requested injunction, if granted, would have enjoined DISH Network L.L.C. from placing outbound telemarketing calls unless and until: (i) DISH Network L.L.C. hired a third-party consulting organization to perform a review of its call center operations; (ii) such third-party consulting organization submitted a telemarketing compliance plan to the Court and the federal plaintiff; (iii) the Court held a hearing on the adequacy of the plan; (iv) if the Court approved the plan, DISH Network L.L.C. implemented the plan and verified to the Court that it had implemented the plan; and (v) the Court issued an order permitting DISH Network L.L.C. to resume placing outbound telemarketing calls.  The plaintiffs’ modified request for injunctive relief, if granted, would have also enjoined DISH Network L.L.C. from accepting customer orders solicited by certain independent third-party retailers unless and until a similar third-party review and Court approval process was followed with respect to the telemarketing activities of its independent third-party retailer base to ensure compliance with the TSR.

The first phase of the bench trial took place January 19, 2016 through February 11, 2016.  In closing briefs, the federal plaintiff indicated that it still was seeking $900 million in alleged civil penalties; the California state plaintiff indicated that it was seeking $100 million in alleged civil penalties and damages for its state law claims (in addition to any amounts sought on its federal law claims); the Ohio state plaintiff indicated that it was seeking approximately $10 million in alleged civil penalties and damages for its state law claims (in addition to any amounts sought on its federal law claims); and the Illinois and North Carolina state plaintiffs did not state the specific alleged civil penalties and damages that they were seeking; but the state plaintiffs took the general position that any damages award less than $1.0 billion (presumably for both federal and state law claims) would not raise constitutional concerns.  Under the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution, excessive fines may not be imposed. 

On October 3, 2016, the plaintiffs further modified their request for injunctive relief, and were seeking, among other things, to 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 some or all existing independent third-party retailers.  The second phase of the bench trial, which commenced on October 25, 2016 and concluded on November 2, 2016, covered the plaintiffs’ requested injunctive relief, as well as certain evidence related to the state plaintiffs’ claims.

On June 5, 2017, the Court issued Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and entered Judgment ordering DISH Network L.L.C. to pay an aggregate amount of $280 million to the federal and state plaintiffs.  The Court also issued a Permanent Injunction (the “Injunction”) against DISH Network L.L.C. that imposes certain ongoing compliance requirements on DISH Network L.L.C., which include, among other things: (i) the retention of a telemarketing-compliance expert to prepare a plan to ensure that DISH Network L.L.C. and certain independent third-party retailers will continue to comply with telemarketing laws and the Injunction; (ii) certain telemarketing records retention and production requirements; and (iii) certain compliance reporting and monitoring requirements.  In addition to the compliance requirements under the Injunction, within ninety (90) days after the effective date of the Injunction, DISH Network L.L.C. is required to demonstrate that it and certain independent third-party retailers are in compliance with the Safe Harbor Provisions of the TSR and TCPA and have made no prerecorded telemarketing calls during the five (5) years prior to the effective date of the Injunction (collectively, the “Demonstration Requirements”).  If DISH Network L.L.C. fails to prove that it meets the Demonstration Requirements, it will be barred from conducting any outbound telemarketing for two (2) years.  If DISH Network L.L.C. fails to prove that a particular independent third-party retailer meets the Demonstration Requirements, DISH Network L.L.C. will be barred from accepting orders from that independent third-party retailer for two (2) years.  On July 3, 2017, DISH Network L.L.C. filed two motions with the Court:  (1) to alter or amend the Judgment or in the alternative to amend the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law; and (2) to clarify, alter and amend the Injunction.  On August 10, 2017, the Court:  (a) denied the motion to alter or amend the Judgment or in the alternative to amend the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law; and (b) allowed, in part, the motion to clarify, alter and amend the Injunction, and entered an Amended Permanent Injunction (the “Amended Injunction”). 

Among other things, the Amended Injunction provided DISH Network L.L.C a thirty (30) day extension to meet the Demonstration Requirements, expanded the exclusion of certain independent third-party retailers from the Demonstration Requirements, and clarified that, with regard to independent third-party retailers, the Amended Injunction only applied to their telemarketing of DISH TV goods and services.  On October 10, 2017, DISH Network L.L.C. filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.  On February 2, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a notice claiming that DISH Network L.L.C. failed to prove that it met the Demonstration Requirements, as required by the Injunction, and asking the Court to impose a two-year ban on telemarketing by us, and a two-year ban on accepting orders from our primary retailers.  On April 10, 2018, the plaintiffs withdrew their February 2, 2018 notice, without prejudice, and the Court vacated the hearing that had been set on the matter.

During the second quarter 2017, we recorded $255 million of “Litigation expense” related to the FTC Action on our Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income (Loss).  We recorded $25 million of “Litigation expense” related to the FTC Action during prior periods.  Our total accrual at March 31, 2018 related to the FTC Action was $280 million and is included in “Other accrued expenses” on our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.  Any eventual payments made with respect to the FTC Action may not be deductible for tax purposes.  The tax deductibility of any eventual payments made with respect to the FTC Action may change, based upon, among other things, further developments in the FTC Action, including final adjudication of the FTC Action. 

We may also from time to time be subject to private civil litigation alleging telemarketing violations.  For example, a portion of the alleged telemarketing violations by an independent third-party retailer at issue in the FTC Action are also the subject of a certified class action filed against DISH Network L.L.C. in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina (the “Krakauer Action”).  Following a five-day trial, on January 19, 2017, a jury in that case found that the independent third-party retailer was acting as DISH Network L.L.C.’s agent when it made the 51,119 calls at issue in that case, and that class members are eligible to recover $400 in damages for each call made in violation of the TCPA.  On March 7, 2017, DISH Network L.L.C. filed motions with the Court for judgment as a matter of law and, in the alternative, for a new trial, which the Court denied on May 16, 2017.  On May 22, 2017, the Court ruled that the violations were willful and knowing, and trebled the damages award to $1,200 for each call made in violation of TCPA.  On April 5, 2018, the Court entered a $61 million judgment in favor of the class.  On May 4, 2018, DISH Network L.L.C. filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.During the second quarter 2017, we recorded $41 million of “Litigation expense” related to the Krakauer Action on our Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income (Loss).  We recorded $20 million of “Litigation expense” related to the Krakauer Action during the fourth quarter 2016.  Our total accrual related to the Krakauer Action at March 31, 2018 was $61 million and is included in “Other accrued expenses” on our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. 

We intend to vigorously defend these cases.  We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of these suits.

Telemarketing Shareholder Derivative Litigation 

On October 19, 2017, Plumbers Local Union No. 519 Pension Trust Fund (“Plumbers Local 519”), a purported shareholder of the Company, 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 following current and former members of the Company’s Board of Directors:  Charles W. Ergen; James DeFranco; Cantey M. Ergen; Steven R. Goodbarn; David K. Moskowitz; Tom A. Ortolf; Carl E. Vogel; George R. Brokaw; Gary S. Howard; and Joseph P. Clayton (collectively, the “Director Defendants”).  In its complaint, Plumbers Local 519 contends that, by virtue of their alleged failure to appropriately ensure the Company’s compliance with telemarketing laws, the Director Defendants exposed the Company to liability for telemarketing violations, including those in the Krakauer Action.  It also contends that the Director Defendants caused the Company to pay improper compensation and benefits to themselves and others who allegedly breached their fiduciary duties to the Company.  Plumbers Local 519 alleges causes of action for breach of fiduciary duties of loyalty and good faith, gross mismanagement, abuse of control, corporate waste and unjust enrichment.  Plumbers Local 519 is seeking an unspecified amount of damages. 

On November 13, 2017, City of Sterling Heights Police and Fire Retirement System (“Sterling Heights”), a purported shareholder of the Company, filed a putative shareholder derivative action in the District Court for Clark County, Nevada.  Sterling Heights makes substantially the same allegations as Plumbers Union 519, and alleges causes of action against the Director Defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment.  Sterling Heights is seeking an unspecified amount of damages.

Pursuant to a stipulation of the parties, on January 4, 2018, the District Court agreed to consolidate the Sterling Heights action with the Plumbers Local 519 action, and on January 12, 2018, the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint that largely duplicates the original Plumbers Local 519 complaint.  Our Board of Directors has established a Special Litigation Committee to review the factual allegations and legal claims in this action.

We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of these suits or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages.

TQ Delta, LLC

On July 17, 2015, TQ Delta, LLC (“TQ Delta”) filed a complaint against us and our wholly-owned subsidiaries DISH DBS Corporation and DISH Network L.L.C. in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.  The Complaint alleges infringement of United States Patent No. 6,961,369 (the “369 patent”), which is entitled “System and Method for Scrambling the Phase of the Carriers in a Multicarrier Communications System”; United States Patent No. 8,718,158 (the “158 patent”), which is entitled “System and Method for Scrambling the Phase of the Carriers in a Multicarrier Communications System”; United States Patent No. 9,014,243 (the “243 patent”), which is entitled “System and Method for Scrambling Using a Bit Scrambler and a Phase Scrambler”; United States Patent No.7,835,430 (the “430 patent”), which is entitled “Multicarrier Modulation Messaging for Frequency Domain Received Idle Channel Noise Information”; United States Patent No. 8,238,412 (the “412 patent”), which is entitled “Multicarrier Modulation Messaging for Power Level per Subchannel Information”; United States Patent No. 8,432,956 (the “956 patent”), which is entitled “Multicarrier Modulation Messaging for Power Level per Subchannel Information”; and United States Patent No. 8,611,404 (the “404 patent”), which is entitled “Multicarrier Transmission System with Low Power Sleep Mode and Rapid-On Capability.”  On September 9, 2015, TQ Delta filed a first amended complaint that added allegations of infringement of United States Patent No. 9,094,268 (the “268 patent”), which is entitled “Multicarrier Transmission System With Low Power Sleep Mode and Rapid-On Capability.”  On May 16, 2016, TQ Delta filed a second amended complaint that added EchoStar Corporation and its then wholly-owned subsidiary EchoStar Technologies L.L.C. as defendants.  TQ Delta alleges that our satellite TV service, Internet service, set-top boxes, gateways, routers, modems, adapters and networks that operate in accordance with one or more Multimedia over Coax Alliance Standards infringe the asserted patents.  TQ Delta has filed actions in the same court alleging infringement of the same patents against Comcast Corp., Cox Communications, Inc., DirecTV, Time Warner Cable Inc. and Verizon Communications, Inc.  TQ Delta is an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein.

On July 14, 2016, TQ Delta stipulated to dismiss with prejudice all claims related to the 369 patent and the 956 patent.  On July 20, 2016, we filed petitions with the United States Patent and Trademark Office challenging the validity of all of the patent claims of the 404 patent and the 268 patent that have been asserted against us.  Third parties have filed petitions with the United States Patent and Trademark Office challenging the validity of all of the patent claims that have been asserted against us in the action.  On November 4, 2016, the United States Patent and Trademark Office agreed to institute proceedings on the third-party petitions related to the 158 patent, the 243 patent, the 412 patent and the 430 patent.  On December 20, 2016, pursuant to a stipulation of the parties, the Court stayed the case until the resolution of all petitions to the United States Patent and Trademark Office challenging the validity of all of the patent claims at issue.  On January 19, 2017, the United States Patent and Trademark Office granted our motions to join the instituted petitions on the 430 and 158 patents. 

On February 9, 2017, the United States Patent and Trademark Office agreed to institute proceedings on our petition related to the 404 patent, and on February 13, 2017, the United States Patent and Trademark Office agreed to institute proceedings on our petition related to the 268 patent.  On February 27, 2017, the United States Patent and Trademark Office granted our motions to join the instituted petitions on the 243 and 412 patents.  On October 26, 2017, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued final written decisions on the petitions challenging the 158 patent, the 243 patent, the 412 patent and the 430 patent, and it invalidated all of the asserted claims of those patents.  On February 7, 2018, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued final written decisions on the petitions challenging the 404 patent, and it invalidated all of the asserted claims of that patent on the basis of our petition.  On February 10, 2018, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued a final written decision on our petition challenging the 268 patent, and it invalidated all of the asserted claims.  On March 12, 2018, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued a final written decision on a third-party petition challenging the 268 patent, and it invalidated all of the asserted claims.  All asserted claims have now been invalidated by the United States Patent and Trademark Office.  To date, TQ Delta has filed notices of appeal from six of the nine final written decisions adverse to it.

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.

Turner Network Sales

On October 6, 2017, Turner Network Sales, Inc. (“Turner”) filed a complaint against our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Network L.L.C. in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.  The Complaint alleges that DISH Network L.L.C. improperly calculated and withheld licensing fees owing to Turner in connection with its carriage of CNN.  On December 14, 2017, DISH Network L.L.C. filed its operative first amended counterclaims against Turner.  In the counterclaims, DISH Network L.L.C. seeks a declaratory judgment that it properly calculated the licensing fees owed to Turner for carriage of CNN, and also alleges claims for unrelated breaches of the parties’ affiliation agreement.

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.

Vermont National Telephone Company

On September 23, 2016, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia unsealed a qui tam complaint that was filed by Vermont National against us; our wholly-owned subsidiaries, American AWS-3 Wireless I L.L.C., American II, American III, and DISH Wireless Holding L.L.C.; Charles W. Ergen (our Chairman) and Cantey M. Ergen (a member of our board of directors); Northstar Wireless; Northstar Spectrum; Northstar Manager; SNR Wireless; SNR HoldCo; SNR Management; and certain other parties.  The complaint was unsealed after the United States Department of Justice notified the Court that it had declined to intervene in the action.  The complaint is a civil action that was filed under seal on May 13, 2015 by Vermont National, which participated in the AWS-3 Auction through its wholly-owned subsidiary, VTel Wireless.  The complaint alleges violations of the federal civil False Claims Act (the “FCA”) based on, among other things, allegations that Northstar Wireless and SNR Wireless falsely claimed bidding credits of 25% in the AWS-3 Auction when they were allegedly under the de facto control of DISH Network and, therefore, were not entitled to the bidding credits as designated entities under applicable FCC rules.  Vermont National seeks to recover on behalf of the United States government approximately $10 billion, which reflects the $3.3 billion in bidding credits that Northstar Wireless and SNR Wireless claimed in the AWS-3 Auction, trebled under the FCA.  Vermont National also seeks civil penalties of not less than $5,500 and not more than $11,000 for each violation of the FCA.  On March 2, 2017, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia entered a stay of the litigation until such time as the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (the “D.C. Circuit”) issued its opinion in SNR Wireless LicenseCo, LLC, et al. v. F.C.C.  The D.C. Circuit issued its opinion on August 29, 2017 and remanded the matter to the FCC for further proceedings.  See “Commitments – DISH Network Non-Controlling Investments in the Northstar Entities and the SNR Entities Related to AWS-3 Wireless Spectrum Licenses” above for further information.  On September 7, 2017, the defendants in the Vermont National action filed a motion with the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to further stay the litigation until resolution of the FCC proceedings.  On December 12, 2017 and January 29, 2018, the Court entered further stays.  On April 30, 2018, the parties submitted a Joint Status Report in which the defendants asked the Court to maintain the stay and Vermont National asked the Court to lift the stay.

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

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 that 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.