Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	16. Commitments and Contingencies Financial Matters In the fourth quarter of 2012, we sold our former subsidiary, SS/L, to MDA pursuant to the Purchase Agreement. Under the terms of the Purchase Agreement, we are obligated to indemnify MDA from (1) liabilities with respect to certain pre-closing taxes; (2) certain litigation costs and litigation damages relating to the ViaSat lawsuit, subject to certain sharing formulas and caps; and (3) certain breaches of representations, warranties and covenants, subject to certain limitations on survival of claims, deductibles and caps. In March 2013, we and MDA agreed, among other things, to modify SS/L’s capped cost-sharing obligations. To date, other than with respect to sharing of litigation costs (see Legal Proceedings, below), MDA has submitted one claim for indemnification which relates to pre-closing taxes. The amount of this claim has not yet been determined. We intend vigorously to contest the underlying tax assessment, but there can be no assurance that we will be successful. Although no assurance can be provided, we do not believe that this matter will have a material adverse effect on our financial position or results of operations. Our condensed consolidated balance sheets include liabilities of $16.0 million and $16.5 million as of September 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, respectively, representing the estimated fair value of all potential indemnification liabilities relating to the Sale. In connection with the Sale, Loral has restructured its corporate functions and has reduced the number of employees at its headquarters. In 2012, Loral charged approximately $11.8 million to general and administrative expenses, mainly for severance and related costs, and paid approximately $8.0 million. During the three and nine months ended September 30, 2013, Loral paid restructuring costs of approximately $0.3 million and $3.2 million, respectively, and at September 30, 2013, the liability recorded in the condensed consolidated balance sheet for the restructuring was $0.6 million which includes all expected future payments under the restructuring plan relating to the Sale. In connection with the sale in 2008 by Loral and certain of its subsidiaries and DASA Globalstar LLC to Globalstar Inc. of their respective interests in GdB, the Globalstar Brazilian service provider, Loral agreed to indemnify Globalstar Inc. and GdB for certain GdB pre-closing liabilities, primarily related to Brazilian taxes. As a result of an April 2013 adverse court decision in Brazil relating to a potential tax liability, an adverse outcome for which was previously believed to be remote, Loral recorded a loss contingency of $4.8 million in the first quarter of 2013 for such liability and made a payment of $3.7 million against that liability in the second quarter of 2013. During the third quarter of 2013, we reversed $0.9 million of the remaining liability for this matter, primarily due to a favorable court decision. See Note 17 — Related Party Transactions — Transactions with Affiliates — Telesat for commitments and contingencies relating to our agreement to indemnify Telesat for certain liabilities and our arrangements with ViaSat, Inc. and Telesat. Satellite Matters During the launch of an SS/L-built satellite on June 1, 2012, the satellite’s south solar array was damaged, resulting in a reduction of power available to the satellite’s transponders. SS/L had total orbital receivables related to this satellite of $18.0 million, which represents the maximum possible loss from this anomaly, excluding the cost of the failure investigation. During the third quarter of 2012, SS/L recorded a charge of $6.5 million to reduce orbital receivables based on the estimated loss of power on the satellite. The write down of SS/L’s orbital receivables as a result of the anomaly also resulted in a $6.5 million payment in December 2012 by Loral to MDA pursuant to the Purchase Agreement relating to the Sale. Any additional reduction in orbital receivables for this satellite prior to November 2, 2013 would result in additional payment by Loral to MDA pursuant to the Purchase Agreement. We have not received notice of any such reduction. Legal Proceedings ViaSat ViaSat has sued SS/L and Loral in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. ViaSat’s amended complaint alleges, among other things, that SS/L and Loral directly and indirectly infringed, that SS/L and Loral induced infringement, and that SS/L contributed to the infringement of, certain ViaSat patents in connection with the manufacture of satellites by SS/L for customers other than ViaSat. The amended complaint also alleges that each of SS/L and Loral breached non-disclosure obligations in certain contracts with ViaSat. ViaSat’s amended complaint seeks, among other things, damages (including treble damages with respect to the patent infringement claims) in amounts to be determined at trial and to enjoin SS/L and Loral from further infringement of the ViaSat patents and breach of contract. SS/L and Loral have answered ViaSat’s complaint and asserted defenses to ViaSat’s claims and counterclaims seeking a declaratory judgment that neither SS/L nor Loral has infringed and that they are not infringing the ViaSat patents, that ViaSat’s patents are invalid and that at least certain of ViaSat’s patents are unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. SS/L has also asserted counterclaims against ViaSat for patent infringement, breach of contract and correction of the inventorship of one of ViaSat’s patents and its assignment to SS/L, alleging, among other things, that ViaSat infringed certain SS/L patents in connection with its manufacture and sale of certain satellite communication products and services, that ViaSat misappropriated certain of SS/L’s proprietary information and that SS/L employees conceived or contributed to the conception of one of ViaSat’s patents. SS/L’s counterclaims seek, among other things, damages (including treble damages with respect to at least one of the patent infringement claims) in amounts to be determined at trial, to enjoin ViaSat from further infringement of the SS/L patents and further misappropriation of SS/L’s proprietary information and to correct the inventorship of one ViaSat’s patents and have it assigned to SS/L. In August 2013, SS/L and Loral filed motions for summary judgment seeking orders that certain claims in one of ViaSat’s patents are invalid for being indefinite, to determine which of a number of different non-disclosure agreements applied to ViaSat’s breach of contract claims during relevant time periods and to establish the priority date for one of ViaSat’s patents. In September and October 2013, the court denied these motions finding that disputed issues of material fact were involved and, therefore, summary judgment was not appropriate. We believe that each of SS/L and Loral has, and we intend vigorously to pursue, meritorious defenses and counterclaims to ViaSat’s claims. There can be no assurance, however, that SS/L’s and Loral’s defenses and counterclaims will be successful with respect to all or some of ViaSat’s claims or that SS/L will prevail with respect to its assertion that ViaSat has infringed SS/L patents. We believe that SS/L’s and Loral’s conduct was consistent with, and in due regard for, any applicable and valid intellectual property rights of ViaSat. Although no assurance can be provided, we do not believe that this matter will have a material adverse effect on our financial position or results of operations. In September 2013, ViaSat filed a new complaint against SS/L in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California alleging, among other things, that SS/L directly infringed, and induced and encouraged infringement of, certain newly issued ViaSat patents not asserted in the original lawsuit in connection with the manufacture of satellites by SS/L for customers other than ViaSat. ViaSat’s new complaint seeks, among other things, damages (including treble damages) in amounts to be determined at trial and to enjoin SS/L from further infringement of the ViaSat patents. The complaint did not name Loral as a defendant. MDA has asserted that Loral is obligated to defend and indemnify SS/L with respect to the newly-brought litigation under the Purchase Agreement on the same terms and conditions as Loral’s defense and indemnification of SS/L in the existing pending litigation. Loral has rejected MDA’s assertion that it is obligated to defend and indemnify SS/L on the basis that the new lawsuit does not fall within its defense and indemnification obligations under the Purchase Agreement. SS/L is defending the new lawsuit. The parties have agreed, however, to defer determination of whether Loral is obligated to defend and indemnify SS/L for the new lawsuit until the earlier of judgment or settlement of either of the ViaSat actions and October 25, 2016. There can be no assurance that a dispute will not arise as to whether Loral is obligated to defend and indemnify SS/L for the new ViaSat lawsuit or if such a dispute were to arise that Loral would prevail. Other Litigation Other than the litigation with ViaSat discussed above, we are not currently subject to any other legal proceedings that, if decided adversely, could have a material adverse effect on our financial position or results of operations. In the future, however, we may become subject to other legal proceedings and claims, either asserted or unasserted, that may arise in the ordinary course of business.

16. Commitments and Contingencies

Financial Matters

In the fourth quarter of 2012, we sold our former subsidiary, SS/L, to MDA pursuant to the Purchase Agreement. Under the terms of the Purchase Agreement, we are obligated to indemnify MDA from (1) liabilities with respect to certain pre-closing taxes; (2) certain litigation costs and litigation damages relating to the ViaSat lawsuit, subject to certain sharing formulas and caps; and (3) certain breaches of representations, warranties and covenants, subject to certain limitations on survival of claims, deductibles and caps. In March 2013, we and MDA agreed, among other things, to modify SS/L’s capped cost-sharing obligations. To date, other than with respect to sharing of litigation costs (see Legal Proceedings, below), MDA has submitted one claim for indemnification which relates to pre-closing taxes. The amount of this claim has not yet been determined. We intend vigorously to contest the underlying tax assessment, but there can be no assurance that we will be successful. Although no assurance can be provided, we do not believe that this matter will have a material adverse effect on our financial position or results of operations. Our condensed consolidated balance sheets include liabilities of $16.0 million and $16.5 million as of September 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, respectively, representing the estimated fair value of all potential indemnification liabilities relating to the Sale.

In connection with the Sale, Loral has restructured its corporate functions and has reduced the number of employees at its headquarters. In 2012, Loral charged approximately $11.8 million to general and administrative expenses, mainly for severance and related costs, and paid approximately $8.0 million. During the three and nine months ended September 30, 2013, Loral paid restructuring costs of approximately $0.3 million and $3.2 million, respectively, and at September 30, 2013, the liability recorded in the condensed consolidated balance sheet for the restructuring was $0.6 million which includes all expected future payments under the restructuring plan relating to the Sale.

In connection with the sale in 2008 by Loral and certain of its subsidiaries and DASA Globalstar LLC to Globalstar Inc. of their respective interests in GdB, the Globalstar Brazilian service provider, Loral agreed to indemnify Globalstar Inc. and GdB for certain GdB pre-closing liabilities, primarily related to Brazilian taxes. As a result of an April 2013 adverse court decision in Brazil relating to a potential tax liability, an adverse outcome for which was previously believed to be remote, Loral recorded a loss contingency of $4.8 million in the first quarter of 2013 for such liability and made a payment of $3.7 million against that liability in the second quarter of 2013. During the third quarter of 2013, we reversed $0.9 million of the remaining liability for this matter, primarily due to a favorable court decision.

See Note 17 — Related Party Transactions — Transactions with Affiliates — Telesat for commitments and contingencies relating to our agreement to indemnify Telesat for certain liabilities and our arrangements with ViaSat, Inc. and Telesat.

Satellite Matters

During the launch of an SS/L-built satellite on June 1, 2012, the satellite’s south solar array was damaged, resulting in a reduction of power available to the satellite’s transponders. SS/L had total orbital receivables related to this satellite of $18.0 million, which represents the maximum possible loss from this anomaly, excluding the cost of the failure investigation. During the third quarter of 2012, SS/L recorded a charge of $6.5 million to reduce orbital receivables based on the estimated loss of power on the satellite. The write down of SS/L’s orbital receivables as a result of the anomaly also resulted in a $6.5 million payment in December 2012 by Loral to MDA pursuant to the Purchase Agreement relating to the Sale. Any additional reduction in orbital receivables for this satellite prior to November 2, 2013 would result in additional payment by Loral to MDA pursuant to the Purchase Agreement. We have not received notice of any such reduction.

Legal Proceedings

ViaSat

ViaSat has sued SS/L and Loral in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. ViaSat’s amended complaint alleges, among other things, that SS/L and Loral directly and indirectly infringed, that SS/L and Loral induced infringement, and that SS/L contributed to the infringement of, certain ViaSat patents in connection with the manufacture of satellites by SS/L for customers other than ViaSat. The amended complaint also alleges that each of SS/L and Loral breached non-disclosure obligations in certain contracts with ViaSat. ViaSat’s amended complaint seeks, among other things, damages (including treble damages with respect to the patent infringement claims) in amounts to be determined at trial and to enjoin SS/L and Loral from further infringement of the ViaSat patents and breach of contract.

SS/L and Loral have answered ViaSat’s complaint and asserted defenses to ViaSat’s claims and counterclaims seeking a declaratory judgment that neither SS/L nor Loral has infringed and that they are not infringing the ViaSat patents, that ViaSat’s patents are invalid and that at least certain of ViaSat’s patents are unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. SS/L has also asserted counterclaims against ViaSat for patent infringement, breach of contract and correction of the inventorship of one of ViaSat’s patents and its assignment to SS/L, alleging, among other things, that ViaSat infringed certain SS/L patents in connection with its manufacture and sale of certain satellite communication products and services, that ViaSat misappropriated certain of SS/L’s proprietary information and that SS/L employees conceived or contributed to the conception of one of ViaSat’s patents. SS/L’s counterclaims seek, among other things, damages (including treble damages with respect to at least one of the patent infringement claims) in amounts to be determined at trial, to enjoin ViaSat from further infringement of the SS/L patents and further misappropriation of SS/L’s proprietary information and to correct the inventorship of one ViaSat’s patents and have it assigned to SS/L.

In August 2013, SS/L and Loral filed motions for summary judgment seeking orders that certain claims in one of ViaSat’s patents are invalid for being indefinite, to determine which of a number of different non-disclosure agreements applied to ViaSat’s breach of contract claims during relevant time periods and to establish the priority date for one of ViaSat’s patents. In September and October 2013, the court denied these motions finding that disputed issues of material fact were involved and, therefore, summary judgment was not appropriate.

We believe that each of SS/L and Loral has, and we intend vigorously to pursue, meritorious defenses and counterclaims to ViaSat’s claims. There can be no assurance, however, that SS/L’s and Loral’s defenses and counterclaims will be successful with respect to all or some of ViaSat’s claims or that SS/L will prevail with respect to its assertion that ViaSat has infringed SS/L patents. We believe that SS/L’s and Loral’s conduct was consistent with, and in due regard for, any applicable and valid intellectual property rights of ViaSat. Although no assurance can be provided, we do not believe that this matter will have a material adverse effect on our financial position or results of operations.

In September 2013, ViaSat filed a new complaint against SS/L in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California alleging, among other things, that SS/L directly infringed, and induced and encouraged infringement of, certain newly issued ViaSat patents not asserted in the original lawsuit in connection with the manufacture of satellites by SS/L for customers other than ViaSat. ViaSat’s new complaint seeks, among other things, damages (including treble damages) in amounts to be determined at trial and to enjoin SS/L from further infringement of the ViaSat patents. The complaint did not name Loral as a defendant. MDA has asserted that Loral is obligated to defend and indemnify SS/L with respect to the newly-brought litigation under the Purchase Agreement on the same terms and conditions as Loral’s defense and indemnification of SS/L in the existing pending litigation. Loral has rejected MDA’s assertion that it is obligated to defend and indemnify SS/L on the basis that the new lawsuit does not fall within its defense and indemnification obligations under the Purchase Agreement. SS/L is defending the new lawsuit. The parties have agreed, however, to defer determination of whether Loral is obligated to defend and indemnify SS/L for the new lawsuit until the earlier of judgment or settlement of either of the ViaSat actions and October 25, 2016. There can be no assurance that a dispute will not arise as to whether Loral is obligated to defend and indemnify SS/L for the new ViaSat lawsuit or if such a dispute were to arise that Loral would prevail.

Other Litigation

Other than the litigation with ViaSat discussed above, we are not currently subject to any other legal proceedings that, if decided adversely, could have a material adverse effect on our financial position or results of operations. In the future, however, we may become subject to other legal proceedings and claims, either asserted or unasserted, that may arise in the ordinary course of business.