Commitments and Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2012

Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies

17. Commitments and Contingencies

Financial Matters

SS/L has deferred revenue and accrued liabilities (classified as liabilities held for sale as of June 30, 2012) for warranty payback obligations relating to performance incentives for satellites sold to customers, which could be affected by future performance of the satellites. These reserves for expected costs for warranty reimbursement and support are based on historical failure rates. However, in the event of a catastrophic failure of a satellite, which cannot be predicted, these reserves likely will not be sufficient. SS/L periodically reviews and adjusts the deferred revenue and accrued liabilities for warranty reserves based on the actual performance of each satellite and remaining warranty period. A reconciliation of such deferred amounts included in liabilities held for sale for the six months ended June 30, 2012, is as follows (in thousands):

Balance of deferred amounts at January 1, 2012	$	37,113
Warranty costs incurred including payments		(1,607	)
Accruals relating to pre-existing contracts (including changes in estimates)		4,458
Balance of deferred amounts included in liabilities held for sale at June 30, 2012		39,964

Many of SS/L’s satellite contracts permit SS/L’s customers to pay a portion of the purchase price for the satellite over time subject to the continued performance of the satellite (“orbital incentives”), and certain of SS/L’s satellite contracts require SS/L to provide vendor financing to its customers, or a combination of these contractual terms. Some of these arrangements are provided to customers that are start-up companies, companies in the early stages of building their businesses or highly leveraged companies, including some with near-term debt maturities. There can be no assurance that these companies or their businesses will be successful and, accordingly, that these customers will be able to fulfill their payment obligations under their contracts with SS/L. We believe that these provisions will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position or our results of operations, although no assurance can be provided. Moreover, SS/L’s receipt of orbital incentive payments is subject to the continued performance of its satellites generally over the contractually stipulated life of the satellites. Because these orbital receivables could be affected by future satellite performance, there can be no assurance that SS/L will be able to collect all or a portion of these receivables. Orbital receivables included as assets held for sale in our consolidated balance sheet as of June 30, 2012 were $365 million, net of fair value adjustments of $16 million. Approximately $227 million of the gross orbital receivables are related to satellites launched as of June 30, 2012, and $154 million are related to satellites under construction as of June 30, 2012.

See Note 20 — 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

Satellites are built with redundant or additional components to provide excess performance margins to permit their continued operation in case of component failure, an event that is not uncommon in complex satellites. From time to time, anomalies may occur that require investigations to determine the cause of the anomaly and what remediation measures are appropriate. For example, certain of SS/L’s satellites have experienced some loss of power from their solar arrays. There can be no assurance that one or more of the affected satellites will not experience additional power loss or that additional satellites will not experience power loss. In the event of additional power loss on the affected satellites or new power loss on satellites heretofore not affected, the extent of the performance degradation, if any, will depend on numerous factors, including the amount of the additional power loss, the level of redundancy built into the affected satellite’s design, when in the life of the affected satellite the loss occurred, how many transponders are then in service and how they are being used. It is also possible that one or more transponders on a satellite may need to be removed from service to accommodate the power loss and to preserve full performance capabilities on the remaining transponders. A complete or partial loss of a satellite’s capacity could result in a loss of performance incentives. Based upon information currently available and existing power margins on affected satellites, SS/L believes that solar array anomalies will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position or our results of operations, although no assurance can be provided.

During the launch of the SS/L-built Intelsat 19 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 has total orbital receivables related to this satellite of $18 million, which represents the maximum possible loss from this anomaly, excluding the cost of the failure investigation. The amount of any possible loss will depend on the amount of the reduction in power. The investigation to determine the cause of the damage is ongoing, and, as a result, the financial impact to SS/L cannot yet be estimated. If the satellite is determined to be the sole cause of the anomaly, the loss of orbital incentives is estimated to be approximately $8 million. If the launch vehicle is determined to be the cause, the full amount of orbital receivables would be expected to be recovered over the life of the satellite. No charge has been recorded pending completion of the investigation. If SS/L were required under U.S. GAAP to write down its orbital receivables as a result of the Intelsat 19 anomaly in the first year following the closing of the sale of SS/L to MDA Holdings, the purchase price received by Loral would be subject to a reduction equal to the amount of the write-down.

Non-performance can increase costs and subject SS/L to damage claims from customers and termination of the contract for SS/L’s default. SS/L’s contracts contain detailed and complex technical specifications to which the satellite must be built. It is very common that satellites built by SS/L do not conform in every single respect to, and contain a small number of minor deviations from, the technical specifications. Customers typically accept the satellite with such minor deviations. In the case of more significant deviations, however, SS/L may incur increased costs to bring the satellite within or close to the contractual specifications or a customer may exercise its contractual right to terminate the contract for default. In some cases, such as when the actual weight of the satellite exceeds the specified weight, SS/L may incur a predetermined penalty with respect to the deviation. A failure by SS/L to deliver a satellite to its customer by the specified delivery date, which may result from factors beyond SS/L’s control, such as delayed performance or non-performance by its subcontractors or failure to obtain necessary governmental licenses for delivery, would also be harmful to SS/L unless mitigated by applicable contract terms, such as excusable delay. As a general matter, SS/L’s failure to deliver beyond any contractually provided grace period would result in the incurrence of liquidated damages by SS/L, which may be substantial, and if SS/L is still unable to deliver the satellite upon the end of the liquidated damages period, the customer will generally have the right to terminate the contract for default. If a contract is terminated for default, SS/L would be liable for a refund of customer payments made to date, and could also have additional liability for excess re-procurement costs and other damages incurred by its customer, although SS/L would own the satellite under construction and attempt to recoup any losses through resale to another customer. A contract termination for default could have a material adverse effect on SS/L and us.

SS/L is building a satellite known as CMBStar under a contract with EchoStar Corporation (“EchoStar”). Satellite construction is substantially complete. EchoStar and SS/L have agreed to suspend final construction of the satellite pending, among other things, further analysis relating to efforts to meet the satellite performance criteria and/or confirmation that alternative performance criteria would be acceptable. In May 2010, SS/L provided EchoStar, at its request, with a proposal to complete construction and prepare the satellite for launch under the current specifications. In August 2010, SS/L provided EchoStar, at its request, additional proposal information. There can be no assurance that a dispute will not arise as to whether the satellite meets its technical performance specifications or if such a dispute did arise that SS/L would prevail. SS/L believes that if a loss is incurred with respect to this program, such loss would not be material.

SS/L relies, in part, on patents, trade secrets and know-how to develop and maintain its competitive position. There can be no assurance that infringement of existing third party patents has not occurred or will not occur. In the event of infringement, we could be required to pay royalties to obtain a license from the patent holder, refund money to customers for components that are not useable or redesign our products to avoid infringement, all of which would increase our costs. We could also be subject to injunctions prohibiting us from using components or methods. We may also be required under the terms of our customer contracts to indemnify our customers for damages relating to infringement. For example, ViaSat, Inc. and ViaSat Communications, Inc. (formerly known as WildBlue Communications, Inc.) have commenced a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California against SS/L and Loral alleging, among other things, that SS/L and Loral infringed certain ViaSat patents and breached non-disclosure obligations in certain contracts with ViaSat in connection with the manufacture of satellites by SS/L for customers other than ViaSat. See “Legal Proceedings” below for details of this lawsuit.

See Note 20 — Related Party Transactions — Transactions with Affiliates — Telesat for commitments and contingencies relating to SS/L’s obligation to make payments to Telesat for transponders on Telstar 18.

Regulatory Matters

SS/L is required to obtain licenses and enter into technical assistance agreements, presently under the jurisdiction of the State Department, in connection with the export of satellites and related equipment, and with the disclosure of technical data or provision of defense services to foreign persons. Due to the relationship between launch technology and missile technology, the U.S. government has limited, and is likely in the future to limit, launches from China and other foreign countries. Delays in obtaining the necessary licenses and technical assistance agreements have in the past resulted in, and may in the future result in, the delay of SS/L’s performance on its contracts, which could result in the cancellation of contracts by its customers, the incurrence of penalties or the loss of incentive payments under these contracts.

Legal Proceedings

In February 2012, ViaSat, Inc. and ViaSat Communications, Inc. (formerly known as WildBlue Communications, Inc.) (collectively, “ViaSat”) commenced a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California against SS/L and Loral. The complaint alleged, among other things, that SS/L and Loral infringed certain ViaSat patents and that SS/L breached non-disclosure obligations in certain contracts with ViaSat in connection with the manufacture of satellites by SS/L for customers other than ViaSat. The complaint also sought to hold Loral liable for SS/L’s alleged infringement and breach of contract. The complaint sought, 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.

In April 2012, SS/L and Loral filed a motion to dismiss all of ViaSat’s patent infringement and breach of contract claims against Loral for failure to state a claim. In May 2012, the court issued an order granting the motion to dismiss as it pertains to the claims against Loral, but allowing ViaSat to amend its complaint to cure the pleading deficiencies if it could do so. The motion to dismiss also sought dismissal of ViaSat’s breach of contract claims against SS/L for failure to state a claim. The court in its May 7, 2012 order denied this aspect of the motion.

In addition, in April 2012, SS/L filed a separate complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California against ViaSat for patent infringement and declaratory judgment. The complaint alleged, among other things, that ViaSat infringed certain SS/L patents in connection with its manufacture and sale of certain satellite communication products and services and sought a declaratory judgment that SS/L had not infringed and is 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’s complaint sought, 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 and to enjoin ViaSat from further infringement of the SS/L patents.

In May 2012, ViaSat amended its complaint, restating its claims against SS/L and purporting to strengthen its allegations against Loral to cure the deficiencies previously identified by the court in its May 2012 order. Specifically, the amended complaint alleges that Loral directly and indirectly infringed the patents-in-suit, that Loral directly breached non-disclosure obligations in a non-disclosure agreement between Loral and ViaSat and that Loral should be held liable for SS/L’s alleged infringement and breach of contract based on alter ego liability. In June 2012, Loral again moved to dismiss ViaSat’s allegations against Loral. In July 2012, the court granted Loral’s motion to dismiss ViaSat’s breach of contract and patent infringement causes of action based on alter ego liability and denied Loral’s motion to dismiss ViaSat’s direct and indirect patent infringement and breach of contract causes of action.

Also in June 2012, SS/L answered the ViaSat complaint and asserted counterclaims that mirrored the claims that SS/L had previously filed separately in April 2012. Thereafter, in June 2012, SS/L voluntarily dismissed, without prejudice, its April 2012 complaint, the effect of which was to consolidate within the original ViaSat action both ViaSat’s claims against SS/L and SS/L’s claims against ViaSat. In July 2012, ViaSat filed a motion to sever SS/L’s counterclaims against ViaSat so that those claims would be litigated in a separate case or, in the alternative, that the court bifurcate such claims for trial. A hearing on this motion is scheduled for the end of August 2012.

SS/L and Loral believe that they each have, and 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 SS/L’s or Loral’s financial position or results of operations.

Under the terms of the Purchase Agreement, Loral will indemnify SS/L for all Covered Litigation Costs and Covered Litigation Damages (as such terms are defined in the Purchase Agreement), subject to certain capped cost-sharing by SS/L, and will retain control of the defense of the lawsuit against SS/L and Loral by ViaSat as well as SS/L’s counterclaims against ViaSat in the lawsuit. Under the terms of the Purchase Agreement, following a change of control of Loral, the liability of Loral for Covered Litigation Damages is subject to a dollar cap.

Other and Routine Litigation

We are subject to various other legal proceedings and claims, either asserted or unasserted, that arise in the ordinary course of business. Although the outcome of these legal proceedings and claims cannot be predicted with certainty, we do not believe that any of these other existing legal matters will have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position or our results of operations.