EX-99 3 0003.txt EXHIBIT 99.1 Exhibit 99.1 Material incorporated by reference from Pegasus' Annual Report on Form 10-K filed with the SEC on March 10, 2000 for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1999 The following material has been incorporated by reference from Pegasus' Annual Report on Form 10-K filed with the SEC on March 10, 2000 for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1999 and is being filed as Exhibit 99.1 to the Form 10-Q for Golden Sky DBS, Inc. for the quarter ended June 30, 2000 pursuant to Rule 12b-23(a)(3) of the Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. ITEM 3: LEGAL PROCEEDINGS DIRECTV/NRTC Litigation. On June 3, 1999, the National Rural Telecommunications Cooperative filed a lawsuit in federal court against DIRECTV seeking a court order to enforce the National Rural Telecommunications Cooperative's contractual rights to obtain from DIRECTV certain premium programming formerly distributed by United States Satellite Broadcasting Company, Inc. for exclusive distribution by the National Rural Telecommunications Cooperative's members and affiliates in their rural markets. The National Rural Telecommunications Cooperative also sought a temporary restraining order preventing DIRECTV from marketing the premium programming in such markets and requiring DIRECTV to provide the National Rural Telecommunications Cooperative with the premium programming for exclusive distribution in those areas. The court, in an order dated June 17, 1999, denied the National Rural Telecommunications Cooperative a preliminary injunction on such matters, without deciding the underlying claims. On July 22, 1999, DIRECTV responded to the National Rural Telecommunications Cooperative's continuing lawsuit by rejecting the National Rural Telecommunications Cooperative's claims to exclusive distribution rights and by filing a counterclaim seeking judicial clarification of certain provisions of DIRECTV's contract with the National Rural Telecommunications Cooperative. In particular, DIRECTV contends in its counterclaim that the term of DIRECTV's contract with the National Rural Telecommunications Cooperative is measured solely by the orbital life of DBS-1, the first DIRECTV satellite launched into orbit at the 101 (degree) W orbital location, without regard to the orbital lives of the other DIRECTV satellites at the 101 (degree) W orbital location. DIRECTV also alleges in its counterclaim that the National Rural Telecommunications Cooperative's right of first refusal, which is effective at the end of the term of DIRECTV's contract with the National Rural Telecommunications Cooperative, does not provide for certain programming and other rights comparable to those now provided under the contract. On September 8, 1999, the court denied a motion by DIRECTV to dismiss certain of the National Rural Telecommunications Cooperative's claims, leaving all of the causes of action asserted by the National Rural Telecommunications Cooperative at issue. On September 9, 1999, the National Rural Telecommunications Cooperative filed a response to DIRECTV's counterclaim contesting DIRECTV's interpretations of the end of term and right of first refusal provisions. On August 26, 1999, the National Rural Telecommunications Cooperative filed a separate lawsuit in federal court against DIRECTV claiming that DIRECTV had failed to provide to the National Rural Telecommunications Cooperative its share of launch fees and other benefits that DIRECTV and its affiliates have received relating to programming and other services. On November 15, 1999, the court granted a motion by DIRECTV and dismissed a portion of the National Rural Telecommunications Cooperative's lawsuit regarding launch fees and other benefits. In particular, the court dismissed the tort claim asserted by the National Rural Telecommunications Cooperative, but left in place the remaining claims asserted by the National Rural Telecommunications Cooperative. The court also consolidated that lawsuit with the other pending National Rural Telecommunications Cooperative/DIRECTV lawsuit. The court set various discovery and motion deadlines for the spring and summer of 2000 but did not set a trial date. On December 29, 1999, DIRECTV filed a motion for partial summary judgment. The motion seeks a court order that the National Rural Telecommunications Cooperative's right of first refusal, effective at the termination of DIRECTV's contract with the National Rural Telecommunications Cooperative, does not include programming services and is limited to 20 program channels of transponder capacity. The hearing date on DIRECTV's motion was vacated by the court pending resolution of certain procedural issues raised by anew lawsuit we and Golden Sky filed against DIRECTV, discussed below. The court has not yet set a trial date on the merits of the motion for partial summary judgment. On January 10, 2000, we and Golden Sky filed a class action lawsuit in federal court in Los Angeles against DIRECTV as representatives of a proposed class that would include all members and affiliates of the National Rural Telecommunications Cooperative that are distributors of DIRECTV. The complaint contains causes of action for various torts, common counts and declaratory relief based on DIRECTV's failure to provide the National Rural Telecommunications Cooperative with premium programming, thereby preventing the National Rural Telecommunications Cooperative from providing this programming to the class members and affiliates. The claims are also based on DIRECTV's position with respect to launch fees and other benefits, term and rights of first refusal. The complaint seeks monetary damages and a court order regarding the rights of the National Rural Telecommunications Cooperative and its members and affiliates. On February 10, 2000, we and Golden Sky filed an amended complaint which added new tort claims against DIRECTV for interference with plaintiffs' relationships with manufacturers, distributors and dealers of direct broadcast satellite equipment. We and Golden Sky also withdrew the class action allegations to allow a new class action to be filed on behalf of the members and affiliates of the National Rural Telecommunications Cooperative. The outcome of this litigation and the litigation filed by the National Rural Telecommunications Cooperative could have a material adverse effect on our direct broadcast satellite business.