UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

 

 

FORM 10-Q

 

 

 

 

Commission File Number: 0-29752

 

Leap Wireless International, Inc.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

 

 

(858) 882-6000

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

 

Not Applicable

(Former name, former address and former fiscal year, if changed since last report)

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant: (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.  Yes þ     No o

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).  Yes o     No o

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):

 

(Do not check if a smaller reporting company)

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).  Yes o     No þ

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has filed all documents and reports required to be filed by Sections 12, 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 subsequent to the distribution of securities under a plan confirmed by a court.  Yes þ     No o

 

The number of shares outstanding of the registrant’s common stock on May 1, 2009 was 70,305,601.

 

 

LEAP WIRELESS INTERNATIONAL, INC.

 

QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q

For the Quarter Ended March 31, 2009

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

 

FINANCIAL INFORMATION

 

LEAP WIRELESS INTERNATIONAL, INC.

 

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS

(In thousands, except share amounts)

 

 

See accompanying notes to condensed consolidated financial statements.

LEAP WIRELESS INTERNATIONAL, INC.

 

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS

(Unaudited and in thousands, except per share data)

 

 

See accompanying notes to condensed consolidated financial statements.

LEAP WIRELESS INTERNATIONAL, INC.

 

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS

(Unaudited and in thousands)

 

 

See accompanying notes to condensed consolidated financial statements.

LEAP WIRELESS INTERNATIONAL, INC.

 

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (UNAUDITED)

 

 

Leap Wireless International, Inc. (“Leap”), a Delaware corporation, together with its subsidiaries, is a wireless communications carrier that offers digital wireless services in the United States under the “Cricket^®” brand. Cricket service offerings provide customers with unlimited wireless services for a flat rate without requiring a fixed-term contract or a credit check. The Company’s primary service is Cricket Wireless, which offers customers unlimited wireless voice and data services for a flat monthly rate. Leap conducts operations through its subsidiaries and has no independent operations or sources of income other than through dividends, if any, from its subsidiaries. Cricket service is offered by Cricket Communications, Inc. (“Cricket”), a wholly owned subsidiary of Leap, and is also offered in Oregon by LCW Wireless Operations, LLC (“LCW Operations”), a wholly owned subsidiary of LCW Wireless, LLC (“LCW Wireless”), and in the upper Midwest by Denali Spectrum Operations, LLC (“Denali Operations”), an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Denali Spectrum, LLC (“Denali”). LCW Wireless and Denali are designated entities under Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) regulations. Cricket owns an indirect 73.3% non-controlling interest in LCW Operations through a 73.3% non-controlling interest in LCW Wireless, and owns an indirect 82.5% non-controlling interest in Denali Operations through an 82.5% non-controlling interest in Denali. Leap, Cricket and their subsidiaries, including LCW Wireless and Denali, are collectively referred to herein as the “Company.”

 

 

Basis of Presentation

 

The accompanying interim condensed consolidated financial statements have been prepared without audit, in accordance with the instructions to Form 10-Q and therefore do not include all information and footnotes required by accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) for a complete set of financial statements. These condensed consolidated financial statements should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements and notes thereto included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008. In the opinion of management, the unaudited financial information for the interim periods presented reflects all adjustments necessary for a fair presentation of the Company’s results for the periods presented, with such adjustments consisting only of normal recurring adjustments. GAAP requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities, the disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses. By their nature, estimates are subject to an inherent degree of uncertainty. Actual results could differ from management’s estimates and operating results for interim periods are not necessarily indicative of operating results for an entire fiscal year.

 

The condensed consolidated financial statements include the operating results and financial position of Leap and its wholly owned subsidiaries as well as the operating results and financial position of LCW Wireless and Denali and their wholly owned subsidiaries. The Company consolidates its interests in LCW Wireless and Denali in accordance with Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Interpretation No. (“FIN”) 46(R), “Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities,” because these entities are variable interest entities and the Company will absorb a majority of their expected losses. All intercompany accounts and transactions have been eliminated in the condensed consolidated financial statements.

 

On January 1, 2009, the Company adopted the provisions of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (“SFAS”) No. 160, “Noncontrolling Interests in Consolidated Financial Statements, an Amendment of ARB No. 51” (“SFAS 160”), which defines a noncontrolling interest in a consolidated subsidiary as “the portion of the equity (net assets) in a subsidiary not attributable, directly or indirectly, to a parent” and requires noncontrolling interests to be presented as a separate component of equity in the consolidated balance sheet subject to the provisions of EITF Topic No. D-98, “Classification and Measurement of Redeemable Securities” (“EITF Topic D-98”). SFAS 160 also modifies the presentation of net income by requiring earnings and other comprehensive income to be attributed to controlling and noncontrolling interests. The cumulative impact to the Company’s financial statements as a result of the adoption of SFAS 160 resulted in a $9.2 million reduction to stockholders’

equity, a $5.8 million reduction to deferred tax liabilities and a $15.0 million increase to redeemable noncontrolling interests (formerly referred to as minority interests) as of December 31, 2008. The Company has retrospectively applied SFAS 160 to all prior periods. See Note 8 for a further discussion regarding the Company’s adoption of SFAS 160.

 

Segment and Geographic Data

 

The Company operates in a single operating segment as a wireless communications carrier that offers digital wireless services in the United States. During 2008, the Company introduced two new product offerings to complement its Cricket Wireless service. Cricket Broadband, the Company’s unlimited mobile broadband service, allows customers to access the internet through their computers for a flat monthly rate with no long-term commitment or credit check. Cricket PAYGo^tm is a daily pay-as-you-go unlimited prepaid wireless service. For the three months ended March 31, 2009, revenue for the Cricket Broadband and Cricket PAYGo services approximated 6% of consolidated revenues. As of and for the three months ended March 31, 2009, all of the Company’s revenues and long-lived assets related to operations in the United States.

 

Revenues

 

Cricket’s business revenues principally arise from the sale of wireless services, handsets and accessories. Wireless services are generally provided on a month-to-month basis. In general, new and reactivating customers are required to pay for their service in advance, while customers who first activated their service prior to May 2006 pay in arrears. Because the Company does not require customers to sign fixed-term contracts or pass a credit check, its services are available to a broader customer base than many other wireless providers and, as a result, some of its customers may be more likely to have service terminated due to an inability to pay. Consequently, the Company has concluded that collectibility of its revenues is not reasonably assured until payment has been received. Accordingly, service revenues are recognized only after services have been rendered and payment has been received.

 

When the Company activates a new customer, it frequently sells that customer a handset and the first month of service in a bundled transaction. Under the provisions of Emerging Issues Task Force (“EITF”) Issue No. 00-21, “Revenue Arrangements with Multiple Deliverables” (“EITF 00-21”), the sale of a handset along with a month of wireless service constitutes a multiple element arrangement. Under EITF 00-21, once a company has determined the fair value of the elements in the sales transaction, the total consideration received from the customer must be allocated among those elements on a relative fair value basis. Applying EITF 00-21 to these transactions results in the Company recognizing the total consideration received, less one month of wireless service revenue (at the customer’s stated rate plan), as equipment revenue.

 

Equipment revenues and related costs from the sale of handsets are recognized when service is activated by customers. Revenues and related costs from the sale of accessories are recognized at the point of sale. The costs of handsets and accessories sold are recorded in cost of equipment. In addition to handsets that the Company sells directly to its customers at Cricket-owned stores, the Company also sells handsets to third-party dealers. These dealers then sell the handsets to the ultimate Cricket customer, and that customer also receives the first month of service in a bundled transaction (identical to the sale made at a Cricket-owned store). Sales of handsets to third-party dealers are recognized as equipment revenues only when service is activated by customers, since the level of price reductions ultimately available to such dealers is not reliably estimable until the handsets are sold by such dealers to customers. Thus, handsets sold to third-party dealers are recorded as consigned inventory and deferred equipment revenue until they are sold to, and service is activated by, customers.

 

Through a third-party provider, the Company’s customers may elect to participate in an extended handset warranty/insurance program. The Company recognizes revenue on replacement handsets sold to its customers under the program when the customer purchases a replacement handset.

 

Sales incentives offered without charge to customers and volume-based incentives paid to the Company’s third-party dealers are recognized as a reduction of revenue and as a liability when the related service or equipment revenue is recognized. Customers have limited rights to return handsets and accessories based on time and/or usage, and customer returns of handsets and accessories have historically been negligible.

Amounts billed by the Company in advance of customers’ wireless service periods are not reflected in accounts receivable or deferred revenue since collectibility of such amounts is not reasonably assured. Deferred revenue consists primarily of cash received from customers in advance of their service period and deferred equipment revenue related to handsets sold to third-party dealers.

 

Federal Universal Service Fund and E-911 fees are assessed by various governmental authorities in connection with the services that the Company provides to its customers. The Company reports these fees as well as sales, use and excise taxes that are assessed and collected, net of amounts remitted, in the condensed consolidated statements of operations.

 

Fair Value of Financial Instruments

 

The Company adopted the provisions of SFAS No. 157, “Fair Value Measurements” (“SFAS 157”), which defines fair value for accounting purposes, establishes a framework for measuring fair value and expands disclosure requirements regarding fair value measurements. The Company’s adoption of SFAS 157 for its financial assets and liabilities did not have a material impact on its consolidated financial statements. SFAS 157 defines fair value as an exit price, which is the price that would be received upon sale of an asset or paid upon transfer of a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. The degree of judgment utilized in measuring the fair value of assets and liabilities generally correlates to the level of pricing observability. Assets and liabilities with readily available, actively quoted prices or for which fair value can be measured from actively quoted prices in active markets generally have more pricing observability and require less judgment in measuring fair value. Conversely, assets and liabilities that are rarely traded or not quoted have less pricing observability and are generally measured at fair value using valuation models that require more judgment. These valuation techniques involve some level of management estimation and judgment, the degree of which is dependent on the price transparency of the asset, liability or market and the nature of the asset or liability. The Company has categorized its assets and liabilities measured at fair value into a three-level hierarchy in accordance with SFAS 157. See Note 5 for a further discussion regarding the Company’s measurement of assets and liabilities at fair value.

 

Effective January 1, 2009, the Company adopted SFAS 157 for its non-financial assets and liabilities that are remeasured at fair value on a non-recurring basis. The adoption of SFAS 157 for the Company’s non-financial assets and liabilities that are remeasured at fair value on a non-recurring basis did not have a material impact on its financial condition and results of operations; however, this standard could have a material impact in future periods.

 

Property and Equipment

 

Property and equipment are initially recorded at cost. Additions and improvements are capitalized, while expenditures that do not enhance the asset or extend its useful life are charged to operating expenses as incurred. Depreciation is applied using the straight-line method over the estimated useful lives of the assets once the assets are placed in service.

 

The following table summarizes the depreciable lives for property and equipment (in years):

 

 

The Company’s network construction expenditures are recorded as construction-in-progress until the network or other asset is placed in service, at which time the asset is transferred to the appropriate property or equipment category. The Company capitalizes salaries and related costs of engineering and technical operations employees as

components of construction-in-progress during the construction period to the extent time and expense are contributed to the construction effort. The Company also capitalizes certain telecommunications and other related costs as construction-in-progress during the construction period to the extent they are incremental and directly related to the network under construction. In addition, interest is capitalized on the carrying values of both wireless licenses and equipment during the construction period and is depreciated over an estimated useful life of ten years. During the three months ended March 31, 2009 and 2008, the Company capitalized interest of $12.2 million and $13.0 million, respectively, to property and equipment.

 

In accordance with American Institute of Certified Public Accountants’ Statement of Position (“SOP”) No. 98-1, “Accounting for Costs of Computer Software Developed or Obtained for Internal Use” (“SOP 98-1”), certain costs related to the development of internal use software are capitalized and amortized over the estimated useful life of the software. For the three months ended March 31, 2009 and 2008, the Company capitalized approximately $1.6 million and $4.1 million, respectively, of these costs. The Company amortized software costs of approximately $5.0 million and $4.1 million for the three months ended March 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively.

 

Wireless Licenses

 

The Company, LCW Wireless and Denali operate broadband Personal Communications Services (“PCS”) and Advanced Wireless Services (“AWS”) networks under PCS and AWS wireless licenses granted by the FCC that are specific to a particular geographic area on spectrum that has been allocated by the FCC for such services. Wireless licenses are initially recorded at cost and are not amortized. Although FCC licenses are issued with a stated term (ten years in the case of PCS licenses and fifteen years in the case of AWS licenses), wireless licenses are considered to be indefinite-lived intangible assets because the Company expects its subsidiaries and joint ventures to provide wireless service using the relevant licenses for the foreseeable future, PCS and AWS licenses are routinely renewed for either no or a nominal fee, and management has determined that no legal, regulatory, contractual, competitive, economic or other factors currently exist that limit the useful life of the Company’s or its consolidated joint ventures’ PCS and AWS licenses. On a quarterly basis, the Company evaluates the remaining useful life of its indefinite-lived wireless licenses to determine whether events and circumstances, such as legal, regulatory, contractual, competitive, economic or other factors, continue to support an indefinite useful life. If a wireless license is subsequently determined to have a finite useful life, the Company tests the wireless license for impairment in accordance with SFAS No. 144, “Accounting for the Impairment or Disposal of Long-Lived Assets” (“SFAS 144”), and the wireless license would then be amortized prospectively over its estimated remaining useful life. In addition to its quarterly evaluation of the indefinite useful lives of its wireless licenses, the Company also tests its wireless licenses for impairment in accordance with SFAS No. 142, “Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets” (“SFAS 142”), on an annual basis. As of March 31, 2009 and December 31, 2008, the carrying value of the Company’s and its consolidated joint ventures’ wireless licenses was $1.9 billion and $1.8 billion, respectively. Wireless licenses to be disposed of by sale are carried at the lower of their carrying value or fair value less costs to sell. As of March 31, 2009, no wireless licenses were classified as assets held for sale. As of December 31, 2008, wireless licenses with a carrying value of $45.6 million were classified as assets held for sale, as more fully described in Note 7.

 

Portions of the AWS spectrum that the Company and Denali Spectrum License Sub, LLC (“Denali License Sub”) (an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Denali) hold are currently used by U.S. federal government and/or incumbent commercial licensees. FCC rules require winning bidders to avoid interfering with these existing users or to clear the incumbent users from the spectrum through specified relocation procedures. The Company’s and Denali’s spectrum clearing costs are capitalized to wireless licenses as incurred. During the three months ended March 31, 2009 and 2008, the Company and Denali incurred approximately $2.5 million and $0.9 million, respectively, in spectrum clearing costs.

Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities

 

The Company has entered into interest rate swap agreements with respect to $355 million of its indebtedness. These interest rate swap agreements effectively fix the London Interbank Offered Rate (“LIBOR”) interest rate on $150 million of indebtedness at 8.3% and $105 million of indebtedness at 7.3% through June 2009 and $100 million of indebtedness at 8.0% through September 2010. The swap agreements were in a liability position as of March 31, 2009 and December 31, 2008 and had a fair value of $8.1 million and $11.0 million, respectively, on such dates. The Company enters into these derivative contracts to manage its exposure to interest rate changes by achieving a desired proportion of fixed rate versus variable rate debt. The Company does not use derivative instruments for trading or other speculative purposes.

 

The Company records all derivatives in other assets or other liabilities on its condensed consolidated balance sheets at fair value. If the derivative is designated as a cash flow hedge and the hedging relationship qualifies for hedge accounting, the effective portion of the change in fair value of the derivative is recorded in other comprehensive income (loss) and is recorded as interest expense when the hedged debt affects interest expense. The ineffective portion of the change in fair value of the derivative qualifying for hedge accounting and changes in the fair values of derivative instruments not qualifying for hedge accounting are recognized in interest expense in the period of the change.

 

At inception of the hedge and quarterly thereafter, the Company performs a quantitative and qualitative assessment to determine whether changes in the fair values or cash flows of the derivatives are deemed highly effective in offsetting changes in the fair values or cash flows of the hedged items. If at any time subsequent to the inception of the hedge, the correlation assessment indicates that the derivative is no longer highly effective as a hedge, the Company discontinues hedge accounting and recognizes all subsequent derivative gains and losses in results of operations.

 

As a result of the amendment to the Company’s senior secured credit agreement (the “Credit Agreement”) in June 2008, which among other things introduced a LIBOR floor of 3.0% per annum, the Company de-designated its existing interest rate swap agreements as cash flow hedges and discontinued its hedge accounting for these interest rate swaps during the second quarter of 2008. The loss accumulated in other comprehensive income (loss) on the date the Company discontinued its hedge accounting is amortized to interest expense, using the swaplet method, over the remaining term of the respective interest rate swap agreements. In addition, changes in the fair value of these interest rate swaps are recorded as a component of interest expense. During the three months ended March 31, 2009, the Company recognized a net decrease to interest expense of $1.7 million related to these items.

 

Investments in Other Entities

 

The Company uses the equity method to account for investments in common stock of corporations in which it has a voting interest of between 20% and 50% or in which the Company otherwise has the ability to exercise significant influence, and in limited liability companies that maintain specific ownership accounts in which it has more than a minor but not greater than a 50% ownership interest. Under the equity method, the investment is originally recorded at cost and is adjusted to recognize the Company’s share of net earnings or losses of the investee. The carrying value of the Company’s equity method investee, in which it owned approximately 20% of the outstanding membership units, was $18.9 million and $17.4 million as of March 31, 2009 and December 31, 2008, respectively. During the three months ended March 31, 2009, the Company’s share of its equity method investee income was $1.5 million. During the three months ended March 31, 2008, the Company’s share of its equity method investee losses was $1.1 million.

 

The Company regularly monitors and evaluates the realizable value of its investments. When assessing an investment for an other-than-temporary decline in value, the Company considers such factors as, among other things, the performance of the investee in relation to its business plan, the investee’s revenue and cost trends, liquidity and cash position, market acceptance of the investee’s products or services, any significant news that has been released regarding the investee and the outlook for the overall industry in which the investee operates. If events and circumstances indicate that a decline in the value of these assets has occurred and is other-than-temporary, the Company records a reduction to the carrying value of its investment and a corresponding charge to the consolidated statements of operations.

Concentrations

 

The Company generally relies on one key vendor for billing services, one key vendor for handset logistics, one key vendor for a majority of its voice and data communications transport services and a limited number of vendors for payment processing services. Loss or disruption of these services could materially adversely affect the Company’s business.

 

The Company does not have a national network, and it must pay fees to other carriers who provide it with roaming services which allow the Company’s customers to roam on such carriers’ networks. Currently, the Company relies on roaming agreements with several other carriers for a majority of its roaming needs. If it were unable to cost-effectively provide roaming services to customers in geographically desirable service areas, the Company’s competitive position, business, financial condition and results of operations could be materially adversely affected.

 

Share-Based Compensation

 

The Company accounts for share-based awards exchanged for employee services in accordance with SFAS No. 123(R), “Share-Based Payment” (“SFAS 123(R)”). Under SFAS 123(R), share-based compensation expense is measured at the grant date, based on the estimated fair value of the award, and is recognized as expense, net of estimated forfeitures, over the employee’s requisite service period.

 

Total share-based compensation expense related to all of the Company’s share-based awards for the three months ended March 31, 2009 and 2008 was allocated to the condensed consolidated statements of operations as follows (in thousands, except per share data):

 

 

Income Taxes

 

The computation of the Company’s annual effective tax rate includes a forecast of the Company’s estimated “ordinary” income (loss), which is its annual income (loss) from continuing operations before tax, excluding unusual or infrequently occurring (discrete) items. Significant management judgment is required in projecting the Company’s ordinary income (loss). The Company’s projected ordinary income tax expense for the full year 2009, which excludes the effect of discrete items, consists primarily of the deferred tax effect of the amortization of wireless licenses and goodwill for income tax purposes. Because the Company’s projected 2009 income tax expense is a relatively fixed amount, a small change in the ordinary income (loss) projection can produce a significant variance in the effective tax rate, and therefore it is difficult to make a reliable estimate of the annual effective tax rate. As a result and in accordance with paragraph 82 of FIN 18, “Accounting for Income Taxes in Interim Periods — an interpretation of APB Opinion No. 28” (“FIN 18”), the Company has computed its provision for income taxes for the three months ended March 31, 2009 and 2008 by applying the actual effective tax rate to the year-to-date income.

 

The Company calculates income taxes in each of the jurisdictions in which it operates. This process involves calculating the actual current tax expense and any deferred income tax expense resulting from temporary differences arising from differing treatments of items for tax and accounting purposes. These temporary

differences result in deferred tax assets and liabilities. Deferred tax assets are also established for the expected future tax benefits to be derived from net operating loss (“NOL”) carryforwards, capital loss carryforwards and income tax credits.

 

The Company must then periodically assess the likelihood that its deferred tax assets will be recovered from future taxable income, which assessment requires significant judgment. Included in the Company’s deferred tax assets at March 31, 2009 were federal NOL carryforwards of approximately $1,065.2 million (which will begin to expire in 2022) and state NOL carryforwards of approximately $1,103.2 million ($32.2 million of which will expire at the end of 2009), which could be used to offset future ordinary taxable income and reduce the amount of cash required to settle future tax liabilities. To the extent the Company believes it is more likely than not that its deferred tax assets will not be recovered, it must establish a valuation allowance. As part of this periodic assessment for the three months ended March 31, 2009, the Company weighed the positive and negative factors with respect to this determination and, at this time, does not believe there is sufficient positive evidence and sustained operating earnings to support a conclusion that it is more likely than not that all or a portion of its deferred tax assets will be realized, except with respect to the realization of a $2.4 million Texas Margins Tax credit. The Company will continue to closely monitor the positive and negative factors to assess whether the Company is required to continue to maintain a valuation allowance. At such time as the Company determines that it is more likely than not that all or a portion of the deferred tax assets are realizable, the valuation allowance will be reduced or released in its entirety, with the corresponding benefit reflected in the Company’s tax provision. Deferred tax liabilities associated with wireless licenses, tax goodwill and investments in certain joint ventures cannot be considered a source of taxable income to support the realization of deferred tax assets because these deferred tax liabilities will not reverse until some indefinite future period.

 

In accordance with SFAS No. 141 (revised 2007), “Business Combinations” (“SFAS 141(R)”), which became effective for the Company on January 1, 2009, any reduction in the valuation allowance, including the valuation allowance established in fresh-start reporting, will be accounted for as a reduction of income tax expense.

 

The Company’s unrecognized income tax benefits and uncertain tax positions have not been material in any period. Interest and penalties related to uncertain tax positions are recognized by the Company as a component of income tax expense; however, such amounts have not been material in any period. All of the Company’s tax years from 1998 to 2008 remain open to examination by federal and state taxing authorities. The Company’s 2005 tax year is currently under federal examination, the results of which are not expected to have a material impact on the consolidated financial statements.

 

Comprehensive Loss

 

Comprehensive loss consisted of the following (in thousands):

 

 

Components of accumulated other comprehensive loss consisted of the following (in thousands):

 

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

 

In April 2009, the FASB issued three related Staff Positions (“FSP”), which will be effective for interim and annual periods ending after June 15, 2009: (i) FSP No. SFAS 157-4, “Determining Fair Value When the Volume and Level of Activity for the Asset or Liability have Significantly Decreased and Identifying Transactions That Are Not Orderly” (“FSP SFAS 157-4”), (ii) FSP No. SFAS 115-2 and SFAS 124-2, “Recognition and Presentation of Other-Than-Temporary Impairments” (“FSP SFAS 115-2 and SFAS 124-2”) and (iii) FSP No. SFAS 107-1 and APB 28-1, “Interim Disclosures about Fair Value of Financial Instruments” (“FSP SFAS 107-1 and APB 28-1”). FSP SFAS 157-4 provides guidance on how to determine the fair value of assets and liabilities under SFAS 157 in the current economic environment and reemphasizes that an exit price is the appropriate basis for fair value measurements; however, if the Company were to conclude that there had been a significant decrease in the volume and level of activity of the asset or liability in relation to normal market activities, FSP SFAS 157-4 indicates that quoted market values may not be representative of fair value and the Company may conclude that a change in valuation technique or the use of multiple valuation techniques may be appropriate. FSP SFAS 115-2 and SFAS 124-2 modifies the requirements for recognizing other-than-temporarily impaired debt securities and revises the existing impairment model for such securities by modifying the current “intent” and “ability” indicator in determining whether a debt security is other-than-temporarily impaired. FSP SFAS 107-1 and APB 28-1 enhances disclosure requirements for instruments under the scope of SFAS 157 for both interim and annual periods. The Company is currently evaluating what impact, if any, these FSPs will have on its consolidated financial statements.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Basic earnings (loss) per share is computed by dividing net income (loss) by the weighted-average number of common shares outstanding during the period. Diluted earnings per share is computed by dividing net income by the sum of the weighted-average number of common shares outstanding during the period and the weighted-average number of dilutive common share equivalents outstanding during the period, using the treasury stock method and the if-converted method, where applicable. Dilutive common share equivalents are comprised of stock options, restricted stock awards, employee stock purchase rights and convertible senior notes.

 

Since the Company incurred losses for the three months ended March 31, 2009 and 2008, 9.0 million and 5.2 million common share equivalents were excluded in the computation of diluted earnings (loss) per share for those periods, respectively, as their effect would be antidilutive.

 

 

The Company has categorized its assets and liabilities measured at fair value into a three-level hierarchy in accordance with SFAS 157. Assets and liabilities measured at fair value using quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities are generally categorized as Level 1; assets and liabilities measured at fair value using observable market-based inputs or unobservable inputs that are corroborated by market data for similar assets or liabilities are generally categorized as Level 2; and assets and liabilities measured at fair value using unobservable inputs that cannot be corroborated by market data are generally categorized as Level 3. The lowest level input that is significant to the fair value measurement of an asset or liability is used to categorize that asset or liability, as determined in the judgment of management. Assets and liabilities presented at fair value in the Company’s condensed consolidated balance sheets are generally categorized as follows:

 

 

The following table sets forth by level within the fair value hierarchy the Company’s assets and liabilities that were recorded at fair value as of March 31, 2009 and December 31, 2008. As required by SFAS 157, financial assets and liabilities are classified in their entirety based on the lowest level of input that is significant to the fair value measurement. Thus, assets and liabilities categorized as Level 3 may be measured at fair value using inputs that are observable (Levels 1 and 2) and unobservable (Level 3). Management’s assessment of the significance of a particular input to the fair value measurement requires judgment and may affect the valuation of assets and liabilities and their placement within the fair value hierarchy levels (in thousands):

 

 

The following table provides a summary of the changes in the fair value of the Company’s Level 3 assets (in thousands):

 

 

The unrealized gains included in comprehensive income in the table above are presented in accumulated other comprehensive loss in the condensed consolidated balance sheets. The realized losses included in net loss in the table above are presented in other expense, net in the condensed consolidated statements of operations.

 

Cash Equivalents and Short-Term Investments

 

As of March 31, 2009 and December 31, 2008, all of the Company’s short-term investments were debt securities with contractual maturities of less than one year and were classified as available-for-sale. The fair value of the Company’s cash equivalents, short-term investments in obligations of the U.S. government and a majority of its short-term investments in commercial paper is determined using observable market-based inputs for similar assets, which primarily include yield curves and time to maturity factors. Such investments are therefore considered to be Level 2 items. The fair value of the Company’s investment in asset-backed commercial paper is determined using primarily unobservable inputs that cannot be corroborated by market data, which primarily include ABX and monoline indices and a valuation model that considers a liquidity factor that is subjective in nature, and is therefore considered to be a Level 3 item.

 

Interest Rate Swaps

 

As more fully described in Note 2, the Company’s interest rate swaps effectively fix the LIBOR interest rate (subject to the LIBOR floor of 3.0% per annum, as more fully described in Note 6) on a portion of its floating rate debt. The fair value of the Company’s interest rate swaps is primarily determined using LIBOR spreads, which are significant observable inputs that can be corroborated, and therefore such swaps are considered to be Level 2 items. SFAS 157 states that the fair value measurement of a liability must reflect the nonperformance risk of the entity. Therefore, the impact of the Company’s creditworthiness has been considered in the fair value measurement of the interest rate swaps.

 

Long-Term Debt

 

The Company continues to report its long-term debt obligations at amortized cost; however, for disclosure purposes, the Company is required to measure the fair value of outstanding debt on a recurring basis. The fair value of the Company’s outstanding long-term debt is determined using quoted prices in active markets and was $2,392.1 million and $2,201.2 million as of March 31, 2009 and December 31, 2008, respectively.

 

Long-term debt as of March 31, 2009 and December 31, 2008 was comprised of the following (in thousands):

 

 

Senior Secured Credit Facilities

 

Cricket Communications

 

The senior secured credit facility under the Company’s Credit Agreement consists of a six-year $895.5 million term loan and a $200 million revolving credit facility. As of March 31, 2009, the outstanding indebtedness under the term loan was $875.3 million. Outstanding borrowings under the term loan must be repaid in 22 quarterly payments of $2.25 million each (which commenced on March 31, 2007) followed by four quarterly payments of $211.5 million (which commence on September 30, 2012).

 

As of March 31, 2009, the interest rate on the term loan was LIBOR plus 3.50% (subject to a LIBOR floor of 3.0% per annum) or the bank base rate plus 2.50%, as selected by Cricket. At March 31, 2009, the effective interest rate on the term loan was 6.4%, including the effect of interest rate swaps, as more fully described in Note 2. The terms of the Credit Agreement require the Company to enter into interest rate swap agreements in a sufficient amount so that at least 50% of the Company’s outstanding indebtedness for borrowed money bears interest at a fixed rate. The Company was in compliance with this requirement as of March 31, 2009.

 

Outstanding borrowings under the revolving credit facility, to the extent that there are any borrowings, are due in June 2011. As of March 31, 2009, the revolving credit facility was undrawn; however, approximately $0.5 million of letters of credit were issued under the Credit Agreement and were considered as usage of the revolving credit facility, as more fully described in Note 9. The commitment of the lenders under the revolving credit facility may be reduced in the event mandatory prepayments are required under the Credit Agreement. The commitment fee on the revolving credit facility is payable quarterly at a rate of between 0.25% and 0.50% per annum, depending on the Company’s consolidated senior secured leverage ratio, and the rate is currently 0.25%. As of March 31, 2009, borrowings under the revolving credit facility would have accrued interest at LIBOR plus 3.25% (subject to the LIBOR floor of 3.0% per annum), or the bank base rate plus 2.25%, as selected by Cricket.

 

The facilities under the Credit Agreement are guaranteed by Leap and all of its direct and indirect domestic subsidiaries (other than Cricket, which is the primary obligor, and LCW Wireless and Denali and their respective subsidiaries) and are secured by substantially all of the present and future personal property and owned real property of Leap, Cricket and such direct and indirect domestic subsidiaries. Under the Credit Agreement, the Company is subject to certain limitations, including limitations on its ability to: incur additional debt or sell assets, with restrictions on the use of proceeds; make certain investments and acquisitions; grant liens; pay dividends; and make certain other restricted payments. In addition, the Company will be required to pay down the facilities under certain circumstances if it issues debt, sells assets or property, receives certain extraordinary receipts or generates excess cash flow (as defined in the Credit Agreement). The Company is also subject to a financial covenant with respect to a maximum consolidated senior secured leverage ratio and, if a revolving credit loan or uncollateralized letter of credit is outstanding or requested, with respect to a minimum consolidated interest coverage ratio, a maximum consolidated leverage ratio and a minimum consolidated fixed charge coverage ratio. In addition to investments in the Denali joint venture, the Credit Agreement allows the Company to invest up to $85 million in LCW Wireless and

its subsidiaries and up to $150 million, plus an amount equal to an available cash flow basket, in other joint ventures, and allows the Company to provide limited guarantees for the benefit of Denali, LCW Wireless and other joint ventures. The Company was in compliance with these covenants as of March 31, 2009.

 

The Credit Agreement also prohibits the occurrence of a “change of control,” which includes the acquisition of beneficial ownership of 35% or more of Leap’s equity securities, a change in a majority of the members of Leap’s board of directors that is not approved by the board and the occurrence of a “change of control” under any of the Company’s other credit instruments.

 

LCW Operations

 

LCW Operations has a senior secured credit agreement consisting of two term loans for $40 million in the aggregate. The loans bear interest at LIBOR plus the applicable margin ranging from 2.70% to 6.33%. At March 31, 2009, the effective interest rate on the term loans was 5.0%, and the outstanding indebtedness was $37.1 million. LCW Operations has entered into an interest rate cap agreement which effectively caps the three month LIBOR interest rate at 7.0% on $20 million of its outstanding borrowings through October 2011. The obligations under the loans are guaranteed by LCW Wireless and LCW Wireless License, LLC (a wholly owned subsidiary of LCW Operations) and are non-recourse to Leap, Cricket and their other subsidiaries. The obligations under the loans are secured by substantially all of the present and future assets of LCW Wireless and its subsidiaries. Outstanding borrowings under the term loans must be repaid in varying quarterly installments, which commenced in June 2008, with an aggregate final payment of $24.1 million due in June 2011. Under the senior secured credit agreement, LCW Operations and the guarantors are subject to certain limitations, including limitations on their ability to: incur additional debt or sell assets, with restrictions on the use of proceeds; make certain investments and acquisitions; grant liens; pay dividends; and make certain other restricted payments. In addition, LCW Operations will be required to pay down the facilities under certain circumstances if it or the guarantors issue debt, sell assets or generate excess cash flow. The senior secured credit agreement requires that LCW Operations and the guarantors comply with financial covenants related to earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (“EBITDA”), gross additions of subscribers, minimum cash and cash equivalents and maximum capital expenditures, among other things. LCW Operations was in compliance with these covenants as of March 31, 2009.

 

Senior Notes

 

Senior Notes Due 2014

 

In 2006, Cricket issued $750 million of 9.375% unsecured senior notes due 2014 in a private placement to institutional buyers, which were exchanged in 2007 for identical notes that had been registered with the SEC. In June 2007, Cricket issued an additional $350 million of 9.375% unsecured senior notes due 2014 in a private placement to institutional buyers at an issue price of 106% of the principal amount, which were exchanged in June 2008 for identical notes that had been registered with the SEC. These notes are all treated as a single class and have identical terms. The $21 million premium the Company received in connection with the issuance of the second tranche of notes has been recorded in long-term debt in the condensed consolidated financial statements and is being amortized as a reduction to interest expense over the term of the notes. At March 31, 2009, the effective interest rate on the $350 million of senior notes was 8.7%, which includes the effect of the premium amortization.

 

The notes bear interest at the rate of 9.375% per year, payable semi-annually in cash in arrears, which interest payments commenced in May 2007. The notes are guaranteed on an unsecured senior basis by Leap and each of its existing and future domestic subsidiaries (other than Cricket, which is the issuer of the notes, and LCW Wireless and Denali and their respective subsidiaries) that guarantee indebtedness for money borrowed of Leap, Cricket or any subsidiary guarantor. The notes and the guarantees are Leap’s, Cricket’s and the guarantors’ general senior unsecured obligations and rank equally in right of payment with all of Leap’s, Cricket’s and the guarantors’ existing and future unsubordinated unsecured indebtedness. The notes and the guarantees are effectively junior to Leap’s, Cricket’s and the guarantors’ existing and future secured obligations, including those under the Credit Agreement, to the extent of the value of the assets securing such obligations, as well as to future liabilities of Leap’s and Cricket’s subsidiaries that are not guarantors, and of LCW Wireless and Denali and their respective subsidiaries. In

addition, the notes and the guarantees are senior in right of payment to any of Leap’s, Cricket’s and the guarantors’ future subordinated indebtedness.

 

Prior to November 1, 2009, Cricket may redeem up to 35% of the aggregate principal amount of the notes at a redemption price of 109.375% of the principal amount thereof, plus accrued and unpaid interest and additional interest, if any, thereon to the redemption date, from the net cash proceeds of specified equity offerings. Prior to November 1, 2010, Cricket may redeem the notes, in whole or in part, at a redemption price equal to 100% of the principal amount thereof plus the applicable premium and any accrued and unpaid interest, if any, thereon to the redemption date. The applicable premium is calculated as the greater of (i) 1.0% of the principal amount of such notes and (ii) the excess of (a) the present value at such date of redemption of (1) the redemption price of such notes at November 1, 2010 plus (2) all remaining required interest payments due on such notes through November 1, 2010 (excluding accrued but unpaid interest to the date of redemption), computed using a discount rate equal to the Treasury Rate plus 50 basis points, over (b) the principal amount of such notes. The notes may be redeemed, in whole or in part, at any time on or after November 1, 2010, at a redemption price of 104.688% and 102.344% of the principal amount thereof if redeemed during the twelve months ending October 31, 2011 and 2012, respectively, or at 100% of the principal amount if redeemed during the twelve months ending October 31, 2013 or thereafter, plus accrued and unpaid interest, if any, thereon to the redemption date.

 

If a “change of control” occurs (which includes the acquisition of beneficial ownership of 35% or more of Leap’s equity securities, a sale of all or substantially all of the assets of Leap and its restricted subsidiaries and a change in a majority of the members of Leap’s board of directors that is not approved by the board), each holder of the notes may require Cricket to repurchase all of such holder’s notes at a purchase price equal to 101% of the principal amount of the notes, plus accrued and unpaid interest, if any, thereon to the repurchase date.

 

Convertible Senior Notes Due 2014

 

In June 2008, Leap issued $250 million of unsecured convertible senior notes due 2014 in a private placement to institutional buyers. The notes bear interest at the rate of 4.50% per year, payable semi-annually in cash in arrears, which interest payments commenced in January 2009. The notes are Leap’s general unsecured obligations and rank equally in right of payment with all of Leap’s existing and future senior unsecured indebtedness and senior in right of payment to all indebtedness that is contractually subordinated to the notes. The notes are structurally subordinated to the existing and future claims of Leap’s subsidiaries’ creditors, including under the Credit Agreement and the senior notes described above and below. The notes are effectively junior to all of Leap’s existing and future secured obligations, including those under the Credit Agreement, to the extent of the value of the assets securing such obligations.

 

Holders may convert their notes into shares of Leap common stock at any time on or prior to the third scheduled trading day prior to the maturity date of the notes, July 15, 2014. If, at the time of conversion, the applicable stock price of Leap common stock is less than or equal to approximately $93.21 per share, the notes will be convertible into 10.7290 shares of Leap common stock per $1,000 principal amount of the notes (referred to as the “base conversion rate”), subject to adjustment upon the occurrence of certain events. If, at the time of conversion, the applicable stock price of Leap common stock exceeds approximately $93.21 per share, the conversion rate will be determined pursuant to a formula based on the base conversion rate and an incremental share factor of 8.3150 shares per $1,000 principal amount of the notes, subject to adjustment.

 

Leap may be required to repurchase all outstanding notes in cash at a repurchase price of 100% of the principal amount of the notes, plus accrued and unpaid interest, if any, thereon to the repurchase date if (1) any person acquires beneficial ownership, directly or indirectly, of shares of Leap’s capital stock that would entitle the person to exercise 50% or more of the total voting power of all of Leap’s capital stock entitled to vote in the election of directors, (2) Leap (i) merges or consolidates with or into any other person, another person merges with or into Leap, or Leap conveys, sells, transfers or leases all or substantially all of its assets to another person or (ii) engages in any recapitalization, reclassification or other transaction in which all or substantially all of Leap’s common stock is exchanged for or converted into cash, securities or other property, in each case subject to limitations and excluding in the case of (1) and (2) any merger or consolidation where at least 90% of the consideration consists of shares of common stock traded on NYSE, ASE or NASDAQ, (3) a majority of the members of Leap’s board of directors

ceases to consist of individuals who were directors on the date of original issuance of the notes or whose election or nomination for election was previously approved by the board of directors, (4) Leap is liquidated or dissolved or holders of common stock approve any plan or proposal for its liquidation or dissolution or (5) shares of Leap common stock are not listed for trading on any of the New York Stock Exchange, the NASDAQ Global Market or the NASDAQ Global Select Market (or any of their respective successors). Leap may not redeem the notes at its option.

 

In connection with the private placement of the convertible senior notes, the Company entered into a registration rights agreement with the initial purchasers of the notes in which the Company agreed, under certain circumstances, to use commercially reasonable efforts to cause a shelf registration statement covering the resale of the notes and the common stock issuable upon conversion of the notes to be declared effective by the SEC and to pay additional interest if such registration obligations are not performed. In the event that the Company does not comply with such obligations, the agreement provides that additional interest will accrue on the principal amount of the notes at a rate of 0.25% per annum during the 90-day period immediately following a registration default and will increase to 0.50% per annum beginning on the 91st day of the registration default until all such defaults have been cured. There are no other alternative settlement methods and, other than the 0.50% per annum maximum penalty rate, the agreement contains no limit on the maximum potential amount of penalty interest that could be paid in the event the Company does not meet these requirements. However, the Company’s obligation to file, have declared effective or maintain the effectiveness of a shelf registration statement (and pay additional interest) is suspended to the extent and during the periods that the notes are eligible to be transferred without registration under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”) by a person who is not an affiliate of the Company (and has not been an affiliate for the 90 days preceding such transfer) pursuant to Rule 144 under the Securities Act without any volume or manner of sale restrictions. The Company did not issue any of the convertible senior notes to any of its affiliates. As a result, the Company currently expects that prior to the time by which the Company would be required to file and have declared effective a shelf registration statement covering the resale of the convertible senior notes that the notes will be eligible to be transferred without registration pursuant to Rule 144 without any volume or manner of sale restrictions. Accordingly, the Company does not believe that the payment of additional interest is probable, and therefore no related liability has been recorded in the condensed consolidated financial statements.

 

Senior Notes Due 2015

 

In June 2008, Cricket issued $300 million of 10.0% unsecured senior notes due 2015 in a private placement to institutional buyers. The notes bear interest at the rate of 10.0% per year, payable semi-annually in cash in arrears, which interest payments commenced in January 2009. The notes are guaranteed on an unsecured senior basis by Leap and each of its existing and future domestic subsidiaries (other than Cricket, which is the issuer of the notes, and LCW Wireless and Denali and their respective subsidiaries) that guarantee indebtedness for money borrowed of Leap, Cricket or any subsidiary guarantor. The notes and the guarantees are Leap’s, Cricket’s and the guarantors’ general senior unsecured obligations and rank equally in right of payment with all of Leap’s, Cricket’s and the guarantors’ existing and future unsubordinated unsecured indebtedness. The notes and the guarantees are effectively junior to Leap’s, Cricket’s and the guarantors’ existing and future secured obligations, including those under the Credit Agreement, to the extent of the value of the assets securing such obligations, as well as to future liabilities of Leap’s and Cricket’s subsidiaries that are not guarantors, and of LCW Wireless and Denali and their respective subsidiaries. In addition, the notes and the guarantees are senior in right of payment to any of Leap’s, Cricket’s and the guarantors’ future subordinated indebtedness.

 

Prior to July 15, 2011, Cricket may redeem up to 35% of the aggregate principal amount of the notes at a redemption price of 110.0% of the principal amount thereof, plus accrued and unpaid interest and additional interest, if any, thereon to the redemption date, from the net cash proceeds of specified equity offerings. Prior to July 15, 2012, Cricket may redeem the notes, in whole or in part, at a redemption price equal to 100% of the principal amount thereof plus the applicable premium and any accrued and unpaid interest, if any, thereon to the redemption date. The applicable premium is calculated as the greater of (i) 1.0% of the principal amount of such notes and (ii) the excess of (a) the present value at such date of redemption of (1) the redemption price of such notes at July 15, 2012 plus (2) all remaining required interest payments due on such notes through July 15, 2012 (excluding accrued but unpaid interest to the date of redemption), computed using a discount rate equal to the

Treasury Rate plus 50 basis points, over (b) the principal amount of such notes. The notes may be redeemed, in whole or in part, at any time on or after July 15, 2012, at a redemption price of 105.0% and 102.5% of the principal amount thereof if redeemed during the twelve months ending July 15, 2013 and 2014, respectively, or at 100% of the principal amount if redeemed during the twelve months ending July 15, 2015, plus accrued and unpaid interest, if any, thereon to the redemption date.

 

If a “change of control” occurs (which includes the acquisition of beneficial ownership of 35% or more of Leap’s equity securities, a sale of all or substantially all of the assets of Leap and its restricted subsidiaries and a change in a majority of the members of Leap’s board of directors that is not approved by the board), each holder of the notes may require Cricket to repurchase all of such holder’s notes at a purchase price equal to 101% of the principal amount of the notes, plus accrued and unpaid interest, if any, thereon to the repurchase date.

 

In connection with the private placement of these senior notes, the Company entered into a registration rights agreement with the initial purchasers of the notes in which the Company agreed, under certain circumstances, to use its reasonable best efforts to offer registered notes in exchange for the notes or to cause a shelf registration statement covering the resale of the notes to be declared effective by the SEC and to pay additional interest if such registration obligations are not performed. In the event that the Company does not comply with such obligations, the agreement provides that additional interest will accrue on the principal amount of the notes at a rate of 0.50% per annum during the 90-day period immediately following a registration default and will increase by 0.50% per annum at the end of each subsequent 90-day period until all such defaults are cured, but in no event will the penalty rate exceed 1.50% per annum. There are no other alternative settlement methods and, other than the 1.50% per annum maximum penalty rate, the agreement contains no limit on the maximum potential amount of penalty interest that could be paid in the event the Company does not meet these requirements. However, the Company’s obligation to file, have declared effective or maintain the effectiveness of a registration statement for an exchange offer or a shelf registration statement (and pay additional interest) is only triggered to the extent that the notes are not eligible to be transferred without registration under the Securities Act by a person who is not an affiliate of the Company (and has not been an affiliate for the 90 days preceding such transfer) pursuant to Rule 144 under the Securities Act without any volume or manner of sale restrictions. The Company did not issue any of the senior notes to any of its affiliates. As a result, the Company currently expects that prior to the time by which the Company would be required to file and have declared effective a registration statement for an exchange offer or a shelf registration statement covering the senior notes that the notes will be eligible to be transferred without registration pursuant to Rule 144 without any volume or manner of sale restrictions. Accordingly, the Company does not believe that the payment of additional interest is probable, and therefore no related liability has been recorded in the condensed consolidated financial statements.

 

 

On March 4, 2009, the Company completed its exchange of certain wireless spectrum with MetroPCS Communications, Inc. (“MetroPCS”). Under the spectrum exchange agreement, the Company acquired an additional 10 MHz of spectrum in San Diego, Fresno, Seattle and certain other Washington and Oregon markets, and MetroPCS acquired an additional 10 MHz of spectrum in Dallas-Ft. Worth, Shreveport-Bossier City, Lakeland-Winter Haven, Florida and certain other northern Texas markets. The carrying values of the wireless licenses transferred to MetroPCS under the spectrum exchange agreement were $45.6 million, and the Company recognized a net gain of approximately $4.4 million upon the closing of the transaction.

 

 

The Company consolidates its interests in LCW Wireless and Denali in accordance with FIN 46(R) because these entities are variable interest entities and the Company will absorb a majority of their expected losses. LCW Wireless and Denali are non-guarantor subsidiaries and the carrying amount and classification of their assets and liabilities are presented in Note 10. Both entities offer (through wholly owned subsidiaries) Cricket service and, accordingly, are generally subject to the same risks in conducting operations as the Company.

 

On January 1, 2009, the Company adopted the provisions of SFAS 160. SFAS 160 changes the accounting treatment and classification with respect to certain ownership interests held in LCW Wireless and Denali. As a

result of the adoption of SFAS 160, the Company has not allocated losses to certain of its minority partners, but rather has recorded accretion (or mark-to-market) charges to bring its minority partners’ interests to their estimated redemption values at each reporting period. In addition, the Company now classifies these accretion charges as a component of consolidated net income (loss) available to its common stockholders rather than as a component of net income (loss). Although the accounting treatment for certain of these interests has been modified, the Company continues to classify these noncontrolling interests in the mezzanine section of the consolidated balance sheets in accordance with EITF Topic D-98. The cumulative impact to the Company’s condensed consolidated financial statements as a result of the adoption of SFAS 160 resulted in a $9.2 million reduction to stockholders equity, a $5.8 million reduction to deferred tax liabilities and a $15.0 million increase to redeemable noncontrolling interests (formerly referred to as minority interests) as of December 31, 2008. The Company has retrospectively applied SFAS 160 to all prior periods.

 

Arrangements with LCW Wireless

 

The membership interests in LCW Wireless are held as follows: Cricket holds a 73.3% non-controlling membership interest; CSM Wireless, LLC (“CSM”) holds a 24.7% non-controlling membership interest; and WLPCS Management, LLC (“WLPCS”) holds a 2% controlling membership interest. As of March 31, 2009, Cricket’s equity contributions to LCW totaled $51.8 million.

 

Limited Liability Company Agreement

 

Under the amended and restated limited liability company agreement of LCW Wireless, LLC (“LCW LLC Agreement”), WLPCS has the option to put its entire equity interest in LCW Wireless to Cricket for a purchase price not to exceed $3.8 million during a 30-day period commencing on the earlier to occur of August 9, 2010 and the date of a sale of all or substantially all of the assets, or the liquidation, of LCW Wireless. If the put option is exercised, the consummation of this sale will be subject to FCC approval. The Company has recorded this obligation to WLPCS, including related accretion charges using the effective interest method, as a component of redeemable noncontrolling interests in the condensed consolidated balance sheets. As of March 31, 2009 and December 31, 2008, these noncontrolling interests had a carrying value of $2.7 million and $2.6 million, respectively.

 

Under the LCW LLC Agreement, CSM also has the option, during specified periods, to put its entire equity interest in LCW Wireless to Cricket in exchange for either cash, Leap common stock, or a combination thereof, as determined by Cricket at its discretion, for a purchase price calculated on a pro rata basis using either the appraised value of LCW Wireless or a multiple of Leap’s enterprise value divided by its EBITDA and applied to LCW Wireless’ adjusted EBITDA to impute an enterprise value and equity value to LCW Wireless. The Company has recorded this obligation to CSM, including related accretion charges to bring the underlying membership units to their estimated redemption value, as a component of redeemable noncontrolling interests in the condensed consolidated balance sheets. As of March 31, 2009 and December 31, 2008, these noncontrolling interests had a carrying value of $27.8 million and $26.0 million, respectively.

 

Management Agreement

 

Cricket and LCW Wireless are party to a management services agreement, pursuant to which LCW Wireless has the right to obtain management services from Cricket in exchange for a monthly management fee based on Cricket’s costs of providing such services plus a mark-up for administrative overhead.

 

Other

 

LCW Wireless’ working capital requirements have been satisfied to date through the members’ initial equity contributions, third party debt financing and cash provided by operating activities. Leap, Cricket and their wholly owned subsidiaries are not required to provide financial support to LCW Wireless.

Arrangements with Denali

 

Cricket and Denali Spectrum Manager, LLC (“DSM”) formed Denali as a joint venture to participate (through a wholly owned subsidiary) in FCC Auction #66. Cricket owns an 82.5% non-controlling membership interest and DSM owns a 17.5% controlling membership interest in Denali. As of March 31, 2009, Cricket’s equity contributions to Denali totaled $83.6 million.

 

Limited Liability Company Agreement

 

Under the amended and restated limited liability company agreement of Denali, DSM may offer to sell its entire membership interest in Denali to Cricket in April 2012 and each year thereafter for a purchase price equal to DSM’s equity contributions in cash to Denali, plus a specified return, payable in cash. If exercised, the consummation of the sale will be subject to FCC approval. The Company has recorded this obligation to DSM, including related accretion charges using the effective interest method, as a component of redeemable noncontrolling interests in the condensed consolidated balance sheets. As of March 31, 2009 and December 31, 2008, these noncontrolling interests had a carrying value of $44.3 million and $43.3 million, respectively.

 

Senior Secured Credit Agreement

 

Cricket entered into a senior secured credit agreement with Denali and its subsidiaries to fund the payment to the FCC for the AWS license acquired by Denali in Auction #66 and to fund a portion of the costs of the construction and operation of the wireless network using such license. As of March 31, 2009, total borrowings under the license acquisition sub-facility totaled $223.4 million and total borrowings under the build-out sub-facility totaled $234.5 million. During January 2009, the build-out sub-facility was increased to a total of $394.5 million, approximately $160.0 million of which was unused as of March 31, 2009. The Company does not anticipate making any future increases to the size of the build-out sub-facility. Additional funding requests would be subject to approval by Leap’s board of directors. Loans under the credit agreement accrue interest at the rate of 14% per annum and such interest is added to principal quarterly. All outstanding principal and accrued interest is due in April 2021.

 

Management Agreement.

 

Cricket and Denali Spectrum License, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Denali (“Denali License”), are party to a management services agreement, pursuant to which Cricket is to provide management services to Denali License and its subsidiaries in exchange for a monthly management fee based on Cricket’s costs of providing such services plus overhead.

 

The following table provides a summary of the changes in value of the Company’s redeemable noncontrolling interests (in thousands):

 

 

 

As more fully described below, the Company is involved in a variety of lawsuits, claims, investigations and proceedings concerning intellectual property, securities, commercial and other matters. Due in part to the growth and expansion of its business operations, the Company has become subject to increased amounts of litigation, including disputes alleging intellectual property infringement.

 

The Company believes that any damage amounts alleged in the matters discussed below are not necessarily meaningful indicators of its potential liability. The Company determines whether it should accrue an estimated loss for a contingency in a particular legal proceeding by assessing whether a loss is deemed probable and can be

reasonably estimated. The Company reassesses its views on estimated losses on a quarterly basis to reflect the impact of any developments in the matters in which it is involved.

 

Legal proceedings are inherently unpredictable, and the matters in which the Company is involved often present complex legal and factual issues. The Company vigorously pursues defenses in legal proceedings and engages in discussions where possible to resolve these matters on favorable terms. The Company’s policy is to recognize legal costs as incurred. It is possible, however, that the Company’s business, financial condition and results of operations in future periods could be materially adversely affected by increased litigation expense, significant settlement costs and/or unfavorable damage awards.

 

Patent Litigation

 

Freedom Wireless

 

On December 10, 2007, the Company was sued by Freedom Wireless, Inc. (“Freedom Wireless”), in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, for alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,722,067 entitled “Security Cellular Telecommunications System,” U.S. Patent No. 6,157,823 entitled “Security Cellular Telecommunications System,” and U.S. Patent No. 6,236,851 entitled “Prepaid Security Cellular Telecommunications System.” Freedom Wireless alleged that its patents claim a novel cellular system that enables subscribers of prepaid services to both place and receive cellular calls without dialing access codes or using modified telephones. The complaint sought unspecified monetary damages, increased damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 together with interest, costs and attorneys’ fees, and an injunction. On September 3, 2008, Freedom Wireless amended its infringement contentions to assert that the Company’s Cricket unlimited voice service, in addition to its Jump^® Mobile and Cricket by Week^tm services, infringes claims under the patents at issue. On January 19, 2009, the Company and Freedom Wireless entered into an agreement to settle this lawsuit, and the parties are finalizing the terms of a license agreement which will provide Freedom Wireless royalties on certain of the Company’s products and services.

 

Electronic Data Systems

 

On February 4, 2008, the Company and certain other wireless carriers were sued by Electronic Data Systems Corporation (“EDS”) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, for alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,156,300 entitled “System and Method for Dispensing a Receipt Reflecting Prepaid Phone Services” and U.S. Patent No. 7,255,268 entitled “System for Purchase of Prepaid Telephone Services.” EDS has alleged that the sale and marketing by the Company of prepaid wireless cellular telephone services infringes these patents, and the complaint seeks an injunction against further infringement, damages (including enhanced damages) and attorneys’ fees. The parties have reached an agreement in principle to settle this lawsuit.

 

EMSAT Advanced Geo-Location Technology

 

On October 7, 2008, the Company and certain other wireless carriers were sued by EMSAT Advanced Geo-Location Technology, LLC (“EMSAT”) and Location Based Services LLC (“LBS”) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division for alleged infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,946,611, 6,847,822, and 7,289,763 entitled “Cellular Telephone System that Uses Position of a Mobile Unit to Make Call Management Decisions.” EMSAT and LBS alleged that the Company’s sale, offer for sale, use, and/or inducement to use mobile E911 services infringed one or more claims of these patents. While not directed at the Company, the complaint further alleged that the other defendants’ sale, offer for sale, use, and/or inducement to use commercial location-based services also infringed one or more claims of these patents. The complaint sought unspecified damages (including pre- and post-judgment interest), costs, and attorney’s fees, but did not request injunctive relief. In March 2009, the Company and EMSAT settled this lawsuit and entered into a license agreement with respect to the patents at issue.

DNT

 

On May 1, 2009, the Company was sued by DNT LLC (“DNT”) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division, for alleged infringement of U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE37,660 entitled “Automatic Dialing System.” DNT alleges that the Company uses, encourages the use of, sells, offers for sale and/or imports voice and data service and wireless modem cards for computers designed to be used in conjunction with cellular networks and that such acts constitute both direct and indirect infringement of DNT’s patent. DNT alleges that the Company’s infringement is willful, and the complaint seeks an injunction against further infringement, damages (including enhanced damages) and attorneys’ fees. The Company is currently evaluating the complaint and is preparing to respond.

 

American Wireless Group

 

On December 31, 2002, several members of American Wireless Group, LLC (“AWG”) filed a lawsuit against various officers and directors of Leap in the Circuit Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County, Mississippi, referred to herein as the Whittington Lawsuit. Leap purchased certain FCC wireless licenses from AWG and paid for those licenses with shares of Leap stock. The complaint alleges that Leap failed to disclose to AWG material facts regarding a dispute between Leap and a third party relating to that party’s claim that it was entitled to an increase in the purchase price for certain wireless licenses it sold to Leap. In their complaint, plaintiffs seek rescission and/or damages according to proof at trial of not less than the aggregate amount paid for the Leap stock (alleged in the complaint to have a value of approximately $57.8 million in June 2001 at the closing of the license sale transaction), plus interest, punitive or exemplary damages in the amount of not less than three times compensatory damages, plus costs and expenses. Plaintiffs contend that the named defendants are the controlling group that was responsible for Leap’s alleged failure to disclose the material facts regarding the third party dispute and the risk that the shares held by the plaintiffs might be diluted if the third party was successful with respect to its claim. The defendants in the Whittington Lawsuit filed a motion to compel arbitration or, in the alternative, to dismiss the Whittington Lawsuit. The court denied defendants’ motion and the defendants appealed the denial of the motion to the Mississippi Supreme Court. On November 15, 2007, the Mississippi Supreme Court issued an opinion denying the appeal and remanded the action to the trial court. The defendants filed an answer to the complaint on May 2, 2008. Trial in this matter is scheduled to begin in October 2009.

 

In a related action to the action described above, in June 2003, AWG filed a lawsuit in the Circuit Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County, Mississippi, referred to herein as the AWG Lawsuit, against the same individual defendants named in the Whittington Lawsuit. The complaint generally sets forth the same claims made by the plaintiffs in the Whittington Lawsuit. In its complaint, plaintiff seeks rescission and/or damages according to proof at trial of not less than the aggregate amount paid for the Leap stock (alleged in the complaint to have a value of approximately $57.8 million in June 2001 at the closing of the license sale transaction), plus interest, punitive or exemplary damages in the amount of not less than three times compensatory damages, and costs and expenses. An arbitration hearing was held in early November 2008, and the arbitrator issued a final award on February 13, 2009 in which he denied AWG’s claims in their entirety. On March 20, 2009, defendants filed a motion to confirm the final award in the Circuit Court. On March 30, 2009, plaintiffs filed an opposition to that motion, as well as a motion to vacate the final award. Defendants filed an opposition to the motion to vacate on April 10, 2009. Both the defendants’ motion to confirm and plaintiffs’ motion to vacate remain pending.

 

Although Leap is not a defendant in either the Whittington or AWG Lawsuits, several of the defendants have indemnification agreements with the Company. Due to the complex nature of the legal and factual issues involved, management believes that the defendants’ liability, if any, from the Whittington and AWG Lawsuits and any indemnity claims of the defendants against Leap is not presently determinable.

 

Securities and Derivative Litigation

 

Leap is a nominal defendant in two shareholder derivative suits purporting to assert claims on behalf of Leap against certain of its current and former directors and officers. The lawsuits are pending in the California Superior Court for the County of San Diego and in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. The state action was stayed on August 22, 2008 pending resolution of the federal action. The plaintiff in the federal

action filed an amended complaint on September 12, 2008 asserting, among other things, claims for alleged breach of fiduciary duty, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, unjust enrichment, and proxy violations based on the November 9, 2007 announcement that the Company was restating certain of its financial statements, claims alleging breach of fiduciary duty based on the September 2007 unsolicited merger proposal from MetroPCS Communications, Inc. and claims alleging illegal insider trading by certain of the individual defendants. The derivative complaints seek a judicial determination that the claims may be asserted derivatively on behalf of Leap, and unspecified damages, equitable and/or injunctive relief, imposition of a constructive trust, disgorgement, and attorney’s fees and costs. Leap and the individual defendants have filed motions to dismiss the amended federal complaint.

 

Leap and certain current and former officers and directors, and Leap’s independent registered public accounting firm, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, also have been named as defendants in a consolidated securities class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. Plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The consolidated complaint alleges that the defendants made false and misleading statements about Leap’s internal controls, business and financial results, and customer count metrics. The claims are based primarily on the November 9, 2007 announcement that the Company was restating certain of its financial statements and statements made in its August 7, 2007 second quarter 2007 earnings release. The lawsuit seeks, among other relief, a determination that the alleged claims may be asserted on a class-wide basis and unspecified damages and attorney’s fees and costs. On January 9, 2009, the federal court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. On February 23, 2009, defendants were served with an amended complaint which does not name PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. Defendants’ motions to dismiss are due on May 22, 2009.

 

Due to the complex nature of the legal and factual issues involved in these derivative and class action matters, their outcomes are not presently determinable. If either or both of these matters were to proceed beyond the pleading stage, the Company could be required to incur substantial costs to defend these matters and/or be required to pay substantial damages or settlement costs, which could materially adversely affect the Company’s business, financial condition and results of operations.

 

Department of Justice Inquiry

 

On January 7, 2009, the Company received a letter from the Civil Division of the United States Department of Justice, or the DOJ. In its letter, the DOJ alleges that between approximately 2002 and 2006, the Company failed to comply with certain federal postal regulations that required the Company to update customer mailing addresses in exchange for receiving certain bulk mailing rate discounts. As a result, the DOJ has asserted that the Company violated the False Claims Act (“FCA”) and is therefore liable for damages, which the DOJ estimates at $80,000 per month (which amount is subject to trebling under the FCA), plus statutory penalties of up to $11,000 per mailing. The DOJ has also asserted as an alternative theory of liability that the Company is liable on a basis of unjust enrichment for estimated single damages in the same of amount of $80,000 per month. Due to the complex nature of the legal and factual issues involved with the alleged FCA claims, the outcome of this matter is not presently determinable.

 

Other Litigation

 

In addition to the matters described above, the Company is often involved in certain other claims, including disputes alleging intellectual property infringement, which arise in the ordinary course of business and seek monetary damages and other relief. Based upon information currently available to the Company, none of these other claims is expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition or results of operations.

 

Indemnification Agreements

 

From time to time, the Company enters into indemnification agreements with certain parties in the ordinary course of business, including agreements with manufacturers, licensors and suppliers who provide it with equipment, software and technology that it uses in its business, as well as with purchasers of assets, lenders,

lessors and other vendors. Indemnification agreements are generally entered into in commercial and other transactions in an attempt to allocate potential risk of loss. The Company has not recorded any liability with respect to any potential indemnification obligations it may have under agreements to which it was party as of March 31, 2009.

 

Spectrum Clearing Obligations

 

Portions of the AWS spectrum that the Company and Denali License Sub hold are currently used by U.S. government and/or incumbent commercial licensees. FCC rules require winning bidders to avoid interfering with these existing users or to clear the incumbent users from the spectrum through specified relocation procedures. To facilitate the clearing of this spectrum, the FCC adopted a transition and cost-sharing plan whereby incumbent non-governmental users may be reimbursed for costs they incur in relocating from the spectrum by AWS licensees benefiting from the relocation. In addition, this plan requires the AWS licensees and the applicable incumbent non-governmental user to negotiate for a period of two or three years (depending on the type of incumbent user and whether the user is a commercial or non-commercial licensee), triggered from the time that an AWS licensee notifies the incumbent user that it desires the incumbent to relocate. If no agreement is reached during this period of time, the FCC rules provide that an AWS licensee may force the incumbent non-governmental user to relocate at the licensee’s expense. The FCC rules also provide that a portion of the proceeds raised in Auction #66 will be used to reimburse the costs of governmental users relocating from the AWS spectrum. However, some such users may delay relocation for an extended and undetermined period of time. The Company is continuing to evaluate its spectrum clearing obligations, and the potential costs that may be incurred could be material.

 

System Equipment Purchase Agreements

 

In 2007, the Company entered into certain system equipment purchase agreements, which generally have a term of three years. In the agreements, the Company agreed to purchase and/or license wireless communications systems, products and services designed to be AWS functional at a current estimated cost to the Company of approximately $266 million, which commitments are subject, in part, to the necessary clearance of spectrum in the markets to be built. Under the terms of the agreements, the Company is entitled to certain pricing discounts, credits and incentives, which credits and incentives are subject to the Company’s achievement of its purchase commitments, and to certain technical training for the Company’s personnel. If the purchase commitment levels per the agreements are not achieved, the Company may be required to refund any previous credits and incentives it applied to historical purchases.

 

Tower Provider Commitments

 

The Company has entered into master lease agreements with certain national tower vendors. These agreements generally provide for discounts, credits or incentives if the Company reaches specified lease commitment levels. If the commitment levels per the agreements are not achieved, the Company may be obligated to pay remedies for shortfalls in meeting these levels. These remedies would have the effect of increasing the Company’s rent expense.

 

Outstanding Letters of Credit and Surety Bonds

 

As of March 31, 2009 and December 31, 2008, the Company had approximately $10.8 million and $9.6 million, respectively, of letters of credit outstanding, which were collateralized by restricted cash, related to contractual commitments under certain of its administrative facility leases and surety bond programs and its workers’ compensation insurance program. As of March 31, 2009 and December 31, 2008, approximately $0.5 million and $4.3 million, respectively, of these letters of credit were issued pursuant to the Credit Agreement and were considered as usage for purposes of determining availability under the revolving credit facility.

 

As of March 31, 2009 and December 31, 2008, the Company had approximately $5.1 million and $5.0 million, respectively, of surety bonds outstanding to guarantee the Company’s performance with respect to certain of its contractual obligations.

 

Of the $1,400 million of senior notes issued by Cricket (the “Issuing Subsidiary”), $1,100 million are due in 2014 and $300 million are due in 2015. The notes are jointly and severally guaranteed on a full and unconditional basis by Leap (the “Guarantor Parent Company”) and certain of its direct and indirect wholly owned subsidiaries, including Cricket’s subsidiaries that hold wireless licenses (collectively, the “Guarantor Subsidiaries”).

 

The indentures governing these notes limit, among other things, Leap’s, Cricket’s and the Guarantor Subsidiaries’ ability to: incur additional debt; create liens or other encumbrances; place limitations on distributions from restricted subsidiaries; pay dividends; make investments; prepay subordinated indebtedness or make other restricted payments; issue or sell capital stock of restricted subsidiaries; issue guarantees; sell assets; enter into transactions with its affiliates; and make acquisitions or merge or consolidate with another entity.

 

Condensed consolidating financial information of the Guarantor Parent Company, the Issuing Subsidiary, the Guarantor Subsidiaries, non-Guarantor Subsidiaries and total consolidated Leap and subsidiaries as of March 31, 2009 and December 31, 2008 and for the three months ended March 31, 2009 and 2008 is presented below. The equity method of accounting is used to account for ownership interests in subsidiaries, where applicable.

Condensed Consolidating Balance Sheet as of March 31, 2009 (unaudited and in thousands):

 

Condensed Consolidating Balance Sheet as of December 31, 2008 (in thousands):

 

Condensed Consolidating Statement of Operations for the Three Months Ended March 31, 2009 (unaudited and in thousands):

 

Condensed Consolidating Statement of Operations for the Three Months Ended March 31, 2008 (unaudited and in thousands):