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 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 of registrant’s common stock outstanding on May 2, 2008 was 68,986,506.

 

 

LEAP WIRELESS INTERNATIONAL, INC.

QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q
For the Quarter Ended March 31, 2008

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

 

 

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 service in the United States of America under the “Cricket^®” brand. Cricket service offers customers unlimited wireless service for a flat monthly rate without requiring a fixed-term contract or a credit check. 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 a designated entity 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. Cricket also owns an 82.5% non-controlling interest in Denali Spectrum, LLC (“Denali”), which purchased a wireless license in the FCC’s auction for Advanced Wireless Services (“AWS”) licenses (“Auction #66”), covering the upper mid-west portion of the United States, as a designated entity through its wholly owned subsidiary, Denali Spectrum License, LLC (“Denali License”). Leap, Cricket and their subsidiaries, including LCW Wireless and Denali, are collectively referred to herein as “the Company.”

 

The Company operates in a single operating segment as a wireless communications carrier that offers digital wireless service in the United States of America.

 

 

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 for a complete set of financial statements. In the opinion of management, the unaudited financial information for the interim periods presented reflects all adjustments necessary for a fair statement of the results for the periods presented, with such adjustments consisting of normal recurring adjustments and other than normal recurring adjustments associated with the out-of-period adjustments described below. Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America require 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.

 

For the three months ended March 31, 2008, the Company recorded an adjustment to cost of equipment previously reported in its consolidated financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2007. This adjustment resulted in a $2.5 million increase ($0.04 per share) to the Company’s net loss for the three months ended March 31, 2008. The Company assessed the quantitative and qualitative effects of the adjustment on each of its previously reported periods and concluded that the adjustment was not material to any period and is not expected to be material to its consolidated financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2008.

 

The condensed consolidated financial statements include the accounts of Leap and its wholly owned subsidiaries as well as the accounts 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. Prior to March 2007, the Company consolidated its interests in Alaska Native Broadband 1, LLC (“ANB 1”) and its wholly owned subsidiary Alaska Native Broadband 1 License, LLC (“ANB 1 License”) in accordance with FIN 46(R). The Company acquired the remaining interests in ANB 1 in March 2007 and merged ANB 1 and ANB 1

License into Cricket in December 2007. All significant intercompany accounts and transactions have been eliminated in the condensed consolidated financial statements.

 

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. New and reactivating customers are required to pay for their service in advance, and generally, customers who activated their service prior to May 2006 pay in arrears. The Company does not require any of its customers to sign fixed-term service commitments or submit to a credit check. These terms generally appeal to less affluent customers who are considered more likely to terminate service for inability to pay than wireless customers in general. 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; as a result, 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 as 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 and accessories sold to third-party dealers.

 

Costs and Expenses

 

The Company’s costs and expenses include:

 

Cost of Service.  The major components of cost of service are: charges from other communications companies for long distance, roaming and content download services provided to the Company’s customers; charges from other communications companies for their transport and termination of calls originated by the Company’s customers and destined for customers of other networks; and expenses for tower and network facility

rent, engineering operations, field technicians and utility and maintenance charges, and salary and overhead charges associated with these functions.

 

Cost of Equipment.  Cost of equipment primarily includes the cost of handsets and accessories purchased from third-party vendors and resold to the Company’s customers in connection with its services, as well as the lower of cost or market write-downs associated with excess and damaged handsets and accessories.

 

Selling and Marketing.  Selling and marketing expenses primarily include advertising expenses, promotional and public relations costs associated with acquiring new customers, store operating costs (such as retail associates’ salaries and rent), and overhead charges associated with selling and marketing functions.

 

General and Administrative.  General and administrative expenses primarily include call center and other customer care program costs and salary, overhead and outside consulting costs associated with the Company’s customer care, billing, information technology, finance, human resources, accounting, legal and executive functions.

 

Cash and Cash Equivalents

 

The Company considers all highly liquid investments with a maturity at the time of purchase of three months or less to be cash equivalents. The Company invests its cash with major financial institutions in money market funds, short-term U.S. Treasury securities, obligations of U.S. government agencies and other securities such as prime-rated short-term commercial paper and investment grade corporate fixed-income securities. The Company has not experienced any significant losses on its cash and cash equivalents.

 

Short-Term Investments

 

Short-term investments generally consist of highly liquid, fixed-income investments with an original maturity at the time of purchase of greater than three months. Such investments consist of commercial paper, asset-backed commercial paper, obligations of the U.S. government, and investment grade fixed-income securities guaranteed by U.S. government agencies.

 

Investments are classified as available-for-sale and stated at fair value. The net unrealized gains or losses on available-for-sale securities are reported as a component of comprehensive income (loss). The specific identification method is used to compute the realized gains and losses on investments. Investments are periodically reviewed for impairment. If the carrying value of an investment exceeds its fair value and the decline in value is determined to be other-than-temporary, an impairment loss is recognized for the difference. See Note 5 for a discussion regarding the Company’s impairment losses recognized on its short-term investments.

 

Fair Value of Financial Instruments

 

On January 1, 2008, with respect to valuing its financial assets and liabilities, the Company adopted the provisions of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (“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. Fair value is defined as an exit price, which is the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer 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. Financial 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, financial 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 financial 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 financial assets and liabilities at fair value.

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 assets are placed in service, at which time the assets are 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, 2008 and 2007, the Company capitalized interest of $13.0 million and $10.7 million, respectively, to property and equipment.

 

Property and equipment to be disposed of by sale is not depreciated and is carried at the lower of carrying value or fair value less costs to sell. As of March 31, 2008 and December 31, 2007, there was no property or equipment classified as assets held for sale.

 

Wireless Licenses

 

The Company and LCW Wireless operate broadband PCS networks under 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. In addition, through the Company’s and Denali License’s participation in Auction #66 in December 2006, it and Denali License acquired a number of AWS licenses that can be used to provide services comparable to the PCS services the Company currently provides, in addition to other advanced wireless services. The Company launched service in its first AWS market in April 2008. 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 and LCW Wireless expect to continue to provide wireless service using the relevant licenses for the foreseeable future, PCS and AWS licenses are routinely renewed for 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 any 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. 142, “Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets,” (“SFAS 142”). 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 142 on an annual basis. As of March 31, 2008 and December 31, 2007, the carrying value of the Company’s and its consolidated joint ventures’ wireless licenses was $1.9 billion. Wireless licenses to be disposed of by sale are carried at the lower of carrying value or fair value less costs to sell. As of March 31, 2008 there was $6.8 million of wireless licenses classified as assets held for sale. No wireless licenses were classified as assets held for sale as of December 31, 2007.

 

Portions of the spectrum that the Company and Denali License purchased in Auction #66 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 License’s spectrum clearing costs are capitalized to wireless licenses as incurred. During the three months ended March 31, 2008 and 2007, the Company and Denali License incurred approximately $0.9 million and $0.1 million, respectively, in spectrum clearing costs.

 

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. During the three months ended March 31, 2008, the Company’s share of its equity method investee losses was $1.1 million. No such amounts were recorded during the three months ended March 31, 2007 as the Company did not have any equity method investments during that period.

 

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 and one key vendor for handset logistics. Loss or disruption of these services could adversely affect the Company’s business.

 

The Company does not have a national network, and it must pay fees to other carriers who provide the Company with roaming services. Currently, the Company has roaming agreements with several other carriers which allow its customers to roam on such carriers’ networks. If it were unable to cost-effectively provide roaming services to customers, the Company’s competitive position and business prospects could be 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, 2008 and 2007 was allocated as follows (in thousands, except per share data):

 

 

Income Taxes

 

The computation of the 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 (or discrete) items. Significant management judgment is required in projecting the Company’s ordinary income (loss) and the Company’s projection for 2008 is close to break-even. The Company’s projected ordinary income tax expense for the full year 2008, which excludes the effect of unusual or infrequently occurring (or 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 2008 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, the Company has computed its provision for income taxes for the three months ended March 31, 2008 and 2007 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 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. 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, 2008, the Company weighed the positive and negative factors with respect to this determination and, at this time, except with respect to the realization of a $2.5 million Texas Margins Tax credit, 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. The Company will continue to closely monitor the positive and negative factors to determine whether its valuation allowance should be released. 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.

 

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. Pursuant to American Institute of Certified Public Accountants’ Statement of Position No. 90-7, “Financial Reporting by Entities in Reorganization under the Bankruptcy Code” (“SOP 90-7”), up to $218.5 million in future decreases in the valuation allowance established in fresh-start reporting will be accounted for as a reduction of goodwill rather than as a reduction of income tax

expense if the valuation allowance decrease occurs prior to the effective date of SFAS No. 141 (revised 2007), “Business Combinations” (“SFAS 141(R)”). Effective January 1, 2009, SFAS 141(R) provides that any reduction in the valuation allowance established in fresh-start reporting be accounted for as a reduction to income tax expense.

 

In January 2007, the Company adopted the provisions of FIN 48, “Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes — an interpretation of FASB Statement No. 109,” (“FIN 48”). At the date of adoption, during 2007 and during the three months ended March 31, 2008, the Company’s unrecognized income tax benefits and uncertain tax positions were not material. Interest and penalties related to uncertain tax positions are recognized by the Company as a component of income tax expense but were immaterial on the date of adoption, during 2007 and during the three months ended March 31, 2008. All of the Company’s tax years from 1998 to 2007 remain open to examination by federal and state taxing authorities.

 

Comprehensive Loss

 

Comprehensive loss consisted of the following (in thousands):

 

 

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

 

 

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

 

In December 2007, the FASB issued SFAS 141(R), which expands the definition of a business and a business combination, requires the fair value of the purchase price of an acquisition (including the issuance of equity securities) to be determined on the acquisition date and requires that all assets, liabilities, contingent consideration, contingencies and in-process research and development costs of an acquired business be recorded at fair value at the acquisition date. In addition, SFAS 141(R) requires that acquisition costs generally be expensed as incurred, requires that restructuring costs generally be expensed in periods subsequent to the acquisition date and requires certain changes in accounting for deferred tax asset valuation allowances and acquired income tax uncertainties after the measurement period to impact income tax expense. The Company will be required to adopt SFAS 141(R) on January 1, 2009. The Company is currently evaluating what impact SFAS 141(R) will have on its consolidated financial statements; however, since the Company has significant deferred tax assets recorded through fresh-start reporting for which full valuation allowances were recorded as of its emergence from bankruptcy, this standard could materially affect the Company’s results of operations if changes in the valuation allowances occur once it adopts the standard.

 

In December 2007, the FASB issued SFAS No. 160, “Noncontrolling Interests in Consolidated Financial Statements, an Amendment of ARB No. 51” (“SFAS 160”), which changes the accounting and reporting for minority interests such that minority interests will be recharacterized as noncontrolling interests and will be required to be reported as a component of equity. In addition, SFAS 160 requires that purchases or sales of equity interests that do not result in a change in control be accounted for as equity transactions and, upon a loss of control, requires the interest sold, as well as any interest retained, be recorded at fair value with any gain or loss recognized

in earnings. The Company will be required to adopt SFAS 160 on January 1, 2009. The Company is currently evaluating what impact SFAS 160 will have on its consolidated financial statements.

 

In March 2008, the FASB issued SFAS No. 161, “Disclosures about Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities” (“SFAS 161”), which is intended to help investors better understand how derivative instruments and hedging activities affect an entity’s financial position, financial performance and cash flows through enhanced disclosure requirements. The enhanced disclosures include, for example, a tabular summary of the fair values of derivative instruments and their gains and losses, disclosure of derivative features that are credit-risk-related to provide more information regarding an entity’s liquidity and cross-referencing within footnotes to make it easier to locate important information about derivative instruments. The Company will be required to adopt SFAS 161 on January 1, 2009. The Company is currently evaluating what impact SFAS 161 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. Dilutive common share equivalents are comprised of stock options, restricted stock awards, employee stock purchase rights and warrants.

 

The Company incurred losses for the three months ended March 31, 2008 and 2007; therefore, 5.2 million and 4.8 million common share equivalents were excluded in computing diluted earnings (loss) per share for those periods, respectively.

 

 

The Company has categorized its financial assets and liabilities measured at fair value into a three-level hierarchy in accordance with SFAS 157. Fair value measurements of financial assets and liabilities that use quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities are generally categorized as Level 1, fair value measurements of financial assets and liabilities that use 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 fair value measurements of financial assets and liabilities that use 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 a financial asset or liability is used to categorize the asset or liability and reflects the judgment of management. Financial 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 financial assets and liabilities that were accounted for at fair value as of March 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, a Level 3 fair value measurement may include inputs that are observable (Levels 1 and 2) and unobservable (Level 3). The Company’s assessment of the significance of a particular input to the fair value measurement requires judgment and may affect the valuation of financial assets and liabilities and their placement within the fair value hierarchy levels.

 

 

The following table provides a summary of the changes in the fair value of the Company’s Level 3 assets.

 

 

The realized losses included in earnings noted in the table above are presented in other expense, net in the condensed consolidated statement of operations and relate to assets still held by the Company as of March 31, 2008.

 

Cash Equivalents and Short-Term Investments

 

The fair value of the Company’s cash equivalents, short-term investments in obligations of the U.S. government and investment grade fixed-income securities that are guaranteed by U.S. government agencies and a majority of its short-term investments in commercial paper is determined using observable market-based inputs for similar assets, primarily yield curves and time to maturity factors, and therefore such investments are considered to be Level 2 items. The fair value of certain of the Company’s investments in asset-backed commercial paper is determined using primarily unobservable inputs that cannot be corroborated by market data, primarily ABX and monoline indices and a valuation model that considers a liquidity factor that is subjective in nature, and therefore such investments are considered to be Level 3 items.

 

Through its non-controlled consolidated subsidiary Denali, the Company held investments in asset-backed commercial paper for which the fair value was determined using the Level 3 inputs described above. These investments were purchased as highly rated investment grade securities, with a par value of $21.6 million and $32.9 million as of March 31, 2008 and December 31, 2007, respectively. These securities, which are collateralized, in part, by residential mortgages, have declined in value since December 31, 2007. As a result, during the three months ended March 31, 2008, the Company recognized an other-than-temporary impairment loss of approximately $4.3 million related to these investments in asset-backed commercial paper to bring the net

carrying value of such investments to $11.9 million as of March 31, 2008 and to bring the cumulative other-than-temporary impairment loss recognized to approximately $9.7 million as of March 31, 2008. In April 2008, Denali received a $2.1 million distribution related to these investments. As a result, the remaining par value of these investments was reduced to $19.5 million as of April 30, 2008. In addition, during April 2008, the value of these investments increased by $2.1 million and, after consideration of the distribution received, these investments had a net carrying value of $11.9 million as of April 30, 2008. Future volatility and uncertainty in the financial markets could result in additional losses.

 

Interest Rate Swaps

 

As more fully described in Note 6, the Company’s interest rate swaps effectively fix the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) interest rate 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 $1,893.8 million as of March 31, 2008.

 

 

Long-term debt as of March 31, 2008 and December 31, 2007 was comprised of the following (in thousands):

 

 

Senior Secured Credit Facilities

 

Cricket Communications

 

The senior secured credit facility under the Company’s senior secured credit agreement (the “Credit Agreement”) consists of a six year $895.5 million term loan and a $200 million revolving credit facility. As of March 31, 2008, the outstanding indebtedness under the term loan was $884.3 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, 2008, the interest rate on the term loan was LIBOR plus 3.00% or the bank base rate plus 2.00%, as selected by Cricket.

 

At March 31, 2008, the effective interest rate on the term loan was 6.6%, including the effect of interest rate swaps. 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, 2008. The Company has entered into interest rate swap agreements with respect to $355 million of its debt. These interest rate swap agreements effectively fix the 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 fair value of the swap agreements as of March 31, 2008 and December 31, 2007 were liabilities of $14.1 million and $7.2 million, respectively, which were recorded in other liabilities in the condensed consolidated balance sheets.

 

Outstanding borrowings under the revolving credit facility, to the extent that there are any borrowings, are due in June 2011. As of March 31, 2008, the revolving credit facility was undrawn; however, approximately $3.2 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 8. 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, 2008, borrowings under the revolving credit facility would have accrued interest at LIBOR plus 3.00% or the bank base rate plus 2.00%, 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 real property owned by 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, 2008.

 

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.

 

Affiliates of Highland Capital Management, L.P. (an affiliate of James D. Dondero, a former director of Leap) participated in the syndication of the term loan in an amount equal to $222.9 million. Additionally, Highland Capital Management continues to hold a $40 million commitment under the $200 million revolving credit facility.

 

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 2.7% to 6.3%. At March 31, 2008, the effective interest rate on the term loans was 6.9%, and the outstanding indebtedness was $40 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. 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). Outstanding borrowings under the term loans must be repaid in varying quarterly installments starting in June 2008, with an aggregate final payment of $24.5 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, 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, 2008.

 

Senior Notes

 

In 2006, Cricket issued $750 million of 9.375% unsecured senior notes due 2014 in a private placement to institutional buyers, and in 2007, the Company exchanged the notes for identical notes that had been registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). In June 2007, Cricket issued an additional $350 million of unsecured senior notes due 2014 in a private placement to institutional buyers at an issue price of 106% of the principal amount. These notes are an additional issuance of the 9.375% unsecured senior notes due 2014 discussed above and are treated as a single class with these notes. The terms of these additional notes are identical to the existing notes, except for certain applicable transfer restrictions. The $21 million premium the Company received in connection with the issuance of the 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, 2008, the effective interest rate on the $350 million of unsecured senior notes was 8.8%, which includes the effect of the premium amortization and excludes the effect of the additional interest that has been accrued in connection with the Company’s obligation to offer to exchange the notes for identical notes that have been registered with the SEC, as more fully described below.

 

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. 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 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.

In connection with the private placement of the $350 million of additional senior notes, the Company entered into a registration rights agreement with the purchasers in which the Company agreed to file a registration statement with the SEC to permit the holders to exchange or resell the notes. The Company must use reasonable best efforts to file such registration statement within 150 days after the issuance of the notes, have the registration statement declared effective within 270 days after the issuance of the notes and then consummate any exchange offer within 30 business days after the effective date of the registration statement. In the event that the registration statement is not filed or declared effective or the exchange offer is not consummated within these deadlines, 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 the first to occur of these events 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 the registration statement filing requirements. Due to the Company’s restatement of its historical consolidated financial results during the fourth quarter of 2007, the Company was unable to file the registration statement within 150 days after issuance of the notes. The Company filed the registration statement on March 28, 2008; however, the registration statement has not yet been declared effective. Due to the delay in filing the registration statement and having it declared effective, the Company has accrued additional interest expense of approximately $1.6 million as of March 31, 2008.

 

 

On April 1, 2008, the Company completed the purchase of Hargray Communications Group’s wireless subsidiary, Hargray Wireless, LLC (“Hargray Wireless”), for approximately $30 million. Hargray Wireless owns a 15 MHz wireless license covering approximately 0.8 million POPs and operates a wireless business in Georgia and South Carolina, which complements the Company’s existing market in Charleston, South Carolina. The transaction will be recorded as a purchase and the results of operations of Hargray Wireless will be included in the Company’s condensed consolidated statement of operations beginning on April 1, 2008. On April 3, 2008, Hargray Wireless became a guarantor under the Credit Agreement and indenture. In connection with this acquisition, the Company entered into a wholesale agreement with Hargray Communications Group, under which Hargray Communications Group is permitted to resell Cricket service with its wireline services as part of a bundled offering.

 

In January 2008, the Company agreed to exchange certain disaggregated spectrum with Sprint Nextel. An aggregate of 20 MHz of disaggregated spectrum under certain of the Company’s existing PCS licenses in Tennessee, Georgia and Arkansas will be exchanged for an aggregate of 30 MHz of disaggregated and partitioned spectrum in New Jersey and Mississippi owned by Sprint Nextel. The fair value of the assets exchanged is expected to be approximately $8.1 million. The FCC issued its approval of the transaction in March 2008; however, the transaction remains subject to customary closing conditions. The carrying values of the disaggregated portion of the Tennessee, Georgia and Arkansas licenses of $6.8 million have been classified in assets held for sale in the condensed consolidated balance sheet as of March 31, 2008.

 

 

Patent Litigation

 

On June 14, 2006, the Company sued MetroPCS Communications, Inc. (“MetroPCS”) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,813,497 “Method for Providing Wireless Communication Services and Network and System for Delivering Same,” issued to it. The Company’s complaint seeks damages and an injunction against continued infringement. On August 3, 2006, MetroPCS (i) answered the complaint, (ii) raised a number of affirmative defenses, and (iii) together with certain related entities (referred to, collectively with MetroPCS, as the “MetroPCS entities”), counterclaimed against Leap, Cricket, numerous Cricket subsidiaries, Denali License, and current and former employees of Leap and Cricket, including the Company’s chief executive officer, S. Douglas Hutcheson. MetroPCS has since amended its complaint and Denali License has been dismissed, without prejudice, as a counterclaim defendant. The countersuit now alleges claims for breach of contract, misappropriation, conversion and disclosure of trade secrets, fraud, misappropriation of confidential information and breach of confidential relationship, relating to

information provided by MetroPCS to such employees, including prior to their employment by Leap, and asks the court to award attorneys fees and damages, including punitive damages, impose an injunction enjoining the Company from participating in any auctions or sales of wireless spectrum, impose a constructive trust on the Company’s business and assets for the benefit of the MetroPCS entities, transfer the Company’s business and assets to MetroPCS, and declare that the MetroPCS entities have not infringed U.S. Patent No. 6,813,497 and that such patent is invalid. MetroPCS’s claims allege that the Company and the other counterclaim defendants improperly obtained, used and disclosed trade secrets and confidential information of the MetroPCS entities and breached confidentiality agreements with the MetroPCS entities. On October 31, 2007, pursuant to a stipulation between the parties, the court administratively closed the case for a period not to exceed six months. The parties stipulated that neither will move the court to reopen the case until at least 90 days following the administrative closure. On November 1, 2007, MetroPCS formally withdrew its September 4, 2007 unsolicited merger proposal, which the Company’s board of directors had previously rejected on September 16, 2007. On February 14, 2008, in response to the Company’s motion, the court re-opened the case. On September 22, 2006, Royal Street Communications, LLC (“Royal Street”), an entity affiliated with MetroPCS, filed an action in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, seeking a declaratory judgment that the Company’s U.S. Patent No. 6,813,497 (the same patent that is the subject of the Company’s infringement action against MetroPCS) is invalid and is not being infringed by Royal Street or its PCS systems. Upon the Company’s request, the court has transferred the Royal Street case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas due to the affiliation between MetroPCS and Royal Street. On February 25, 2008, the Company filed an answer to the Royal Street complaint, together with counterclaims for patent infringement, and on February 29, 2008, the Company moved to consolidate the Royal Street matter with the MetroPCS case. The Company intends to vigorously defend against the counterclaims filed by the MetroPCS entities and the action brought by Royal Street. Due to the complex nature of the legal and factual issues involved, however, the outcome of these matters is not presently determinable. If the MetroPCS entities were to prevail in these matters, it could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition and results of operations.

 

On August 17, 2006, the Company was served with a complaint filed by certain MetroPCS entities, along with another affiliate, MetroPCS California, LLC, in the Superior Court of the State of California, which names Leap, Cricket, certain of its subsidiaries, and certain current and former employees of Leap and Cricket, including Mr. Hutcheson, as defendants. In response to demurrers by the Company and by the court, two of the plaintiffs amended their complaint twice, dropped the other plaintiffs and have filed a third amended complaint. In the current complaint, the plaintiffs allege statutory unfair competition, statutory misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, intentional interference with contract, and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, seek preliminary and permanent injunction, and ask the court to award damages, including punitive damages, attorneys fees, and restitution. The Company has filed a demurrer to the third amended complaint. On October 25, 2007, pursuant to a stipulation between the parties, the court entered a stay of the litigation for a period of 90 days. On January 28, 2008, the court ordered that the stay remain in effect for a further 120 days, or until May 27, 2008. If and when the case proceeds, the Company intends to vigorously defend against these claims. Due to the complex nature of the legal and factual issues involved, however, the outcome of this matter is not presently determinable. If the MetroPCS entities were to prevail in this action, it could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition and results of operations.

 

On June 6, 2007, the Company was sued by Minerva Industries, Inc. (“Minerva”), in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,681,120 entitled “Mobile Entertainment and Communication Device.” Minerva alleges that certain handsets sold by the Company infringe a patent relating to mobile entertainment features, and the complaint seeks damages (including enhanced damages), an injunction and attorneys’ fees. The Company filed an answer to the complaint and counterclaims of invalidity on January 7, 2008. On January 21, 2008, Minerva filed another suit against the Company in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, for infringement of its newly issued U.S. Patent No. 7,321,738 entitled “Mobile Entertainment and Communication Device.” On April 15, 2008, at Minerva’s request, the cases were dismissed without prejudice.

 

On June 7, 2007, the Company was sued by Barry W. Thomas (“Thomas”) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 4,777,354 entitled “System

for Controlling the Supply of Utility Services to Consumers.” Thomas alleges that certain handsets sold by the Company infringe a patent relating to actuator cards for controlling the supply of a utility service, and the complaint seeks damages (including enhanced damages) and attorneys’ fees. The Company and other co-defendants filed a motion to stay the litigation pending the determination of similar litigation in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. On February 28, 2008, the District Court issued its claim construction ruling, adopting all of the interpretations offered by the defendants in that action. Based upon this ruling, Thomas has agreed in principle to dismiss his complaint with prejudice and to provide a release, in exchange for the agreement of the defendants to dismiss their counterclaims, including claims for costs and fees. In the event that this case is not resolved, the Company intends to vigorously defend against this matter.

 

On October 15, 2007, Leap was sued by Visual Interactive Phone Concepts, Inc. (“Visual Interactive”), in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,724,092 entitled “Videophone Mailbox Interactive Facility System and Method of Processing Information” and U.S. Patent No. 5,606,361 entitled “Videophone Mailbox Interactive Facility System and Method of Processing Information.” Visual Interactive alleged that Leap infringed these patents relating to interactive videophone systems, and the complaint sought an accounting for damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284, an injunction and attorneys’ fees. The Company filed its answer to the complaint on December 13, 2007, and on the same day, Cricket filed a complaint against Visual Interactive in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California seeking a declaration by the court that the patents alleged against the Company are neither valid nor infringed by it. Visual Interactive agreed to dismiss its complaint against Leap and filed an amended complaint against Cricket, and Cricket filed its answer to this amended complaint on January 23, 2008. The Company intends to vigorously defend against this matter. Due to the complex nature of the legal and factual issues involved, however, the outcome of this matter is not presently determinable.

 

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 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 alleges that its patents claim a novel cellular system that enables prepaid services subscribers to both place and receive cellular calls without dialing access codes or using modified telephones. The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages, increased damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 together with interest, costs and attorneys’ fees, and an injunction. On February 15, 2008, the Company filed a motion to sever and stay the proceedings against Cricket or, alternatively, to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The Company intends to vigorously defend against this matter. Due to the complex nature of the legal and factual issues involved, however, the outcome of this matter is not presently determinable.

 

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 infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,156,300 entitles “System and Method for Dispensing a Receipt Reflecting Prepaid Phone Services” and a U.S. Patent No. 7,255,268 entitled “System for Purchase of Prepaid Telephone Services.” EDS alleges 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 Company intends to vigorously defend against this lawsuit. Due to the complex nature of the legal and factual issues involved, however, the outcome of this lawsuit is not presently determinable.

 

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, and 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 motion noted that plaintiffs, as members of AWG, agreed to arbitrate disputes pursuant to the license purchase agreement, that they failed to plead facts that show that they are entitled to relief, that Leap made adequate disclosure of the relevant facts regarding the third party dispute and that any failure to disclose such information did not cause any damage to the plaintiffs. 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 applied to the United States Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was denied on April 14, 2008, and subsequently filed an answer to the complaint on May 2, 2008.

 

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 (“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. Defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration or, in the alternative, to dismiss the AWG Lawsuit, making arguments similar to those made in their motion to dismiss the Whittington Lawsuit. AWG has since agreed to arbitrate this lawsuit. The arbitration is proceeding and a briefing schedule for motions for summary judgment has been set.

 

Although Leap is not a defendant in either the Whittington or AWG Lawsuits, several of the defendants have indemnification agreements with the Company. Management believes that the defendants’ liability, if any, from the AWG and Whittington Lawsuits and any further indemnity claims of the defendants against Leap is not presently determinable.

 

Securities Litigation

 

Two shareholder derivative lawsuits were filed in the California Superior Court for the County of San Diego in November 2007 and January 2008 purporting to assert claims on behalf of Leap against certain of the Company’s current and former directors and executive officers and naming Leap as a nominal defendant. In February 2008, the plaintiff in one of these lawsuits voluntarily dismissed his action and filed a derivative complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. On April 21, 2008, the plaintiff in the remaining state derivative lawsuit filed an amended complaint. The complaints in the federal and state derivative actions assert various claims, including alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, unjust enrichment and violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) based on Leap’s November 9, 2007 announcement that it would restate certain of its financial statements, as well as claims based on the September 2007 unsolicited merger proposal from MetroPCS, and sales of Leap common stock by certain of the defendants between December 2004 and June 2007. The derivative complaints seek judicial determination that the claims may be asserted derivatively on behalf of Leap as well as unspecified damages, equitable and/or injunctive relief, imposition of a constructive trust, disgorgement, and attorney’s fees and costs. Due to the complex nature of the legal and factual issues involved, however, the outcome of these matters is not presently determinable.

 

The Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors have been named as defendants in several securities class action lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California between November 2007 and February 2008 purportedly on behalf of investors who purchased Leap common stock between May 16, 2004 and November 9, 2007. The Company’s independent registered public accounting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP has been named in one of these lawsuits. The class action lawsuits allege that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, and further allege that the individual

defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, by allegedly making false and misleading statements about the Company’s business and financial results. The claims are based primarily on Leap’s November 9, 2007 announcement that it would restate certain of its financial statements and, in some cases, on Leap’s August 7, 2007 second quarter 2007 earnings release. The class action lawsuits seek, among other relief, determinations that the alleged claims may be asserted on a class-wide basis, and unspecified damages and attorney’s fees and costs. Plaintiffs filed motions to consolidate the class action lawsuits and for appointment of a lead plaintiff and lead plaintiffs’ counsel to lead the consolidated action. Several of the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their lawsuits. On March 28, 2008, the District Court took the consolidation and lead plaintiff motions in the remaining lawsuits under submission, and it has not yet issued a ruling. The Company intends to vigorously defend against these lawsuits. Due to the complex nature of the legal and factual issues involved, however, the outcome of these matters is not presently determinable.

 

If the plaintiffs were to prevail in these matters, the Company could be required to pay substantial damages or settlement costs, which could materially adversely affect its business, financial condition and results of operations.

 

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.

 

Spectrum Clearing Obligations

 

Portions of the AWS spectrum that was auctioned in Auction #66 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.

 

FCC Hurricane Katrina Order

 

The FCC regulates the licensing, construction, modification, operation, ownership, sale and interconnection of wireless communications systems, as do some state and local regulatory agencies. In 2007, FCC released an order implementing certain recommendations of an independent panel reviewing the impact of Hurricane Katrina on communications networks, which requires wireless carriers to provide emergency back-up power sources for their equipment and facilities, including 24 hours of emergency power for mobile switch offices and up to eight hours for cell site locations. The order was expected to become effective sometime in 2008. However, on February 28, 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit stayed the effective date of the order pending resolution of a petition for review of the FCC’s rules. In order for the Company to comply with the requirements of the order, it would likely need to purchase additional equipment, obtain additional state and local permits, authorizations and approvals and incur additional operating expenses. The Company is currently evaluating its compliance with this order should it become effective and the potential costs that may be incurred to achieve compliance could be material.

System Equipment Purchase Agreements

 

In June 2007, the Company entered into certain system equipment purchase agreements. The agreements generally have a term of three years pursuant to which 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.

 

Outstanding Letters of Credit and Surety Bonds

 

As of March 31, 2008 and December 31, 2007, the Company had approximately $8.5 million and $4.6 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, 2008 and December 31, 2007, approximately $3.2 million and $2.0 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, 2008 and December 31, 2007, the Company had approximately $3.6 million and $2.1 million, respectively, of surety bonds outstanding to guarantee the Company’s own performance with respect to certain of its contractual obligations.

 

 

The $1,100 million of unsecured senior notes issued by Cricket (the “Issuing Subsidiary”) are due in 2014 and 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 real property interests or wireless licenses (collectively, the “Guarantor Subsidiaries”).

 

The indenture governing the notes limits, 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, 2008 and December 31, 2007 and for the three months ended March 31, 2008 and 2007 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, 2008 (unaudited and in thousands):

 

Condensed Consolidating Balance Sheet as of December 31, 2007 (in thousands):

 

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

 

Condensed Consolidating Statement of Operations for the Three Months Ended March 31, 2007 (unaudited and in thousands):

 

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