v3.20.2

Contingencies | 6 Months Ended
--- | ---
Jun. 30, 2020
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
CONTINGENCIES | CONTINGENCIES Patents and Intellectual Property Many entities, including some of our competitors, have or may have in the future patents and other intellectual property rights that cover or affect products or services directly or indirectly related to those that we offer. We may not be aware of all patents and other intellectual property rights that our products and services may potentially infringe. Damages in patent infringement cases can be substantial, and in certain circumstances can be tripled. Further, we cannot estimate the extent to which we may be required in the future to obtain licenses with respect to intellectual property rights held by others and the availability and cost of any such licenses. Various parties have asserted patent and other intellectual property rights with respect to our products and services. We cannot be certain that these parties do not own the rights they claim, that these rights are not valid or that our products and services do not infringe on these rights. Further, we cannot be certain that we would be able to obtain licenses from these parties on commercially reasonable terms or, if we were unable to obtain such licenses, that we would be able to redesign our products and services to avoid infringement. Certain Arrangements with DISH Network In connection with our spin-off from DISH in 2008 (the “Spin-off”), we entered into a separation agreement with DISH Network that provides, among other things, for the division of certain liabilities, including liabilities resulting from litigation. Under the terms of the separation agreement, we assumed certain liabilities that relate to our business, including certain designated liabilities for acts or omissions that occurred prior to the Spin-off. Certain specific provisions govern intellectual property related claims under which we will generally only be liable for our acts or omissions following the Spin-off and DISH Network will indemnify us for any liabilities or damages resulting from intellectual property claims relating to the period prior to the Spin-off as well as DISH Network’s acts or omissions following the Spin-off. In connection with the Share Exchange and the BSS Transaction, we entered into the Share Exchange Agreement and the Master Transaction Agreement, respectively, and other agreements which provide, among other things, for the division of certain liabilities, including liabilities relating to taxes, intellectual property and employees and liabilities resulting from litigation and the assumption of certain liabilities that relate to the transferred businesses and assets. These agreements also contain additional indemnification provisions between us and DISH Network for, in the case of the Share Exchange, certain pre-existing liabilities and legal proceedings and, in the case of the BSS Transaction, certain losses with respect to breaches of certain representations and covenants and certain liabilities. Litigation We are involved in a number of legal proceedings against us concerning matters arising in connection with the conduct of our business activities. Many of these proceedings are at preliminary stages and/or seek an indeterminate amount of damages. We regularly evaluate the status of the legal proceedings in which we are involved to assess whether a loss is probable and to determine if accruals are appropriate. We record an accrual for litigation and other loss contingencies when we determine that a loss is probable and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. If accruals are not appropriate, we further evaluate each legal proceeding to assess whether an estimate of possible loss or range of loss can be made. There can be no assurance that legal proceedings against us will be resolved in amounts that will not differ from the amounts of our recorded accruals. Legal fees and other costs of defending legal proceedings are charged to expense as incurred. For certain proceedings, management is unable to predict with any degree of certainty the outcome or provide a meaningful estimate of the possible loss or range of possible loss because, among other reasons: (i) the proceedings are in various stages; (ii) damages have not been sought or specified; (iii) damages are unsupported, indeterminate and/or exaggerated in management’s opinion; (iv) there is uncertainty as to the outcome of pending trials, appeals, motions or other proceedings; (v) there are significant factual issues to be resolved; and/or (vi) there are novel legal issues or unsettled legal theories to be presented or a large number of parties are involved (as with many patent-related cases). Except as described below, however, management does not believe, based on currently available information, that the outcomes of these proceedings will have a material effect on our financial condition, operating results or cash flows, though there is no assurance that the resolution and outcomes of these proceedings, individually or in the aggregate, will not be material to our financial condition, operating results or cash flows for any particular period, depending, in part, upon the operating results for such period. We intend to vigorously defend the proceedings against us. In the event that a court, tribunal, other body or jury ultimately rules against us, we may be subject to adverse consequences, including, without limitation, substantial damages, which may include treble damages, fines, penalties, compensatory damages and/or other equitable or injunctive relief that could require us to materially modify our business operations or certain products or services that we offer to our consumers. ElbitOn January 23, 2015, Elbit Systems Land and C4I LTD and Elbit Systems of America Ltd. (together referred to as “Elbit”) filed a complaint against our subsidiary Hughes Network Systems, L.L.C. (“HNS”), as well as against Black Elk Energy Offshore Operations, LLC, Bluetide Communications, Inc. and Helm Hotels Group, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,240,073 (the “073 patent”) and 7,245,874 (“874 patent”). In December 2019, we entered into a comprehensive settlement agreement with Elbit pursuant to which we paid a total of $33.0 million in satisfaction of all amounts relating to these matters and all open proceedings, including appeals, were dismissed with prejudice. Shareholder Litigation On July 2, 2019, the City of Hallandale Beach Police Officers’ and Firefighters’ Personnel Retirement Trust, purporting to sue on behalf of a class of EchoStar Corporation’s stockholders, filed a complaint in the District Court of Clark County, Nevada against our directors, Charles W. Ergen, R. Stanton Dodge, Anthony M. Federico, Pradman P. Kaul, C. Michael Schroeder, Jeffrey R. Tarr, William D. Wade, and Michael T. Dugan; our officer, David J. Rayner; EchoStar Corporation; our subsidiary Hughes Satellite Services Corporation (“HSSC”); our former subsidiary BSS Corp.; and DISH and its subsidiary Merger Sub. On September 5, 2019, the defendants filed motions to dismiss. On October 11, 2019, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint removing Messrs. Dodge, Federico, Kaul, Schroeder, Tarr and Wade as defendants. The amended complaint alleges that Mr. Ergen, as our controlling stockholder, breached fiduciary duties to EchoStar Corporation’s minority stockholders by structuring the BSS Transaction with inadequate consideration and improperly influencing our and HSSC’s boards of directors to approve the BSS Transaction. The amended complaint also alleges that the other defendants aided and abetted such alleged breaches. The plaintiffs seek equitable and monetary relief, including the issuance of additional DISH Common Stock, and other costs and disbursements, including attorneys’ fees on behalf of the purported class. On November 11, 2019, we and the other defendants filed separate motions to dismiss plaintiff’s amended complaint and during a hearing on January 13, 2020 the court denied these motions. On February 10, 2020, we and the other defendants filed answers to the amended complaint. We intend to vigorously defend this case. We cannot predict its outcome with any degree of certainty. License Fee Dispute with Government of India, Department of Telecommunications In 1994, the Government of India promulgated a “National Telecommunications Policy” under which the government liberalized the telecommunications sector and required telecommunications service providers to pay fixed license fees. Pursuant to this policy, our subsidiary Hughes Communications India Private Limited (“HCIPL”), formerly known as Hughes Escorts Communications Limited, obtained a license to operate a data network over satellite using VSAT systems. In 1999, HCIPL’s license was amended pursuant to a new government policy that eliminated the fixed license fees and instead required each telecommunications service provider to pay license fees based on its adjusted gross revenue (“AGR”). In March 2005, the Indian Department of Telecommunications (“DOT”) notified HCIPL that, based on its review of HCIPL’s audited accounts and AGR statements, HCIPL must pay additional license fees, interest on such fees and penalties and interest on the penalties. HCIPL responded that the DOT had improperly calculated its AGR by including revenue from licensed and unlicensed activities. The DOT rejected this explanation and in 2006, HCIPL filed a petition with an administrative tribunal (the “Tribunal”), challenging the DOT’s calculation of its AGR. The DOT also issued license fee assessments to other telecommunications service providers and a number of similar petitions were filed by several other such providers with the Tribunal. These petitions were amended, consolidated, remanded and re-appealed several times. On April 23, 2015, the Tribunal issued a judgment affirming the DOT’s calculation of AGR for the telecommunications service providers but reversing the DOT’s imposition of interest, penalties and interest on such penalties as excessive. Over subsequent years, the DOT and HCIPL and other telecommunications service providers, respectively, filed several appeals of the Tribunal’s ruling. On October 24, 2019, the Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”) issued an order (the “October 2019 Order”) affirming the license fee assessments imposed by the DOT, including its imposition of interest, penalties and interest on the penalties, but without indicating the amount HCPIL is required to pay the DOT, and ordering payment by January 23, 2020. On November 23, 2019, HCIPL and other telecommunication service providers filed a petition asking the Supreme Court to reconsider the October 2019 Order. The petition was denied on January 20, 2020. On January 22, 2020, HCIPL and other telecommunication service providers filed an application requesting that the Supreme Court modify the October 2019 Order to permit the DOT to calculate the final amount due and extend HCPIL’s and the other telecommunication service providers’ payment deadline. On February 14, 2020, the Supreme Court directed HCIPL and the other telecommunication service providers to explain why the Supreme Court should not initiate contempt proceedings for failure to pay the amounts due. During a hearing on March 18, 2020, the Supreme Court ordered that all amounts that were due before the October 2019 Order must be paid, including interest, penalties and interest on the penalties. The Supreme Court also ordered that the parties appear for a further hearing addressing, potentially among other things, a proposal by the DOT to allow for extended or deferred payments of amounts due. On June 11, 2020, the Supreme Court ordered HCIPL and the other telecommunication service providers to submit affidavits addressing the proposal made by the DOT to extend the time frame for payment of the amounts owed and for HCIPL and the other telecommunication providers to provide security for such payments. On July 17, 2020, the Supreme Court reaffirmed its March 18, 2020, order and reserved judgment on the DOT proposal to allow for extended or deferred payments. To date, HCIPL has paid the DOT $2.9 million with respect to this matter. As a result of the Supreme Court’s orders, HCIPL’s payments to date and the impact of foreign exchange rates, we have recorded an accrual of $79.6 million as of June 30, 2020, comprised of $3.8 million for additional license fees, $3.9 million for penalties and $72.0 million for interest and interest on penalties. We had recorded an accrual of $80.2 million as of December 31, 2019. Any eventual payments made with respect to the ultimate outcome of this matter may be different from our accrual and such differences could be significant. Other In addition to the above actions, we are subject to various other legal proceedings and claims, which arise in the ordinary course of business. As part of our ongoing operations, we are subject to various inspections, audits, inquiries, investigations and similar actions by third parties, as well as by governmental/regulatory authorities responsible for enforcing the laws and regulations to which we may be subject. Further, under the federal False Claims Act, private parties have the right to bring qui tam, or “whistleblower,” suits against companies that submit false claims for payments to, or improperly retain overpayments from, the federal government. Some states have adopted similar state whistleblower and false claims provisions. In addition, we from time to time receive inquiries from federal, state and foreign agencies regarding compliance with various laws and regulations. In our opinion, the amount of ultimate liability with respect to any of these other actions is unlikely to materially affect our financial position, results of operations or cash flows, though the resolutions and outcomes, individually or in the aggregate, could be material to our financial position, operating results or cash flows for any particular period, depending, in part, upon the operating results for such period. We also indemnify our directors, officers and employees for certain liabilities that might arise from the performance of their responsibilities for us. Additionally, in the normal course of its business, we enter into contracts pursuant to which we may make a variety of representations and warranties and indemnify the counterparty for certain losses. Our possible exposure under these arrangements cannot be reasonably estimated as this involves the resolution of claims made, or future claims that may be made, against us or our officers, directors or employees, the outcomes of which are unknown and not currently predictable or estimable.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for loss and gain contingencies. Describes any existing condition, situation, or set of circumstances involving uncertainty as of the balance sheet date (or prior to issuance of the financial statements) as to a probable or reasonably possible loss incurred by an entity that will ultimately be resolved when one or more future events occur or fail to occur, and typically discloses the amount of loss recorded or a range of possible loss, or an assertion that no reasonable estimate can be made. + References Reference 1: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -SubTopic 30 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/subtopic&trid=2127197 Reference 2: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -SubTopic 20 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/subtopic&trid=2127163 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_LossContingencyDisclosures
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration