UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

 

 

FORM 10-Q

 

 

 

 

Commission File Number: 000-29752

 

Leap Wireless International, Inc.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

 

 

(858) 882-6000

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

 

Not Applicable
(Former name, former address and former fiscal year, if changed since last report)

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

(Do not check if a smaller reporting company)

 

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

 

The number of shares outstanding of the registrant’s common stock on April 30, 2010 was 78,216,420.

 

 

LEAP WIRELESS INTERNATIONAL, INC.

QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q
For the Quarter Ended March 31, 2010

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 services in the United States under the “Cricket^®” brand. Cricket service offerings provide customers with unlimited wireless services for a flat rate without requiring a fixed-term contract or a credit check. The Company’s primary service is Cricket Wireless, which offers customers unlimited wireless voice and data services for a flat monthly rate. Leap conducts operations through its subsidiaries and has no independent operations or sources of income other than interest income and through dividends, if any, from its subsidiaries. Cricket service is offered by Cricket Communications, Inc. (“Cricket”), a wholly owned subsidiary of Leap, and is also offered in Oregon by LCW Wireless Operations, LLC (“LCW Operations”), a wholly owned subsidiary of LCW Wireless, LLC (“LCW Wireless”), and in the upper Midwest by Denali Spectrum Operations, LLC (“Denali Operations”), an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Denali Spectrum, LLC (“Denali”). LCW Wireless and Denali are designated entities under Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) regulations. Cricket owns an indirect 94.6% non-controlling interest in LCW Operations through a 94.6% non-controlling interest in LCW Wireless, and owns an indirect 82.5% non-controlling interest in Denali Operations through an 82.5% non-controlling interest in Denali. Leap, Cricket and their subsidiaries and consolidated joint ventures, including LCW Wireless and Denali, are collectively referred to herein as the “Company.”

 

 

Basis of Presentation

 

The accompanying interim condensed consolidated financial statements have been prepared without audit, in accordance with the instructions to Form 10-Q and therefore do not include all information and footnotes required by accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) for a complete set of financial statements. These condensed consolidated financial statements should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements and notes thereto included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009. In the opinion of management, the unaudited financial information for the interim periods presented reflects all adjustments necessary for a fair presentation of the Company’s results for the periods presented, with such adjustments consisting only of normal recurring adjustments. GAAP requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities, the disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses. By their nature, estimates are subject to an inherent degree of uncertainty. Actual results could differ from management’s estimates and operating results for interim periods are not necessarily indicative of operating results for an entire fiscal year.

 

The condensed consolidated financial statements include the operating results and financial position of Leap and its wholly owned subsidiaries as well as the operating results and financial position of LCW Wireless and Denali and their wholly owned subsidiaries. The Company consolidates its non-controlling interests in LCW Wireless and Denali in accordance with the authoritative guidance for the consolidation of variable interest entities because these entities are variable interest entities and the Company has entered into agreements with the entities’ other members which establish a specified, minimum purchase price in the event that they offer or elect to sell their membership interests to the Company. All intercompany accounts and transactions have been eliminated in the condensed consolidated financial statements.

 

Segment and Geographic Data

 

The Company operates in a single operating segment and a single reporting unit as a wireless communications carrier that offers digital wireless services in the United States. As of and for the three months ended March 31, 2010, all of the Company’s revenues and long-lived assets related to operations in the United States.

 

Revenues

 

The Company’s business revenues principally arise from the sale of wireless services, devices (including handsets and broadband modems) and accessories. Wireless services are generally provided on a month-to-month basis. In general, the Company’s customers are required to pay for their service in advance. Because the Company does not require customers to sign fixed-term contracts or pass a credit check, its services are available to a broader customer base than many other wireless providers and, as a result, some of its customers may be more likely to have service terminated due to an inability to pay. Consequently, the Company has concluded that collectability 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 service for a new customer, it frequently sells that customer a device bundled with a period of free service. Under the authoritative guidance for revenue arrangements with multiple deliverables, the sale of a device along with a free period of service constitutes a multiple element arrangement. Under the guidance, 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 the guidance to these transactions results in the Company recognizing the total consideration received, less revenue for the free wireless service period (at the customer’s stated rate plan), as equipment revenue.

 

Equipment revenues and related costs from the sale of devices 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 devices and accessories sold are recorded in cost of equipment. In addition to devices that the Company sells directly to its customers at Cricket-owned stores, the Company also sells devices to third-party dealers, including mass-merchant retailers. These dealers then sell the devices to the ultimate Cricket customer, and that customer receives a free period of service in a bundled transaction (similar to the sale made at a Cricket-owned store). Sales of devices 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 devices are sold by such dealers to customers. Thus, revenues from devices sold to third-party dealers are recorded as deferred equipment revenue and the related costs of the devices are recorded as deferred charges upon shipment by the Company. The deferred charges are recognized as equipment costs when the related equipment revenue is recognized, which occurs when service is activated by the customer.

 

Through a third-party provider, the Company’s customers may elect to participate in an extended-warranty program for devices they purchase. The Company recognizes revenue on replacement devices sold to its customers under the program when the customer purchases the device.

 

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 when the related service or equipment revenue is recognized. Customers have limited rights to return devices and accessories based on time and/or usage, and customer returns of devices and accessories have historically been insignificant.

 

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

 

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

 

Fair Value of Financial Instruments

 

The authoritative guidance for fair value measurements defines fair value for accounting purposes, establishes a framework for measuring fair value and provides disclosure requirements regarding fair value measurements. The guidance defines fair value as an exit price, which is the price that would be received upon sale of an asset or paid upon transfer of a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. The

 

degree of judgment utilized in measuring the fair value of assets and liabilities generally correlates to the level of pricing observability. Assets and liabilities with readily available, actively quoted prices or for which fair value can be measured from actively quoted prices in active markets generally have more pricing observability and require less judgment in measuring fair value. Conversely, assets and liabilities that are rarely traded or not quoted have less pricing observability and are generally measured at fair value using valuation models that require more judgment. These valuation techniques involve some level of management estimation and judgment, the degree of which is dependent on the price transparency of the asset, liability or market and the nature of the asset or liability. The Company has categorized its assets and liabilities measured at fair value into a three-level hierarchy in accordance with this guidance. See Note 5 for a further discussion regarding the Company’s measurement of 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 other asset is placed in service, at which time the asset is transferred to the appropriate property or equipment category. The Company capitalizes salaries and related costs of engineering and technical operations employees as components of construction-in-progress during the construction period to the extent time and expense are contributed to the construction effort. The Company also capitalizes certain telecommunications and other related costs as construction-in-progress during the construction period to the extent they are incremental and directly related to the network under construction. In addition, interest is capitalized on the carrying values of both wireless licenses and equipment during the construction period and is depreciated over an estimated useful life of ten years. During the three months ended March 31, 2010 the Company did not capitalize interest to property and equipment. During the three months ended March 31, 2009, the Company capitalized interest of $12.2 million to property and equipment.

 

In accordance with the authoritative guidance for accounting for costs of computer software developed or obtained for internal use, certain costs related to the development of internal use software are capitalized and amortized over the estimated useful life of the software. For the three months ended March 31, 2010 and 2009, the Company capitalized approximately $24.5 million and $10.9 million, respectively, of these costs. The Company amortized software costs of approximately $6.1 million and $5.0 million for the three months ended March 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively.

 

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, 2010 and December 31, 2009, there was no property or equipment classified as assets held for sale.

 

Wireless Licenses

 

The Company, LCW Wireless and Denali operate Personal Communications Services (“PCS”) and Advanced Wireless Services (“AWS”) networks under PCS and AWS wireless licenses granted by the FCC that are specific to a particular geographic area on spectrum that has been allocated by the FCC for such services. Wireless licenses are initially recorded at cost and are not amortized. Although FCC licenses are issued with a stated term (ten years in the case of PCS licenses and fifteen years in the case of AWS licenses), wireless licenses are considered to be indefinite-lived intangible assets because the Company expects its subsidiaries and consolidated joint ventures to provide wireless service using the relevant licenses for the foreseeable future, PCS and AWS licenses are routinely renewed for either no or a nominal fee, and management has determined that no legal, regulatory, contractual, competitive, economic or other factors currently exist that limit the useful life of the Company’s or its consolidated joint ventures’ PCS and AWS licenses. On a quarterly basis, the Company evaluates the remaining useful life of its indefinite-lived wireless licenses to determine whether events and circumstances, such as legal, regulatory, contractual, competitive, economic or other factors, continue to support an indefinite useful life. If a wireless license is subsequently determined to have a finite useful life, the Company would first test the wireless license for impairment and the wireless license would then be amortized prospectively over its estimated remaining useful life. In addition, on a quarterly basis, the Company evaluates the triggering event criteria outlined in the authoritative guidance for the impairment or disposal of long-lived assets to determine whether events or changes in circumstances indicate that an impairment condition may exist. In addition to these quarterly evaluations, the Company also tests its wireless licenses for impairment on an annual basis in accordance with the authoritative guidance for goodwill and other intangible assets. As of March 31, 2010 and December 31, 2009, 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 their carrying value or fair value less costs to sell. As of December 31, 2009, wireless licenses with a carrying value of $2.4 million were classified as assets held for sale, as more fully described in Note 7. As of March 31, 2010, there were no wireless licenses classified as assets held for sale.

 

Portions of the AWS spectrum that the Company and Denali Spectrum License Sub, LLC (“Denali License Sub”) (an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Denali) were awarded in Auction #66 were subject to use 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. In connection with the launch of new markets over the past two years, the Company and Denali worked with several incumbent government and commercial licensees to clear AWS spectrum. The Company’s and Denali’s spectrum clearing costs have been capitalized to wireless licenses as incurred. During the three months ended March 31, 2010 and 2009, the Company and Denali incurred approximately $1.1 million and $2.5 million, respectively, in spectrum clearing costs.

 

Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets

 

Goodwill primarily represents the excess of reorganization value over the fair value of identified tangible and intangible assets recorded in connection with fresh-start reporting as of July 31, 2004. Certain of the Company’s other intangible assets were also recorded upon adoption of fresh-start reporting and now consist of trademarks which are being amortized on a straight-line basis over their estimated useful lives of fourteen years. Customer relationships acquired in connection with the Company’s acquisition of Hargray Wireless, LLC (“Hargray Wireless”) in 2008 are amortized on an accelerated basis over a useful life of up to four years.

 

Impairment of Indefinite-Lived Intangible Assets

 

The Company assesses potential impairments to its indefinite-lived intangible assets, including wireless licenses and goodwill, on an annual basis or when there is evidence that events or changes in circumstances indicate that an impairment condition may exist. In addition, and as more fully described below, on a quarterly basis, the Company evaluates the triggering event criteria outlined in the authoritative guidance for goodwill and other intangible assets to determine whether events or changes in circumstances indicate that an impairment condition may exist. The annual impairment test is conducted during the third quarter of each year.

 

Wireless Licenses

 

The Company’s wireless licenses in its operating markets are combined into a single unit of account for purposes of testing impairment because management believes that utilizing these wireless licenses as a group represents the highest and best use of the assets, and the value of the wireless licenses would not be significantly impacted by a sale of one or a portion of the wireless licenses, among other factors. The Company’s non-operating licenses are tested for impairment on an individual basis because these licenses are not functioning as part of a group with licenses in the Company’s operating markets. As of March 31, 2010, the carrying values of the Company’s operating and non-operating wireless licenses were $1,892.0 million and $31.1 million, respectively. An impairment loss is recognized on the Company’s operating wireless licenses when the aggregate fair value of the wireless licenses is less than their aggregate carrying value and is measured as the amount by which the licenses’ aggregate carrying value exceeds their aggregate fair value. An impairment loss is recognized on the Company’s non-operating wireless licenses when the fair value of a wireless license is less than its carrying value and is measured as the amount by which the license’s carrying value exceeds its fair value. Any required impairment loss is recorded as a reduction in the carrying value of the relevant wireless license and charged to results of operations.

 

The valuation method the Company uses to determine the fair value of its wireless licenses is the market approach. Under this method, the Company determines fair value by comparing its wireless licenses to sales prices of other wireless licenses of similar size and type that have been recently sold through government auctions and private transactions. As part of this market-level analysis, the fair value of each wireless license is evaluated and adjusted for developments or changes in legal, regulatory and technical matters, and for demographic and economic factors, such as population size, composition, growth rate and density, household and disposable income, and composition and concentration of the market’s workforce in industry sectors identified as wireless-centric (e.g., real estate, transportation, professional services, agribusiness, finance and insurance).

 

As more fully described above, the most significant assumption used to determine the fair value of the Company’s wireless licenses is comparable sales transactions. Other assumptions used in determining fair value include developments or changes in legal, regulatory and technical matters as well as demographic and economic factors. Changes in comparable sales prices would generally result in a corresponding change in fair value. For example, a ten percent decline in comparable sales prices would generally result in a ten percent decline in fair value. However, a decline in comparable sales would likely require further adjustment to fair value to capture more recent macro-economic changes and changes in the demographic and economic characteristics unique to the Company’s wireless licenses, such as population size, composition, growth rate and density, household and disposable income, and the extent of the wireless-centric workforce in the markets covered by the Company’s wireless licenses.

 

As of September 30, 2009, the date of the Company’s annual impairment test, the aggregate fair value and aggregate carrying value of its individual operating wireless licenses was $2,388.5 million and $1,889.3 million, respectively. If the fair value of the Company’s operating wireless licenses had declined by 10% in such impairment test, it would not have recognized any impairment loss. As of September 30, 2009, the aggregate fair value and aggregate carrying value of its individual non-operating wireless licenses was $36.6 million and $30.0 million, respectively. If the fair value of each of the Company’s non-operating wireless licenses had declined by 10% in such impairment test, it would have recognized an impairment loss of approximately $1.7 million.

 

As of March 31, 2010, the Company evaluated whether any triggering events or changes in circumstances occurred subsequent to its 2009 annual impairment test of its wireless licenses that indicated that an impairment condition may exist. This evaluation included consideration of whether there had been any significant adverse change in legal factors or in the Company’s business climate, adverse action or assessment by a regulator, unanticipated competition, loss of key personnel or likely sale or disposal of all or a significant portion of an asset group. Based upon this evaluation, the Company concluded that there had not been any triggering events or changes in circumstances that indicated that an impairment condition existed as of March 31, 2010.

 

Goodwill

 

The Company assesses its goodwill for impairment annually at the reporting unit level by applying a fair value test. This fair value test involves a two-step process. The first step is to compare the book value of the Company’s net

 

assets to its fair value. If the fair value is determined to be less than book value, a second step is performed to measure the amount of the impairment, if any.

 

In connection with the annual test in 2009, the Company based its determination of fair value primarily upon its average market capitalization for the month of August, plus a control premium. Average market capitalization is calculated based upon the average number of shares of Leap common stock outstanding during such month and the average closing price of Leap common stock during such month. The Company considered the month of August to be an appropriate period over which to measure average market capitalization in 2009 because trading prices during that period reflected market reaction to the Company’s most recently announced financial and operating results, announced early in the month of August.

 

In conducting the annual impairment test during the third quarter of 2009, the Company applied a control premium of 30% to its average market capitalization. The Company believes that consideration of a control premium is customary in determining fair value, and is contemplated by the applicable accounting guidance. The Company believes that its consideration of a control premium was appropriate because it believes that its market capitalization does not fully capture the fair value of its business as a whole or the additional amount an assumed purchaser would pay to obtain a controlling interest in the Company. The Company determined the amount of the control premium as part of its third quarter 2009 testing based upon its relevant transactional experience, a review of recent comparable telecommunications transactions and an assessment of market, economic and other factors. Depending on the circumstances, the actual amount of any control premium realized in any transaction involving the Company could be higher or lower than the control premium the Company applied. Based upon the Company’s annual impairment test conducted during the third quarter of 2009, the Company determined that no impairment existed.

 

The carrying value of the Company’s goodwill was $430.1 million as of March 31, 2010. As of March 31, 2010, the Company evaluated whether any triggering events or changes in circumstances had occurred subsequent to its annual impairment test that would indicate an impairment condition may exist. This evaluation included consideration of whether there had been any significant adverse changes in legal factors or in the Company’s business climate, adverse action or assessment by a regulator, unanticipated competition, loss of key personnel or likely sale or disposal of all or a significant portion of a reporting unit. Based upon this evaluation, the Company concluded that there had not been any triggering events or changes in circumstances that indicated an impairment condition existed as of March 31, 2010.

 

If competition or other factors were to cause significant changes in the Company’s actual or projected financial or operating performance, this could constitute a triggering event which would require the Company to perform an interim goodwill impairment test prior to its next annual impairment test. If the first step of the interim impairment test were to indicate that a potential impairment existed, the Company would be required to perform the second step of the goodwill impairment test, which would require it to determine the fair value of its net assets and could require it to recognize a material non-cash impairment charge that could reduce all or a portion of the carrying value of its goodwill of $430.1 million.

 

Investments in Other Entities

 

The Company uses the equity method to account for investments in common stock of corporations in which it has a voting interest of between 20% and 50% or in which the Company otherwise has the ability to exercise significant influence, and in limited liability companies that maintain specific ownership accounts in which it has more than a minor but not greater than a 50% ownership interest. Under the equity method, the investment is originally recorded at cost and is adjusted to recognize the Company’s share of net earnings or losses of the investee. The Company’s ownership interest in equity method investees ranges from approximately 7% to 20% of outstanding membership units. The carrying value of the Company’s equity method investees was $24.4 million and $21.3 million as of March 31, 2010 and December 31, 2009, respectively. During the three months ended March 31, 2010 and 2009, the Company’s share of the income of its equity method investees (net of its share of their losses) was $0.6 million and $1.5 million, respectively.

 

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, a limited number of vendors for device logistics, a limited number of vendors for its voice and data communications transport services and a limited number of vendors for payment processing services. Loss or disruption of these services could materially adversely affect the Company’s business.

 

The networks the Company operates do not, by themselves, provide national coverage and it must pay fees to other carriers who provide roaming services to the Company. The Company currently relies on roaming agreements with several carriers for the majority of its roaming services. If the Company were unable to obtain cost-effective roaming services for its customers in geographically desirable service areas, the Company’s competitive position, business, financial condition and results of operations could be materially adversely affected.

 

Share-Based Compensation

 

The Company accounts for share-based awards exchanged for employee services in accordance with the authoritative guidance for share-based payments. Under the guidance, 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, 2010 and 2009 was allocated in the condensed consolidated statements of operations as follows (in thousands, except per share data):

 

 

Income Taxes

 

The computation of the Company’s annual effective tax rate includes a forecast of the Company’s estimated “ordinary” income (loss), which is its annual income (loss) from continuing operations before tax, excluding unusual or infrequently occurring (discrete) items. Significant management judgment is required in projecting the Company’s ordinary income (loss). The Company’s projected ordinary income tax expense for the full year 2010 consists primarily of the deferred tax effect of the Company’s investments in joint ventures that are in a deferred tax liability position and the amortization of wireless licenses and goodwill for income tax purposes. Because the Company’s projected 2010 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, therefore making it difficult to determine a reliable estimate of the annual effective tax rate. As a result and in accordance with the authoritative guidance for accounting for income taxes in interim periods, the Company has computed its provision for income

 

taxes for the three months ended March 31, 2010 and 2009 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 current tax expense and any deferred income tax expense resulting from temporary differences arising from differing treatments of items for tax and accounting purposes. These temporary differences result in deferred tax assets and liabilities. Deferred tax assets are also established for the expected future tax benefits to be derived from net operating loss (“NOL”) carryforwards, capital loss carryforwards and income tax credits.

 

The Company must then periodically assess the likelihood that its deferred tax assets will be recovered from future taxable income, which assessment requires significant judgment. Included in the Company’s deferred tax assets as of March 31, 2010 were federal NOL carryforwards of approximately $1.6 billion (which begin to expire in 2022) and state NOL carryforwards of approximately $1.7 billion ($21.9 million of which will expire at the end of 2010), which could be used to offset future ordinary taxable income and reduce the amount of cash required to settle future tax liabilities. While these NOL carryforwards have a potential value of approximately $610.0 million in cash tax savings, there is no assurance that the Company will be able to realize such tax savings.

 

If the Company were to experience an “ownership change,” as defined in Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code and similar state provisions, at a time when its market capitalization was below a certain level, its ability to utilize these NOLs to offset future taxable income could be significantly limited. In general terms, a change in ownership can occur whenever there is a shift in the ownership of a company by more than 50 percentage points by one or more “5% stockholders” within a three-year period.

 

The determination of whether an ownership change has occurred is complex and requires significant judgment. If an ownership change for purposes of Section 382 were to occur, it could significantly limit the amount of NOL carryforwards that the Company could utilize on an annual basis, thus accelerating cash tax payments it would have to make and possibly causing these NOLs to expire before it could fully utilize them. As a result, any restriction on the Company’s ability to utilize these NOL carryforwards could have a material impact on its future cash flows.

 

None of the Company’s NOL carryforwards are being considered as an uncertain tax position or disclosed as an unrecognized tax benefit. Any carryforwards that expire prior to utilization as a result of a Section 382 limitation will be removed from deferred tax assets with a corresponding reduction to valuation allowance. Since the Company currently maintains a full valuation allowance against its federal and state NOL carryforwards, it is not expected that any possible limitation would have a current impact on its net income.

 

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, 2010, the Company weighed the positive and negative factors with respect to this determination and, at this time, does not believe there is sufficient positive evidence and sustained operating earnings to support a conclusion that it is more likely than not that all or a portion of its deferred tax assets will be realized, except with respect to the realization of a $2.0 million Texas Margins Tax (“TMT”) credit. The Company will continue to closely monitor the positive and negative factors to assess whether it is required to continue to maintain a valuation allowance. At such time as the Company determines that it is more likely than not that all or a portion of the deferred tax assets are realizable, the valuation allowance will be reduced or released in its entirety, with the corresponding benefit reflected in the Company’s tax provision. Deferred tax liabilities associated with wireless licenses, tax goodwill and investments in certain joint ventures cannot be considered a source of taxable income to support the realization of deferred tax assets because these deferred tax liabilities will not reverse until some indefinite future period when these assets are either sold or impaired for book purposes.

 

In accordance with the authoritative guidance for business combinations any reduction in the valuation allowance, including the valuation allowance established in fresh-start reporting, will be accounted for as a reduction of income tax expense.

 

The Company’s unrecognized income tax benefits and uncertain tax positions have not been material in any period. Interest and penalties related to uncertain tax positions are recognized by the Company as a component of income tax expense; however, such amounts have not been significant in any period. All of the Company’s tax years from 1998 to 2009 remain open to examination by federal and state taxing authorities. In July 2009, the federal

 

examination of the Company’s 2005 tax year was concluded and the results did not have a material impact on the consolidated financial statements.

 

Comprehensive Loss

 

Comprehensive loss consisted of the following (in thousands):

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

Since the Company incurred net losses for the three months ended March 31, 2010 and 2009, 9.7 million common share equivalents were excluded from the computation of diluted earnings (loss) per share for the three months ended March 31, 2010, and 9.0 million common share equivalents were excluded in the computation of diluted earnings (loss) per share for the three months ended March 31, 2009, as their effect would be antidilutive.

 

 

The Company has categorized its assets and liabilities measured at fair value into a three-level hierarchy in accordance with the authoritative guidance for fair value measurements. Assets and liabilities measured at fair value using quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities are generally categorized as Level 1; assets and liabilities measured at fair value using observable market-based inputs or unobservable inputs that are corroborated by market data for similar assets or liabilities are generally categorized as Level 2; and assets and liabilities measured at fair value using unobservable inputs that cannot be corroborated by market data are generally categorized as Level 3. Assets and liabilities presented at fair value in the Company’s condensed consolidated balance sheets are generally categorized as follows:

 

 

 

The following table sets forth by level within the fair value hierarchy the Company’s assets and liabilities that were recorded at fair value as of March 31, 2010 and December 31, 2009 (in thousands). As required by the guidance for fair value measurements, financial assets and liabilities are classified in their entirety based on the lowest level of input that is significant to the fair value measurement. Thus, assets and liabilities categorized as Level 3 may be measured at fair value using inputs that are observable (Levels 1 and 2) and unobservable (Level 3). Management’s assessment of the significance of a particular input to the fair value measurement requires judgment, which may affect the valuation of assets and liabilities and their placement within the fair value hierarchy levels.

 

 

 

Assets in the tables above are reported in the condensed consolidated balance sheets as components of cash and cash equivalents, short-term investments, restricted cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments and other assets.

 

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

 

 

Unrealized gains (losses) are presented in accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) in the condensed consolidated balance sheets. Realized gains (losses) are presented in other income (expense), net in the condensed consolidated statements of operations.

 

Cash Equivalents and Short-Term Investments

 

As of March 31, 2010 and December 31, 2009, all of the Company’s short-term investments were debt securities with contractual maturities of less than one year and were classified as available-for-sale. The fair value of

 

the Company’s cash equivalents, short-term investments in obligations of the U.S. government and government agencies and a majority of its short-term investments in commercial paper is determined using observable market-based inputs for similar assets, which primarily include yield curves and time-to-maturity factors. Such investments are therefore considered to be Level 2 items. The fair value of the Company’s investment in asset-backed commercial paper is determined using primarily unobservable inputs that cannot be corroborated by market data, primarily consisting of indicative bids from potential purchasers, and is therefore considered to be a Level 3 item.

 

Available-for-sale securities were comprised as follows as of March 31, 2010 and December 31, 2009 (in thousands):

 

 

 

Long-Term Debt

 

The Company continues to report its long-term debt obligations at amortized cost; however, for disclosure purposes, the Company is required to measure the fair value of outstanding debt on a recurring basis. The fair value of the Company’s outstanding long-term debt is determined using quoted prices in active markets and was $2,778.1 million and $2,715.7 million as of March 31, 2010 and December 31, 2009, respectively.

 

 

Long-term debt as of March 31, 2010 and December 31, 2009 was comprised of the following (in thousands):

 

 

Senior Notes

 

Unsecured Senior Notes Due 2014

 

In 2006, Cricket issued $750 million of 9.375% unsecured senior notes due 2014 in a private placement to institutional buyers, which were exchanged in 2007 for identical notes that had been registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). In June 2007, Cricket issued an additional $350 million of 9.375% unsecured senior notes due 2014 in a private placement to institutional buyers at an issue price of 106% of the principal amount, which were exchanged in June 2008 for identical notes that had been registered with the SEC. These notes are all treated as a single class and have identical terms. The $21 million premium the Company received in connection with the issuance of the second tranche of notes has been recorded in long-term debt in the condensed consolidated financial statements and is being amortized as a reduction to interest expense over the term of the notes using the effective interest rate method. At March 31, 2010, the effective interest rate on the $350 million of senior notes was 9.0%, which includes the effect of the premium amortization.

 

The notes bear interest at the rate of 9.375% per year, payable semi-annually in cash in arrears, which interest payments commenced in May 2007. The notes are guaranteed on an unsecured senior basis by Leap and each of its existing and future domestic subsidiaries (other than Cricket, which is the issuer of the notes, and LCW Wireless and Denali and their respective subsidiaries) that guarantee indebtedness for money borrowed of Leap, Cricket or any subsidiary guarantor. The notes and the guarantees are Leap’s, Cricket’s and the guarantors’ general senior unsecured obligations and rank equally in right of payment with all of Leap’s, Cricket’s and the guarantors’ existing and future unsubordinated unsecured indebtedness. The notes and the guarantees are effectively junior to Leap’s, Cricket’s and the guarantors’ existing and future secured obligations, including those under the senior secured notes described below, to the extent of the value of the assets securing such obligations, as well as to existing and 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, 2010, Cricket may redeem the notes, in whole or in part, at a redemption price equal to 100% of the principal amount thereof plus the applicable premium and any accrued and unpaid interest, if any, thereon to the redemption date. The applicable premium is calculated as the greater of (i) 1.0% of the principal amount of such notes and (ii) the excess of (a) the present value at such date of redemption of (1) the redemption price of such notes at November 1, 2010 plus (2) all remaining required interest payments due on such notes through November 1, 2010 (excluding accrued but unpaid interest to the date of redemption), computed using a discount rate equal to the Treasury Rate plus 50 basis points, over (b) the principal amount of such notes. The notes may be redeemed, in whole or in part, at any time on or after November 1, 2010, at a redemption price of 104.688% and 102.344% of the principal amount thereof if redeemed during the twelve months beginning on November 1, 2010 and 2011, respectively, or at 100% of the principal amount if redeemed during the twelve months beginning on November 1, 2012 or thereafter, plus accrued and unpaid interest, if any, thereon to the redemption date.

 

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

 

Convertible Senior Notes Due 2014

 

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

 

future secured obligations, including those under the senior secured notes described below, to the extent of the value of the assets securing such obligations.

 

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

 

Leap may be required to repurchase all outstanding notes in cash at a repurchase price of 100% of the principal amount of the notes, plus accrued and unpaid interest, if any, thereon to the repurchase date if (1) any person acquires beneficial ownership, directly or indirectly, of shares of Leap’s capital stock that would entitle the person to exercise 50% or more of the total voting power of all of Leap’s capital stock entitled to vote in the election of directors, (2) Leap (i) merges or consolidates with or into any other person, another person merges with or into Leap, or Leap conveys, sells, transfers or leases all or substantially all of its assets to another person or (ii) engages in any recapitalization, reclassification or other transaction in which all or substantially all of Leap’s common stock is exchanged for or converted into cash, securities or other property, in each case subject to limitations and excluding in the case of (1) and (2) any merger or consolidation where at least 90% of the consideration consists of shares of common stock traded on NYSE, ASE or NASDAQ, (3) a majority of the members of Leap’s board of directors ceases to consist of individuals who were directors on the date of original issuance of the notes or whose election or nomination for election was previously approved by the board of directors, (4) Leap is liquidated or dissolved or holders of common stock approve any plan or proposal for its liquidation or dissolution or (5) shares of Leap common stock are not listed for trading on any of the New York Stock Exchange, the NASDAQ Global Market or the NASDAQ Global Select Market (or any of their respective successors). Leap may not redeem the notes at its option.

 

Unsecured Senior Notes Due 2015

 

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

 

Prior to July 15, 2011, Cricket may redeem up to 35% of the aggregate principal amount of the notes at a redemption price of 110.0% of the principal amount thereof, plus accrued and unpaid interest, if any, thereon to the redemption date, from the net cash proceeds of specified equity offerings. Prior to July 15, 2012, Cricket may redeem the notes, in whole or in part, at a redemption price equal to 100% of the principal amount thereof plus the applicable premium and any accrued and unpaid interest, if any, thereon to the redemption date. The applicable premium is calculated as the greater of (i) 1.0% of the principal amount of such notes and (ii) the excess of (a) the present value at such date of redemption of (1) the redemption price of such notes at July 15, 2012 plus (2) all remaining required interest payments due on such notes through July 15, 2012 (excluding accrued but unpaid interest to the date of redemption), computed using a discount rate equal to the Treasury Rate plus 50 basis points, over (b) the principal amount of such notes. The notes may be redeemed, in whole or in part, at any time on or after July 15, 2012, at a redemption price of 105.0% and 102.5% of the principal amount thereof if redeemed during the twelve months beginning on July 15, 2012

 

and 2013, respectively, or at 100% of the principal amount if redeemed during the twelve months beginning on July 15, 2014 or thereafter, plus accrued and unpaid interest, if any, thereon to the redemption date.

 

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

 

Senior Secured Notes Due 2016

 

On June 5, 2009, Cricket issued $1,100 million of 7.75% senior secured notes due 2016 in a private placement to institutional buyers at an issue price of 96.134% of the principal amount, which notes were exchanged in December 2009 for identical notes that had been registered with the SEC. The $42.5 million discount to the net proceeds 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 accreted as an increase to interest expense over the term of the notes using the effective interest rate method. At March 31, 2010, the effective interest rate on the notes was 8.03%, which includes the effect of the discount accretion.

 

The notes bear interest at the rate of 7.75% per year, payable semi-annually in cash in arrears, which interest payments commenced in November 2009. The notes are guaranteed on a senior secured basis by Leap and each of its direct and indirect existing domestic subsidiaries (other than Cricket, which is the issuer of the notes, and LCW Wireless and Denali and their respective subsidiaries) and any future wholly owned domestic restricted subsidiary that guarantees any indebtedness of Cricket or a guarantor of the notes. The notes and the guarantees are Leap’s, Cricket’s and the guarantors’ senior secured obligations and are equal in right of payment with all of Leap’s, Cricket’s and the guarantors’ existing and future unsubordinated indebtedness.

 

The notes and the guarantees are effectively senior to all of Leap’s, Cricket’s and the guarantors’ existing and future unsecured indebtedness (including Cricket’s $1.4 billion aggregate principal amount of unsecured senior notes and, in the case of Leap, Leap’s $250 million aggregate principal amount of convertible senior notes), as well as to all of Leap’s, Cricket’s and the guarantors’ obligations under any permitted junior lien debt that may be incurred in the future, in each case to the extent of the value of the collateral securing the senior secured notes and the guarantees.

 

The notes and the guarantees are secured on a pari passu basis with all of Leap’s, Cricket’s and the guarantors’ obligations under any permitted parity lien debt that may be incurred in the future. Leap, Cricket and the guarantors are permitted to incur debt under existing and future secured credit facilities in an aggregate principal amount outstanding (including the aggregate principal amount outstanding of the senior secured notes) of up to the greater of $1,500 million and 3.5 times Leap’s consolidated cash flow (excluding the consolidated cash flow of LCW Wireless and Denali) for the prior four fiscal quarters through December 31, 2010, stepping down to 3.0 times such consolidated cash flow for any such debt incurred after December 31, 2010 but on or prior to December 31, 2011, and to 2.5 times such consolidated cash flow for any such debt incurred after December 31, 2011.

 

The notes and the guarantees are effectively junior to all of Leap’s, Cricket’s and the guarantors’ obligations under any permitted priority debt that may be incurred in the future (up to the lesser of 0.30 times Leap’s consolidated cash flow (excluding the consolidated cash flow of LCW Wireless and Denali) for the prior four fiscal quarters and $300 million in aggregate principal amount outstanding), to the extent of the value of the collateral securing such permitted priority debt, as well as to existing and 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.

 

The notes and the guarantees are secured on a first-priority basis, equally and ratably with any future parity lien debt, by liens on substantially all of the present and future personal property of Leap, Cricket and the guarantors, except for certain excluded assets and subject to permitted liens (including liens on the collateral securing any future permitted priority debt).

 

Prior to May 15, 2012, Cricket may redeem up to 35% of the aggregate principal amount of the notes at a redemption price of 107.750% of the principal amount thereof, plus accrued and unpaid interest thereon to the

 

redemption date, from the net cash proceeds of specified equity offerings. Prior to May 15, 2012, Cricket may redeem the notes, in whole or in part, at a redemption price equal to 100% of the principal amount thereof plus the applicable premium and any accrued and unpaid interest thereon to the redemption date. The applicable premium is calculated as the greater of (i) 1.0% of the principal amount of such notes and (ii) the excess of (a) the present value at such date of redemption of (1) the redemption price of such notes at May 15, 2012 plus (2) all remaining required interest payments due on such notes through May 15, 2012 (excluding accrued but unpaid interest to the date of redemption), computed using a discount rate equal to the Treasury Rate plus 50 basis points, over (b) the principal amount of such notes. The notes may be redeemed, in whole or in part, at any time on or after May 15, 2012, at a redemption price of 105.813%, 103.875% and 101.938% of the principal amount thereof if redeemed during the twelve months beginning on May 15, 2012, 2013 and 2014, respectively, or at 100% of the principal amount if redeemed during the twelve months beginning on May 15, 2015 or thereafter, plus accrued and unpaid interest thereon to the redemption date.

 

If a “change of control” occurs (which includes the acquisition of beneficial ownership of 35% or more of Leap’s equity securities (other than a transaction where immediately after such transaction Leap will be a wholly owned subsidiary of a person of which no person or group is the beneficial owner of 35% or more of such a person’s voting stock), 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 thereon to the repurchase date.

 

LCW Operations Senior Secured Credit Agreement

 

LCW Operations has a senior secured credit agreement, as amended, consisting of two term loans with an aggregate outstanding principal amount of approximately $16.1 million as of March 31, 2010. The loans bear interest at LIBOR plus the applicable margin (ranging from 2.70% to 6.33%). At March 31, 2010, the effective interest rate on the term loans was 5.12%. Outstanding borrowings under the senior secured credit agreement are due in quarterly installments of $2 million with an aggregate final payment of approximately $10 million due in March 2011. LCW Wireless’ working capital needs and debt service requirements are expected to be met through cash generated from its operations.

 

The obligations under the senior secured credit agreement are guaranteed by LCW Wireless and LCW License (a wholly owned subsidiary of LCW Operations) and are non-recourse to Leap, Cricket and their other subsidiaries. The obligations under the senior secured credit agreement are secured by substantially all of the present and future assets of LCW Wireless and its subsidiaries. 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 or sell assets. The senior secured credit agreement requires that LCW Operations and the guarantors comply with financial covenants related to earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (“EBITDA”), gross additions of subscribers, minimum cash and cash equivalents and maximum capital expenditures, among other things. LCW Operations was in compliance with these covenants as of March 31, 2010.

 

 

On January 8, 2010, the Company contributed certain non-operating wireless licenses in West Texas with a carrying value of approximately $2.4 million to a regional wireless service provider in exchange for a 6.6% ownership interest in the company.

 

On February 22, 2010, the Company entered into an asset purchase and contribution agreement with various entities doing business as Pocket Communications, or (collectively) “Pocket”, pursuant to which it and Pocket agreed to contribute substantially all of their wireless spectrum and operating assets in South Texas to a joint venture controlled by the Company. The Company will own approximately 76% of the joint venture and Pocket will own approximately 24%. Immediately prior to the closing the Company will purchase specified assets from Pocket for

 

approximately $38 million in cash, which assets will also be contributed to the joint venture. Following the closing, Pocket will have the right to put, and the Company will have the right to call, all of Pocket’s membership interests in the joint venture (which rights will generally be exercisable by either party after 31/2 years). In addition, in the event of a change of control of Leap, Pocket will be obligated to sell to the Company all of its membership interests in the joint venture. The closing of the transaction is subject to customary closing conditions, including the consent of the FCC.

 

On March 30, 2010, Cricket acquired an additional 23.9% membership interest in LCW Wireless from CSM Wireless, LLC (“CSM”), following CSM’s exercise of its option to sell its interest in LCW Wireless to Cricket for $21.0 million, which increased Cricket’s non-controlling interest in LCW Wireless to 94.6%.

 

 

As described in Note 2, the Company consolidates its non-controlling interests in LCW Wireless and Denali in accordance with the authoritative guidance for the consolidation of variable interest entities because these entities are variable interest entities and the Company has entered into agreements with the entities’ other members which establish a specified, minimum purchase price in the event that they offer or elect to sell their membership interests to the Company. All intercompany accounts and transactions have been eliminated in the condensed consolidated financial statements. LCW Wireless, Denali and their respective subsidiaries are not guarantors of the Company’s secured and unsecured senior notes, and the carrying amount and classification of their assets and liabilities is presented in Note 10. Both entities offer (through wholly owned subsidiaries) Cricket service and, accordingly, are generally subject to the same risks in conducting operations as the Company.

 

Arrangements with LCW Wireless

 

On March 30, 2010 Cricket acquired an additional 23.9% membership interest in LCW Wireless following CSM’s exercise of its option to sell its interest in LCW Wireless to Cricket for $21.0 million. As a result, the membership interests in LCW Wireless are held as follows: Cricket holds a 94.6% non-controlling membership interest; WLPCS Management, LLC (“WLPCS”) holds a 1.9% controlling membership interest; and the remaining membership interests are held by employees of LCW Wireless. As of March 31, 2010, Cricket’s equity contributions to LCW totaled $67.9 million.

 

Limited Liability Company Agreement

 

Under the amended and restated limited liability company agreement of LCW Wireless, LLC, WLPCS has the option to put its entire membership interest in LCW Wireless to Cricket for a purchase price not to exceed $3.8 million during a 30-day period commencing on the earlier to occur of August 9, 2010 and the date of a sale of all or substantially all of the assets, or the liquidation, of LCW Wireless. If the put option is exercised, the consummation of this sale will be subject to FCC approval. The Company has recorded this obligation to WLPCS, including related accretion charges, as a component of redeemable non-controlling interests in the condensed consolidated balance sheets. As of March 31, 2010 and December 31, 2009, this non-controlling interest had a carrying value of $3.0 million and $2.9 million, respectively.

 

Line of Credit Agreement

 

LCW Wireless has a line of credit agreement with Cricket, whereby Cricket has agreed to lend to LCW Wireless a maximum of $5 million during the 30-day period immediately preceding the senior secured credit agreement maturity date of March 2011.

 

Management Agreement

 

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

 

Other

 

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

 

Arrangements with Denali

 

Cricket and Denali Spectrum Manager, LLC (“DSM”) formed Denali as a joint venture to participate (through a wholly owned subsidiary) in FCC Auction #66. Cricket owns an 82.5% non-controlling membership interest and DSM owns a 17.5% controlling membership interest in Denali. As of March 31, 2010, Cricket’s equity contributions to Denali totaled $83.6 million.

 

Limited Liability Company Agreement

 

Under the amended and restated limited liability company agreement of Denali, DSM may offer to sell its entire membership interest in Denali to Cricket in April 2012 and each year thereafter for a purchase price equal to DSM’s equity contributions in cash to Denali, plus a specified return, payable in cash. If DSM makes a sale offer each year and Cricket does not accept any such sale offer, then DSM may put its membership interest to a subsidiary of Denali in 2017. The consummation of any sale offer that is accepted by Cricket, or any put transaction that may be exercised by DSM, will be subject to FCC approval. The Company has recorded this obligation to DSM, including related accretion charges, as a component of redeemable non-controlling interests in the condensed consolidated balance sheets. As of March 31, 2010 and December 31, 2009, this non-controlling interest had a carrying value of $48.8 million and $47.7 million, respectively.

 

Senior Secured Credit Agreement

 

Cricket entered into a senior secured credit agreement with Denali and its subsidiaries to fund the payment to the FCC for the AWS license acquired by Denali in Auction #66 and to fund a portion of the costs of the construction and operation of the wireless network using such license. As of March 31, 2010, borrowings under the credit agreement totaled $542.9 million, including borrowings under the build-out sub-facility of $319.5 million. As of March 31, 2010, the build-out sub-facility commitment with Denali was $334.5 million, $15.0 million of which was unused at such date. Leap’s board of directors has authorized the Company to increase the build-out sub-facility to $394.5 million. The Company does not anticipate making any future increases to the size of the build-out sub-facility beyond the amount authorized by Leap’s board of directors. Additional funding requests would be subject to approval by Leap’s board of directors. Loans under the credit agreement accrue interest at the rate of 14% per annum and such interest is added to principal quarterly. All outstanding principal and accrued interest is due in April 2021. Outstanding principal and accrued interest are amortized in quarterly installments commencing April 2017.

 

Management Agreement

 

Cricket and Denali Spectrum License, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Denali (“Denali License”), are party to a management services agreement, pursuant to which Cricket is to provide management services to Denali License and its subsidiaries in exchange for a monthly management fee based on Cricket’s costs of providing such services plus overhead. Under the management services agreement, Denali License retains full control and authority over its business strategy, finances, wireless license, network equipment, facilities and operations, including its product offerings, terms of service and pricing. The initial term of the management services agreement expires in 2016. The management services agreement may be terminated by Denali License or Cricket if the other party materially breaches its obligations under the agreement, or by Denali License for convenience upon prior written notice to Cricket.

 

On March 17, 2010, Cricket and Denali License agreed, subject to certain conditions, to waive the obligation of Denali License to pay a share of the Company’s corporate and regional overhead costs with respect to the services provided by Cricket under the management services agreement during 2010 and 2011. Cricket and Denali License also

 

agreed, subject to certain conditions, to waive the payment of royalty fees due to Cricket for use of its trademarks during 2010 and 2011.

 

The Company is currently discussing with DSM differences between the parties regarding the performance and financial condition of the joint venture. As indicated above, the parties have entered into agreements to waive certain obligations of Denali License during 2010 and 2011 to pay a share of the Company’s corporate and regional overhead costs and certain royalty fees for use of Cricket’s trademarks. Differences between the parties, however, have continued. Although the Company continues to engage in discussions with DSM in hopes of resolving these differences, the Company may not be successful in doing so. If the Company is not successful in resolving these matters, the Company may seek to purchase all or a portion of DSM’s interest in the joint venture. Alternatively, as the controlling member of Denali, DSM could seek to terminate the management services agreement and/or trademark license between Denali and Cricket and obtain management services from a third party, or it could take other actions that the Company believes could negatively impact Denali’s business. DSM could also attempt to sell or dispose of all or a portion of Denali’s wireless license or other assets, although the Company would have the right under agreements with Denali to consent to any such sale or disposal. Any transition to another party of the services the Company currently provides to Denali, any sale or disposal of all or a portion of Denali’s wireless license or other assets, or any other material operational or financial disruption to the joint venture could significantly disrupt its business, negatively impact its financial and operational performance and result in significant expenses for the Company’s business.

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

The Company believes that any damage amounts alleged in the matters discussed below are not necessarily meaningful indicators of its potential liability. The Company determines whether it should accrue an estimated loss for a contingency in a particular legal proceeding by assessing whether a loss is deemed probable and whether the amount can be reasonably estimated. The Company reassesses its views on estimated losses on a quarterly basis to reflect the impact of any developments in the matters in which it is involved.

 

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

 

Patent Litigation

 

Freedom Wireless

 

On December 10, 2007, the Company was sued by Freedom Wireless, Inc. (“Freedom Wireless”), in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, for alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,722,067 entitled “Security Cellular Telecommunications System,” U.S. Patent No. 6,157,823 entitled “Security Cellular Telecommunications System,” and U.S. Patent No. 6,236,851 entitled “Prepaid Security

 

Cellular Telecommunications System.” Freedom Wireless alleged that its patents claim a novel cellular system that enables subscribers of prepaid services to both place and receive cellular calls without dialing access codes or using modified telephones. The complaint sought unspecified monetary damages, increased damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 together with interest, costs and attorneys’ fees, and an injunction. On September 3, 2008, Freedom Wireless amended its infringement contentions to assert that the Company’s Cricket unlimited voice service, in addition to its Jump^® Mobile and Cricket by Week^tm services, infringes claims under the patents at issue. On January 19, 2009, the Company and Freedom Wireless entered into an agreement to settle this lawsuit and agreed to enter into a license agreement which will provide Freedom Wireless with royalties on certain of the Company’s products and services. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, an arbitration hearing was held on December 15, 2009 to finalize the terms of the settlement and license agreements. The decision of the arbitrator is pending. On April 7, 2010, the parties received the preliminary decision of the arbitrator, which reaffirmed the financial terms of the settlement and license agreement.

 

DNT

 

On May 1, 2009, the Company was sued by DNT LLC (“DNT”) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division, for alleged infringement of U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE37,660 entitled “Automatic Dialing System.” DNT alleges that the Company uses, encourages the use of, sells, offers for sale and/or imports voice and data service and wireless modem cards for computers designed to be used in conjunction with cellular networks and that such acts constitute both direct and indirect infringement of DNT’s patent. DNT alleges that the Company’s infringement is willful, and the complaint seeks an injunction against further infringement, unspecified damages (including enhanced damages) and attorneys’ fees. On July 23, 2009, the Company filed an answer to the complaint as well as counterclaims. On December 14, 2009, DNT’s patent was determined to be invalid in a case it brought against other wireless providers. DNT’s lawsuit against the Company has been stayed, pending resolution of that other case.

 

Digital Technology Licensing

 

On April 21, 2009, the Company and certain other wireless carriers (including Hargray Wireless, a company which Cricket acquired in April 2008 and which was merged with and into Cricket in December 2008) were sued by Digital Technology Licensing LLC (“DTL”) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, for alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,051,799 entitled “Digital Output Transducer.” DTL alleges that the Company and Hargray Wireless sell and/or offer to sell Bluetooth^® devices or digital cellular telephones, including Kyocera and Sanyo telephones, and that such acts constitute direct and/or indirect infringement of DTL’s patent. DTL further alleges that the Company and Hargray Wireless directly and/or indirectly infringe its patent by providing cellular telephone service and by using and inducing others to use a patented digital cellular telephone system by using cellular telephones, Bluetooth devices, and cellular telephone infrastructure made by companies such as Kyocera and Sanyo. DTL alleges that the asserted infringement is willful, and the complaint seeks a permanent injunction against further infringement, unspecified damages (including enhanced damages), attorneys’ fees, and expenses. On January 5, 2010, this matter was stayed, pending final resolution of another case that DTL brought against another wireless provider in which it alleges infringement of the patent that is at issue in this matter. That other case has been settled and dismissed but the stay in the Company’s matter has not been lifted.

 

On The Go

 

On February 22, 2010, a matter brought against the Company by On The Go, LLC (“OTG”) was dismissed with prejudice. The Company and certain other wireless carriers were sued by OTG in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, on July 9, 2009, for alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,430,554 entitled “Method and System For Telephonically Selecting, Addressing, and Distributing Messages.” OTG’s complaint alleged that the Company directly and indirectly infringes OTG’s patent by making, offering for sale, selling, providing, maintaining, and supporting the Company’s PAYGo prepaid mobile telephone service and system. The complaint sought injunctive relief and unspecified damages, including interest and costs.

 

DownUnder Wireless

 

On November 20, 2009, the Company and a number of other parties were sued by DownUnder Wireless, LLC, or DownUnder, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, for alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,741,215 entitled “Inverted Safety Antenna for Personal Communications

 

Devices.” DownUnder alleges that the Company uses, sells, and offers to sell wireless communication devices, including PCD, Cal-Comp, and Motorola devices, comprising a housing, a microphone, a speaker earpiece, a user interface mounted in an upright orientation on the communication device, and a transmitting antenna, where the transmitting antenna is mounted in a lower portion of the housing, and further the housing defines an obtuse angle between the top of the upper housing portion and the bottom of the lower housing portion of the devices, and that such acts constitute direct and indirect infringement of DownUnder’s patent. DownUnder alleges that the Company’s infringement is willful, and the complaint seeks a permanent injunction against further infringement, unspecified damages (including enhanced damages), and attorneys’ fees. The Company filed an answer to the complaint on February 19, 2010. On April 29, 2010, the Company and certain other defendants filed a motion to sever the claims against them and dismiss the matter or, in the alternative, to stay the litigation.

 

Securities and Derivative Litigation

 

Leap is a nominal defendant in two shareholder derivative suits and a consolidated securities class action lawsuit. As indicated further below, the Company has reached an agreement in principle to settle the derivative suits and has received preliminary court approval to settle the class action.

 

The two shareholder derivative suits purport to assert claims on behalf of Leap against certain of its current and former directors and officers. One of the shareholder derivative lawsuits was filed in the California Superior Court for the County of San Diego on November 13, 2007 and the other shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on February 7, 2008. The state action was stayed on August 22, 2008 pending resolution of the federal action. The plaintiff in the federal action filed an amended complaint on September 12, 2008 asserting, among other things, claims for alleged breach of fiduciary duty, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, unjust enrichment, and proxy violations based on the November 9, 2007 announcement that the Company was restating certain of its financial statements, claims alleging breach of fiduciary duty based on the September 2007 unsolicited merger proposal from MetroPCS Communications, Inc. and claims alleging illegal insider trading by certain of the individual defendants. The derivative complaints seek a judicial determination that the claims may be asserted derivatively on behalf of Leap, and unspecified damages, equitable and/or injunctive relief, imposition of a constructive trust, disgorgement, and attorney’s fees and costs. Leap and the individual defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended federal complaint, and on September 29, 2009, the district court granted Leap’s motion to dismiss the derivative complaint for failure to plead that a presuit demand on Leap’s board was excused. The parties have agreed in principle to settle the derivative suits subject to documentation and court approval. The settlement is contemplated to be a non-monetary settlement based upon the Company’s agreement to make various corporate and operational changes, and to fund, through its insurance carriers, an award of attorney’s fees to plaintiffs’ counsel. The parties are in the process of documenting their agreement and preparing a motion for preliminary court approval and a settlement fairness hearing.

 

Leap and certain current and former officers and directors, and Leap’s independent registered public accounting firm, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, also were named as defendants in a consolidated securities class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California which consolidated several securities class action lawsuits initially filed between September 2007 and January 2008. Plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The consolidated complaint alleges that the defendants made false and misleading statements about Leap’s internal controls, business and financial results, and customer count metrics. The claims are based primarily on the November 9, 2007 announcement that the Company was restating certain of its financial statements and statements made in its August 7, 2007 second quarter 2007 earnings release. The lawsuit seeks, among other relief, a determination that the alleged claims may be asserted on a class-wide basis and unspecified damages and attorney’s fees and costs. On January 9, 2009, the federal court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. On February 23, 2009, defendants were served with an amended complaint which did not name PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP or any of Leap’s outside directors. Leap and the remaining individual defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint.

 

The parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the class action. The settlement is contingent upon court approval and provides for, among other things, dismissal of the lawsuits with prejudice, releases in favor of the defendants, and payment to the class of $13.75 million, including the award of attorneys’ fees to class plaintiffs’ counsel. On February 18, 2010, the lead plaintiff filed a motion seeking preliminary approval by the court of the settlement and approval of a form of notice to potential settlement class members, which was granted on March 24,

 

2010. The district court set a settlement fairness hearing for October 4, 2010. Following preliminary approval, the entire settlement amount was paid into an escrow account by the Company’s insurance carriers pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement.

 

Department of Justice Inquiry

 

On January 7, 2009, the Company received a letter from the Civil Division of the United States Department of Justice (the “DOJ”). In its letter, the DOJ alleges that between approximately 2002 and 2006, the Company failed to comply with certain federal postal regulations that required it to update customer mailing addresses in exchange for receiving certain bulk mailing rate discounts. As a result, the DOJ has asserted that the Company violated the False Claims Act (the “FCA”) and is therefore liable for damages. On November 18, 2009, the DOJ presented the Company with a calculation that single damages in this matter were $2.7 million for the period from June 2003 through June 2006, which amount may be trebled under the FCA. The FCA also provides for statutory penalties, which the DOJ has previously asserted could total up to $11,000 per mailing. The DOJ had also previously asserted as an alternative theory of liability that the Company is liable on a basis of unjust enrichment for estimated single damages.

 

Other Litigation, Claims and Disputes

 

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 or are otherwise immaterial and which seek monetary damages and other relief. Based upon information currently available to the Company, none of these other claims is expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition or results of operations.

 

Indemnification Agreements

 

From time to time, the Company enters into indemnification agreements with certain parties in the ordinary course of business, including agreements with manufacturers, licensors and suppliers who provide it with equipment, software and technology that it uses in its business, as well as with purchasers of assets, lenders, lessors and other vendors. Indemnification agreements are generally entered into in commercial and other transactions in an attempt to allocate potential risk of loss.

 

Tower Provider Commitments

 

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

 

Outstanding Letters of Credit and Surety Bonds

 

As of March 31, 2010 and December 31, 2009, the Company had approximately $10.5 million 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. The restricted cash collateralizing the letters of credit outstanding is reported in both restricted cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments and other long-term assets in the condensed consolidated balance sheets.

 

As of March 31, 2010 and December 31, 2009, the Company had approximately $5.5 million of surety bonds outstanding to guarantee the Company’s performance with respect to certain of its contractual obligations.

 

 

The $2,500 million of senior notes issued by Cricket (the “Issuing Subsidiary”) are comprised of $1,100 million of unsecured senior notes due 2014, $300 million of unsecured senior notes due 2015 and $1,100 million of senior secured notes due 2016. The notes are jointly and severally guaranteed on a full and unconditional basis by Leap (the “Guarantor Parent Company”) and Cricket License Company, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Cricket (the “Guarantor Subsidiary”).

 

The indentures governing these notes limit, among other things, the Guarantor Parent Company’s, Cricket’s and the Guarantor Subsidiary’s 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 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 Subsidiary, non-Guarantor Subsidiaries and total consolidated Leap and subsidiaries as of March 31, 2010 and December 31, 2009 and for the three months ended March 31, 2010 and 2009 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, 2010 (unaudited and in thousands):

 

 

 

Condensed Consolidating Balance Sheet as of December 31, 2009 (in thousands):

 

 

Condensed Consolidating Statement of Operations for the Three Months Ended March 31, 2010 (unaudited and in thousands):

 

 

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