Comments on: Who to sue? https://tmfassociates.com/blog/2012/01/24/who-to-sue/ Satellites, spectrum and other stuff Tue, 03 Feb 2026 21:36:32 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: TMF Associates MSS blog » Extend and pretend… https://tmfassociates.com/blog/2012/01/24/who-to-sue/comment-page-1/#comment-842 TMF Associates MSS blog » Extend and pretend… Thu, 15 Mar 2012 21:54:37 +0000 http://tmfassociates.com/blog/?p=2986#comment-842 [...] Bizarrely enough, the price of LightSquared’s debt has been increasing over the last week, as the company failed to file for bankruptcy in advance of the termination of their agreement with Sprint, which is expected to come today, and LightSquared hired lawyers to sue the government for compensation, once their ATC license is revoked by the FCC. The primary reason for this delay appears to be that major investors (Icahn/Appaloosa/Beal, who may hold as much as $500M-$600M in face value of the $1.6B in first lien debt) are sitting on the sidelines, apparently unable to decide what they would do if they forced LightSquared into bankruptcy, while UBS (who may still hold $300M-$400M of the first lien debt) certainly do not want a bankruptcy (because then they would probably become a target for litigation). [...] [...] Bizarrely enough, the price of LightSquared’s debt has been increasing over the last week, as the company failed to file for bankruptcy in advance of the termination of their agreement with Sprint, which is expected to come today, and LightSquared hired lawyers to sue the government for compensation, once their ATC license is revoked by the FCC. The primary reason for this delay appears to be that major investors (Icahn/Appaloosa/Beal, who may hold as much as $500M-$600M in face value of the $1.6B in first lien debt) are sitting on the sidelines, apparently unable to decide what they would do if they forced LightSquared into bankruptcy, while UBS (who may still hold $300M-$400M of the first lien debt) certainly do not want a bankruptcy (because then they would probably become a target for litigation). [...]

]]> By: TMF Associates MSS blog » Grabbit, Runne and Sue… https://tmfassociates.com/blog/2012/01/24/who-to-sue/comment-page-1/#comment-805 TMF Associates MSS blog » Grabbit, Runne and Sue… Mon, 13 Feb 2012 01:48:52 +0000 http://tmfassociates.com/blog/?p=2986#comment-805 [...] recovery for LightSquared’s creditors (unless they can recover this money via the lawsuits that will inevitably be filed against Inmarsat and other parties at a later [...] [...] recovery for LightSquared’s creditors (unless they can recover this money via the lawsuits that will inevitably be filed against Inmarsat and other parties at a later [...]

]]> By: ORBITRAX https://tmfassociates.com/blog/2012/01/24/who-to-sue/comment-page-1/#comment-791 ORBITRAX Sat, 28 Jan 2012 04:52:21 +0000 http://tmfassociates.com/blog/?p=2986#comment-791 Another interesting document on Adelsteins testimony. Especially starting at 68. http://www.loganandco.com/dockets/ORC/ORC_DKT_000537_081095_00122503_fafb7e447bff55c4997d67e634fb7a3.pdf Another interesting document on Adelsteins testimony. Especially starting at 68.

http://www.loganandco.com/dockets/ORC/ORC_DKT_000537_081095_00122503_fafb7e447bff55c4997d67e634fb7a3.pdf

]]> By: ORBITRAX https://tmfassociates.com/blog/2012/01/24/who-to-sue/comment-page-1/#comment-790 ORBITRAX Sat, 28 Jan 2012 03:57:29 +0000 http://tmfassociates.com/blog/?p=2986#comment-790 While it is true that Open Range has only lost ~200MM, versus Lightsquareds potential ~3B. Lightsquareds loss would not contain any Government funding. The same can not be said for Open Range. While over in the Open Range Bankruptcy filings today by the USDOJ, as well as snippets of the testimony under oath by Adelstein. The testimony clearly show that the RUS/FCC were in conversations to move Open Range from Globalstar to Lightsquared in September 2010. Of course, Lightsquared would require a "waiver" of the "integrated service requirement" to allow "terrestrial-only" user terminals for Open Range in order to satisfy the RUS "Fully Locked Down Spectrum" loan covenants. A waiver that was not applied for until months later by Lightsquared, several days after the launch of Skyterra 1 satellite in mid-November and the issuance of the ensuing "Rocket Docket" by the FCC. So it appears that the FCC had a very strict timetable to provide Lightsquared a waiver so that Open Range could secure access to "Fully Locked Down" spectrum which was required by the RUS to re-engage funding. While it appears the FCC never saw the GPS interference issues coming which presumably caused the eventual termination of funding to Open Range by the the RUS, do to the inability of the FCC to issue Lightsquared it's permanent waiver of the "integrated service" rule. http://www.loganandco.com/dockets/ORC/ORC_DKT_000537_081095_00122502_6856e776cf40236f9286a33e80ff61dc.pdf Particularly interesting in Section D. where the RUS's Kuchno responded that the RUS "partially lifted" the restrictions on advances to Open Range in late 2010 while operating under a STA, because the "RUS reached a position with Open Range where Open Range was working toward getting "that spectrum". Perhaps some connection between the "Rocket Docket" and Open Range after all? Paul de Sa was the architect of Lightsquared's terrestrial aspirations at the FCC, and was an active participant in the Globalstar ATC suspension. We wish Mr. de Sa best wishes on his new career path. ORBITRAX While it is true that Open Range has only lost ~200MM, versus Lightsquareds potential ~3B. Lightsquareds loss would not contain any Government funding. The same can not be said for Open Range.

While over in the Open Range Bankruptcy filings today by the USDOJ, as well as snippets of the testimony under oath by Adelstein. The testimony clearly show that the RUS/FCC were in conversations to move Open Range from Globalstar to Lightsquared in September 2010. Of course, Lightsquared would require a “waiver” of the “integrated service requirement” to allow “terrestrial-only” user terminals for Open Range in order to satisfy the RUS “Fully Locked Down Spectrum” loan covenants.

A waiver that was not applied for until months later by Lightsquared, several days after the launch of Skyterra 1 satellite in mid-November and the issuance of the ensuing “Rocket Docket” by the FCC. So it appears that the FCC had a very strict timetable to provide Lightsquared a waiver so that Open Range could secure access to “Fully Locked Down” spectrum which was required by the RUS to re-engage funding. While it appears the FCC never saw the GPS interference issues coming which presumably caused the eventual termination of funding to Open Range by the the RUS, do to the inability of the FCC to issue Lightsquared it’s permanent waiver of the “integrated service” rule.

http://www.loganandco.com/dockets/ORC/ORC_DKT_000537_081095_00122502_6856e776cf40236f9286a33e80ff61dc.pdf

Particularly interesting in Section D. where the RUS’s Kuchno responded that the RUS “partially lifted” the restrictions on advances to Open Range in late 2010 while operating under a STA, because the “RUS reached a position with Open Range where Open Range was working toward getting “that spectrum”.

Perhaps some connection between the “Rocket Docket” and Open Range after all?

Paul de Sa was the architect of Lightsquared’s terrestrial aspirations at the FCC, and was an active participant in the Globalstar ATC suspension.

We wish Mr. de Sa best wishes on his new career path.

ORBITRAX

]]> By: timfarrar https://tmfassociates.com/blog/2012/01/24/who-to-sue/comment-page-1/#comment-786 timfarrar Thu, 26 Jan 2012 14:42:40 +0000 http://tmfassociates.com/blog/?p=2986#comment-786 While there may be some questions to be answered in the Open Range bankruptcy, its certainly not the "more compelling question" here. Open Range has only lost ~$200M, whereas the scale of losses in LightSquared could eventually come close to Iridium and Globalstar a decade ago ($5B each in those bankruptcies). In addition, Open Range was never that important to Globalstar or LightSquared (except perhaps as an example of how an ATC network might be implemented), given Open Range's annual spectrum lease payments to Globalstar were in the single digit millions of dollars. Open Range's case could be one forum in which some information is revealed, but it will be at best a sideshow to the innumerable other fights that we will see here. Indeed LightSquared itself might end up suing the FCC in the event of an adverse ruling, if the company follows through on its recent threats. I'd also suspect that ultimately Sen. Grassley is likely to succeed in his quest for the FCC's communications, and we are now also facing the prospect of hearings in the House on the LightSquared approval process. While there may be some questions to be answered in the Open Range bankruptcy, its certainly not the “more compelling question” here. Open Range has only lost ~$200M, whereas the scale of losses in LightSquared could eventually come close to Iridium and Globalstar a decade ago ($5B each in those bankruptcies). In addition, Open Range was never that important to Globalstar or LightSquared (except perhaps as an example of how an ATC network might be implemented), given Open Range’s annual spectrum lease payments to Globalstar were in the single digit millions of dollars.

Open Range’s case could be one forum in which some information is revealed, but it will be at best a sideshow to the innumerable other fights that we will see here. Indeed LightSquared itself might end up suing the FCC in the event of an adverse ruling, if the company follows through on its recent threats. I’d also suspect that ultimately Sen. Grassley is likely to succeed in his quest for the FCC’s communications, and we are now also facing the prospect of hearings in the House on the LightSquared approval process.

]]> By: ORBITRAX https://tmfassociates.com/blog/2012/01/24/who-to-sue/comment-page-1/#comment-785 ORBITRAX Thu, 26 Jan 2012 01:00:13 +0000 http://tmfassociates.com/blog/?p=2986#comment-785 The more compelling question becomes... IF, and I do mean IF there is any truth/connection to the information coming out of the investigation by the Unsecured Creditors of the Open Range Bankruptcy pointing to "tortious interference" by the FCC / USDA RUS. Then that might indicate that Lightsquared was a "indirect party" to that interference, and what testimony Falcone and company might provide if they go down with the Lightsquared ship. At least from an observers viewpoint, the recent resignations from the FCC and the actions by the DOJ claiming "Executive Privilege" over evidence accumulated by the Unsecured Creditors Committee, via he Claw Back provision, in the Open Range Bankruptcy appear to imply potential impropriety by the FCC/RUS/EOP. ORBITRAX The more compelling question becomes… IF, and I do mean IF there is any truth/connection to the information coming out of the investigation by the Unsecured Creditors of the Open Range Bankruptcy pointing to “tortious interference” by the FCC / USDA RUS. Then that might indicate that Lightsquared was a “indirect party” to that interference, and what testimony Falcone and company might provide if they go down with the Lightsquared ship.

At least from an observers viewpoint, the recent resignations from the FCC and the actions by the DOJ claiming “Executive Privilege” over evidence accumulated by the Unsecured Creditors Committee, via he Claw Back provision, in the Open Range Bankruptcy appear to imply potential impropriety by the FCC/RUS/EOP.

ORBITRAX

]]>