in foreign exchange rates. Additionally, we may place cash on deposit for longer than three month term, which would introduce an exposure to the risks associated with fixed interest rates. Item 4. Controls and Procedures a) Disclosure controls and procedures The Company’s management, with the participation of the Company’s Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, has evaluated the effectiveness of the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures (as such term is defined in Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”)) as of the end of the period covered by this quarterly report. Based on such evaluation, the Company’s Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer have concluded that, as of the end of such period, the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures are effective in recording, processing, summarizing and reporting, on a timely basis, information required to be disclosed by the Company in the reports that it files or submits under the Exchange Act and are effective in ensuring that information required to be disclosed by the Company in the reports that it files or submits under the Exchange Act is accumulated and communicated to the Company’s management, including the Company’s Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, as appropriate to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure. b) Internal control over financial reporting There have not been any changes in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting (as such term is defined in Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) under the Exchange Act) during the Company’s fiscal quarter to which this report relates that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internal control over financial reporting. PART II – Other Information Item 1. Legal Proceedings On June 6, 2003, Echostar Communications Corporation, Echostar Satellite Corporation, Echostar Technologies Corporation and Nagrastar L.L.C. (collectively, Echostar) filed an action against NDS in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Echostar filed an amended complaint on October 8, 2003, which purported to allege claims for violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), the Communications Act of 1934 (CA), the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, California’s Unfair Competition statute and the federal RICO statute. The complaint also purported to allege claims for civil conspiracy, misappropriation of trade secrets and interference with prospective business advantage. The complaint sought injunctive relief, unspecified compensatory and exemplary damages and restitution. On December 22, 2003, all of the claims were dismissed by the court, except for the DMCA, CA and unfair competition claims, and the Court limited these claims to acts allegedly occurring within three years of the filing of the complaint. Echostar filed a second amended complaint. NDS filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on March 31, 2004. The motion was scheduled to be heard by the Court on July 23, 2004. On July 21, 2004, the Court issued an order vacating the July 23, 2004 hearing date and ordering, among other things, Echostar to file a third amended complaint within 10 days correcting various deficiencies in the second amended complaint noted by the Court. Echostar filed its third amended complaint on August 4, 2004. On August 6, 2004, the Court ruled that NDS was free to file motion to dismiss the third amended complaint, which NDS did on September 20, 2004. The hearing occurred on January 3, 2005. On February 28, 2005, the Court issued an order treating the motion as a motion for a more definite statement, granted the motion and gave Echostar until March 30, 2005 to file a fourth amended compliant correcting various deficiencies in the third amended complaint noticed by the Court. On March 30, 2005, Echostar filed a fourth amended complaint. NDS believes the claims contained therein are without merit and intends to file a motion to dismiss with the court. On July 25, 2003, Sogecable, S.A. and its subsidiary Canalsatellite Digital, S.L., Spanish satellite broadcasters and customers of Canal+ Technologies SA (together, Sogecable), filed an action against NDS in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Sogecable filed an amended complaint on October 9, 2003, which purported to allege claims for violation of the DMCA and the federal RICO statute. The amended complaint also purported to allege claims for interference with contract and prospective business advantage. The complaint sought injunctive relief, unspecified compensatory and exemplary damages and restitution. On December 22, 2003, all of the claims were dismissed by the court. Sogecable filed a second amended complaint. NDS filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on March 31, 2004. On July 23, 2004, the Court heard oral argument on the motion and advised that a formal ruling should be issued by early August. On August 4, 2004, the court issued an order dismissing the second amended complaint in its entirety. Sogecable had until October 4, 2004 to file a third amended complaint. On October 1, 2004, Sogecable notified the Court that it would not be filing a third amended |