| Commitments and Contingencies | 10. Commitments 5G Network Deployment We have invested a total of over $30 billion in Wireless spectrum licenses. The $30 billion of investments related to Wireless spectrum licenses does not include $9 billion of capitalized interest related to the carrying value of such licenses. See Note 2 for further information. We plan to commercialize our Wireless spectrum licenses through our 5G Network Deployment. We have committed to deploy our 5G Network capable of serving increasingly larger portions of the U.S. population at different deadlines. We will need to raise additional capital in the future, which may not be available on favorable terms, to fund the efforts described below, as well as, among other things, make any potential Northstar Re-Auction Payment and SNR Re-Auction Payment for the AWS-3 licenses retained by the FCC. There can be no assurance that we will be able to complete all build-out requirements or Wireless Spectrum Licenses Our Wireless spectrum licenses are subject to certain build-out requirements, as well as certain renewal requirements that are summarized in the table below: Carrying Build-Out Deadlines Expiration Amount Interim Final Date (In thousands) Owned: DBS Licenses (1) $ 677,409 700 MHz Licenses (2) 711,871 June 14, 2025 (3) June 2033 AWS-4 Licenses (2) 1,940,000 June 14, 2025 (3) June 2033 H Block Licenses (2) 1,671,506 June 14, 2025 (4) June 2033 600 MHz Licenses 6,213,335 June 14, 2025 (5) June 2029 MVDDS Licenses (1) 24,000 July 2024 (6) LMDS Licenses (1) — September 2028 28 GHz Licenses 2,883 October 2, 2029 (7) October 2029 24 GHz Licenses 11,772 December 11, 2029 (7) December 2029 37 GHz, 39 GHz and 47 GHz Licenses 202,533 June 4, 2030 (7) June 2030 3550-3650 MHz Licenses 912,939 March 12, 2031 (7) March 2031 3.7-3.98 GHz Licenses 2,969 July 23, 2029 (7) July 23, 2033 (7) July 2036 3.45–3.55 GHz Licenses 7,329,093 May 4, 2026 (8) May 4, 2030 (8) May 2037 1695-1710 MHz, 1755-1780 MHz, and 2155-2180 MHz (2) 972 March 2026 AWS-3 9,890,389 October 2025 (9) October 2025 (9) Subtotal 29,591,671 Capitalized Interest (10) 9,006,267 Total as of June 30, 2024 $ 38,597,938 (1) The build-out deadlines for these licenses have been met. (2) The interim build-out deadlines for these licenses are in the past. (3) For these licenses, we must offer 5G broadband service to at least 70% of the population in each Economic Area (which is a service area established by the FCC). On September 29, 2023, the FCC confirmed we have met all of our June 14, 2023 band-specific 5G deployment commitments, and two of our three nationwide 5G commitments. The single remaining 5G commitment, that at least 70% of the U.S. population has access to average download speeds equal to 35 Mbps, was achieved in March 2024 using the drive test methodology previously agreed upon by us and the FCC and overseen by an independent monitor . (4) For these licenses, we must offer 5G broadband service to at least 75% of the population in each Economic Area (which is a service area established by the FCC). On September 29, 2023, the FCC confirmed we have met all of our June 14, 2023 band-specific 5G deployment commitments, and two of our three nationwide 5G commitments. The single remaining 5G commitment, that at least 70% of the U.S. population has access to average download speeds equal to 35 Mbps, was achieved in March 2024 using the drive test methodology previously agreed upon by us and the FCC and overseen by an independent monitor . (5) For these licenses, we must offer 5G broadband service to at least 75% of the population in each Partial Economic Area (which is a service area established by the FCC) by this date. We have also acquired certain additional 600 MHz licenses through private transactions. These licenses are currently subject to their original FCC buildout deadlines. (6) We have timely filed renewal applications for all these licenses. (7) There are a variety of build-out options and associated build-out metrics associated with these licenses. (8) There are a variety of build-out options and associated build-out metrics associated with these licenses. If the interim build-out requirement is not met, the final build-out requirement may be accelerated by one year from May 2030 to May 2029. (9) For these licenses, we must provide reliable signal coverage and offer service to at least 75% of the population of each license area by this date. (10) See Note 2 for further information. Commercialization of Our Wireless Spectrum Licenses and Related Assets. was achieved in March 2024 using the drive test methodology previously agreed upon by us and the FCC and overseen by an independent monitor We now have the largest commercial deployment of 5G VoNR in the world covering over 200 million Americans and covering over 250 million Americans. mation. Our fully constructed facilities along with our construction in process will be sufficient to meet many of our build-out requirements over the next year, including our June 14, 2025 milestones. These facilities are for licenses comprising approximately 90% of the aggregate carrying value, including capitalized interest, for our 600 MHz, 700 MHz, H Block and AWS-4 licenses. However, for the remaining licenses that we have not yet constructed facilities sufficient to meet our June 14, 2025 final build-out requirements, we will need to raise additional capital to, among other things, continue our 5G Network Deployment. If we are unable to address our capital needs or encounter unanticipated construction delays, we may be unable to retain such spectrum licenses, which would result in an impairment of those licenses. We may need to make significant additional investments or partner with others to, among other things, continue our 5G Network Deployment and further commercialize, build-out and integrate these licenses and related assets and any additional acquired licenses and related assets, as well as to comply with regulations applicable to such licenses. Depending on the nature and scope of such activities, any such investments or partnerships could vary significantly. In addition, as we continue our 5G Network Deployment, we have and may continue to incur significant additional expenses related to, among other things, research and development, wireless testing and ongoing upgrades to the wireless network infrastructure, software and third-party integration. As a result of these investments, among other factors, we plan to raise additional capital, which may not be available on favorable terms. We may also determine that additional wireless spectrum licenses may be required for our 5G Network Deployment and to compete effectively with other wireless service providers. AWS-3 Auction Northstar Wireless is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Northstar Spectrum, which is an entity owned by us and, prior to October 12, 2023, by us and Northstar Manager. SNR Wireless is a wholly-owned subsidiary of SNR HoldCo, which is an entity owned by us and, prior to February 16, 2024, by us and SNR Management. See Note 2 for further information. Northstar Wireless and SNR Wireless each filed applications with the FCC to participate in Auction 97 (the “AWS-3 Auction”) for the purpose of acquiring certain AWS-3 Licenses. Each of Northstar Wireless and SNR Wireless applied to receive bidding credits of 25% as designated entities under applicable FCC rules. FCC Order and October 2015 Arrangements. On August 18, 2015, the FCC released a Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 15-104 (the “Order”) in which the FCC determined, among other things, that DISH Network has a controlling interest in, and is an affiliate of, Northstar Wireless and SNR Wireless, and therefore DISH Network’s revenues should be attributed to them, which in turn makes Northstar Wireless and SNR Wireless ineligible to receive the 25% bidding credits (approximately $1.961 billion for Northstar Wireless and $1.370 billion for SNR Wireless). On November 23, 2020, the FCC released a Memorandum Opinion and Order on Remand, FCC 20-160, that found that Northstar Wireless and SNR Wireless are not eligible for bidding credits based on the FCC’s determination that they remain under DISH Network’s de facto control. Northstar Wireless and SNR Wireless appealed the FCC’s order to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. On June 21, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia issued an Opinion rejecting this challenge. On January 17, 2023, Northstar Wireless filed a petition for a writ of certiorari asking the United States Supreme Court to hear a further appeal, but that petition was denied on June 30, 2023. Letters Exchanged between Northstar Wireless and the FCC Wireless Bureau. If the winning bids from re-auction or other award of the AWS-3 licenses retained by the FCC are greater than or equal to the winning bids of Northstar Wireless, no additional amounts will be owed to the FCC by Northstar Wireless. However, if those winning bids are less than the winning bids of Northstar Wireless, then we will be responsible for the difference less any overpayment of the Northstar interim payment, detailed below, (which will be recalculated as 15% of the winning bids from re-auction or other award) (the “Northstar Re-Auction Payment”). For example, if the winning bids in a re-auction are $1, the Northstar Re-Auction Payment would be approximately $1.892 billion, which is calculated as the difference between $2.226 billion (the Northstar winning bid amounts) and $1 (the winning bids from re-auction) less the resulting $334 million overpayment of the Northstar interim payment. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the timing or outcome of any re-auction or the amount of any Northstar Re-Auction Payment. Letters Exchanged between SNR Wireless and the FCC Wireless Bureau. D.C. Circuit Court Opinion SNR Wireless LicenseCo, LLC, et al. v. Federal Communications Commission Order on Remand. For further information, refer to the Consolidated Financial Statements and notes thereto included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2023. Contingencies Litigation We are involved in a number of legal proceedings (including those described below) concerning matters arising in connection with the conduct of our business activities. Many of these proceedings are at preliminary stages, and many of these proceedings seek an indeterminate amount of damages. We regularly evaluate the status of the legal proceedings in which we are involved to assess whether a loss is probable or there is a reasonable possibility that a loss or an additional loss may have been incurred and to determine if accruals are appropriate. If accruals are not appropriate, we further evaluate each legal proceeding to assess whether an estimate of the possible loss or range of possible loss can be made. For certain cases described on the following pages, management is unable to provide a meaningful estimate of the possible loss or range of possible loss because, among other reasons, (i) the proceedings are in various stages; (ii) damages have not been sought; (iii) damages are unsupported and/or exaggerated; (iv) there is uncertainty as to the outcome of pending appeals or motions; (v) there are significant factual issues to be resolved; and/or (vi) there are novel legal issues or unsettled legal theories to be presented or a large number of parties. For these cases, however, management does not believe, based on currently available information, that the outcomes of these proceedings will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, though the outcomes could be material to our operating results for any particular period, depending, in part, upon the operating results for such period. ClearPlay, Inc. On March 13, 2014, ClearPlay, Inc. (“ClearPlay”) filed a complaint against us and our wholly-owned subsidiaries DISH Network and DISH Network L.L.C., and our then wholly-owned subsidiary EchoStar Technologies L.L.C., in the United States District Court for the District of Utah. The complaint alleges willful infringement of United States Patent Nos. 6,898,799 (the “799 patent”), entitled “Multimedia Content Navigation and Playback”; 7,526,784 (the “784 patent”), entitled “Delivery of Navigation Data for Playback of Audio and Video Content”; 7,543,318 (the “318 patent”), entitled “Delivery of Navigation Data for Playback of Audio and Video Content”; 7,577,970 (the “970 patent”), entitled “Multimedia Content Navigation and Playback”; and 8,117,282 (the “282 patent”), entitled “Media Player Configured to Receive Playback Filters From Alternative Storage Mediums.” ClearPlay alleges that the AutoHop™ feature of our Hopper® set-top box infringes the asserted patents. On February 11, 2015, the case was stayed pending various third-party challenges before the United States Patent and Trademark Office regarding the validity of certain of the patents asserted in the action. In those third-party challenges, the United States Patent and Trademark Office found that all claims of the 282 patent are unpatentable, and that certain claims of the 784 patent and 318 patent are unpatentable. ClearPlay appealed as to the 784 patent and the 318 patent, and on August 23, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the findings of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. On October 31, 2016, the stay was lifted, and in May 2017, ClearPlay agreed to dismiss us and DISH Network as defendants, leaving DISH Network L.L.C. and DISH Technologies L.L.C. as the sole defendants. On October 16, October 21, November 2, 2020 and November 9, 2020, DISH Network L.L.C. filed petitions with the United States Patent and Trademark Office requesting ex parte reexamination of the validity of the asserted claims of, respectively, the 784 patent, the 799 patent, the 318 patent and the 970 patent; and on November 2, November 20, December 14 and December 15, 2020, the United States Patent and Trademark Office granted each request for reexamination. On May 7, 2021, May 25, 2021, June 25, 2021 and July 7, 2021, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued Ex Parte Reexamination Certificates confirming the patentability of the challenged claims of, respectively, the 799 patent, the 784 patent, the 318 patent and the 970 patent. In October and November 2021, DISH Network L.L.C. filed petitions with the United States Patent and Trademark Office requesting ex parte reexamination of the validity of certain asserted claims of the 784 patent, the 799 patent and the 970 patent. In November and December, 2021, the United States Patent and Trademark Office granted review of the challenged claims of the 799 patent and the 970 patent, but denied review of the challenged claims of the 784 patent. On January 24, 2022, an examiner of the United States Patent and Trademark Office affirmed the challenged claims of the 799 patent, and on January 19, 2023, an examiner of the United States Patent and Trademark Office affirmed the challenged claims of the 970 patent. In an order dated January 31, 2023, the Court granted in part and denied in part DISH Network L.L.C.’s and DISH Technologies L.L.C.’s motion for summary judgment. Thereafter, ClearPlay narrowed its case to three asserted claims: one under the 799 patent and two under the 970 patent. Following a two-week trial, on March 10, 2023, the jury returned a verdict that DISH Network L.L.C. and DISH Technologies L.L.C. infringed each of the asserted patent claims (though not willfully), and awarded damages of $469 million. That verdict became moot on March 21, 2023, when the trial court indicated that it would grant DISH Network L.L.C.’s and DISH Technologies L.L.C.’s motion for judgment as a matter of law, thus effectively vacating the jury award. On June 2, 2023, the Court entered its formal order granting judgment as a matter of law. On December 12, 2023, the Court denied ClearPlay’s motion to alter or amend the judgment. ClearPlay has filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and briefing is underway. We intend to vigorously defend this case. In the event that a court ultimately determines that we infringe the asserted patents, we may be subject to substantial damages, which may include treble damages, and/or an injunction that could require us to materially modify certain features that we currently offer to consumers. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages. Data Breach Class Actions On May 9, 2023, Susan Owen-Brooks, an alleged customer, filed a putative class action complaint against our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Network in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. She purports to represent a nationwide class of all individuals in the United States who allegedly had private information stolen as a result of the February 23, 2023 Cyber-security Incident (and a North Carolina statewide subclass of the same individuals). On behalf of the nationwide class, she alleges claims for contractual breaches, negligence and unjust enrichment (and, on behalf of the North Carolina subclass only, violation of the North Carolina Deceptive Trade Practices Act), and seeks monetary damages, injunctive relief and a declaratory judgment. Since that filing, ten additional putative class action complaints have been filed in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, purporting to represent the same nationwide class of people, and Owen-Brooks has filed an amended complaint. On August 2, 2023, the Court issued an order consolidating the first ten cases (the eleventh was dismissed) and, on November 16, 2023 and January 16, 2024, the plaintiffs filed consolidated amended class action complaints. We intend to vigorously defend this case. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages. Digital Broadcasting Solutions, LLC On August 29, 2022, Digital Broadcasting Solutions, LLC filed a complaint against our wholly-owned subsidiaries DISH Network L.L.C. and DISH Technologies L.L.C. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,929,710 (the “710 patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 9,538,122 (the “122 patent”), each entitled “System and method for time shifting at least a portion of a video program.” Generally, the plaintiff contends that the AutoHop feature of our Hopper® set-top boxes infringes the asserted patents. On June 21, 2023, the Court granted the motion of DISH Network L.L.C. and DISH Technologies L.L.C. to have the case transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. In May 2023, DISH Network L.L.C. and DISH Technologies L.L.C. We intend to vigorously defend this case. In the event that a court ultimately determines that we infringe the asserted patents, we may be subject to substantial damages, which may include treble damages, and/or an injunction that could require us to materially modify certain features that we currently offer to consumers. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages. Entropic Communications, LLC (first action) On March 9, 2022, Entropic Communications, LLC (“Entropic”) filed a complaint against our wholly-owned subsidiaries DISH Network, DISH Network L.L.C. and Dish Network Service L.L.C. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,130,576 (the “576 patent”), entitled “Signal Selector and Combiner for Broadband Content Distribution”; U.S. Patent No. 7,542,715 (the “715 Patent”), entitled “Signal Selector and Combiner for Broadband Content Distribution”; and U.S. Patent No. 8,792,008 (the “008 Patent”), entitled “Method and Apparatus for Spectrum Monitoring.” On March 30, 2022, Entropic filed an amended complaint alleging infringement of the same patents. Generally, the plaintiff accuses satellite antennas, low-noise block converters, signal selector and combiners, and set-top boxes and the manner in which they process signals for satellite television customers of infringing the asserted patents. The plaintiff is an entity that seeks to license a patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein. On October 24, 2022, this case was ordered to be transferred to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. A companion case against DirecTV was also ordered transferred to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. In January and February of 2023, DISH Network L.L.C. and Dish Network Service L.L.C. We intend to vigorously defend this case. In the event that a court ultimately determines that we infringe the asserted patents, we may be subject to substantial damages, which may include treble damages, and/or an injunction that could require us to materially modify certain features that we currently offer to consumers. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages. Entropic Communications, LLC (second action) On February 10, 2023, Entropic filed a second lawsuit against our wholly-owned subsidiaries DISH Network, DISH Network L.L.C., Dish Network Service L.L.C. and Dish Network California Service Corporation in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,295,518 (the “518 patent”), entitled “Broadband network for coaxial cable using multi-carrier modulation”; U.S. Patent No. 7,594,249 (the “249 patent”), entitled “Network interface device and broadband local area network using coaxial cable”; U.S. Patent Nos. 7,889,759 (the “759 patent”), entitled “Broadband cable network utilizing common bit-loading”; U.S. Patent No. 8,085,802 (the “802 Patent”), entitled “Multimedia over coaxial cable access protocol”; U.S. Patent No. 9,838,213 (the “213 patent”), entitled “Parameterized quality of service architecture in a network”; U.S. Patent No. 10,432,422 (the “422 patent”), entitled “Parameterized quality of service architecture in a network”; U.S. Patent No. 8,631,450 (the “450 patent”), entitled “Broadband local area network”; U.S. Patent No. 8,621,539 (the “539 patent”), entitled “Physical layer transmitter for use in a broadband local area network”; U.S. Patent No. 8,320,566 (the “0,566 patent”), entitled “Method and apparatus for performing constellation scrambling in a multimedia home network”; U.S. Patent No. 10,257,566 (the “7,566 patent”), entitled “Broadband local area network”; U.S. Patent No. 8,228,910 (the “910 Patent”), entitled “Aggregating network packets for transmission to a destination mode”; and U.S. Patent No. 8,363,681 (the “681 patent”), entitled “Method and apparatus for using ranging measurements in a multimedia home network.” Generally, the patents relate to Multimedia over Coax Alliance standards and the manner in which we provide a whole-home DVR network over an on-premises coaxial cable network. Entropic has asserted the same patents in the same court against Comcast, Cox and DirecTV. On September 7, 2023, the Court granted the motion of DISH Network L.L.C., Dish Network Service L.L.C. and Dish Network California Service Corporation to dismiss the claims arising from the 7,566 patent and the 910 patent on the grounds that they claimed in eligible subject matter. In January and February 2024, DISH Network L.L.C. filed petitions with the United States Patent and Trademark Office challenging the validity of the 249 patent, the 518 patent, the 759 patent, the 450 patent, the 539 patent, the 0,566 patent, and the 681 patent. In July 2024, the United States Patent and Trademark Office agreed to institute proceedings on the petitions challenging the 249 patent and the 518 patent, but denied institution on the petition challenging the 539 patent. We intend to vigorously defend this case. In the event that a court ultimately determines that we infringe the asserted patents, we may be subject to substantial damages, which may include treble damages, and/or an injunction that could require us to materially modify certain features that we currently offer to consumers. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages. Freedom Patents On April 7, 2023, Freedom Patents LLC filed a complaint against our wholly-owned subsidiaries DISH Network, DISH Network L.L.C. and Dish Network Service L.L.C. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,284,686 (the “686 Patent”), entitled “Antenna/Beam Selection Training in MIMO Wireless LANS with Different Sounding Frames”; U.S. Patent No. 8,374,096 (the “096 Patent”), entitled “Method for Selecting Antennas and Beams in MIMO Wireless LANs”; and U.S. Patent No. 8,514,815 (the “815 Patent”), entitled “Training Signals for Selecting Antennas and Beams in MIMO Wireless LANs.” Similar complaints were also filed against Acer, Altice, Charter, Comcast and Verizon. In general, the asserted patents relate to the 802.11 wireless standard, and the products accused of infringement are the Wireless Joey, its access point, and certain Ring, Nest and Linksys products that we sell. On March 15, 2024, the Court denied the defendants’ motion to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. On May 24, 2024, the case was dismissed pursuant to a settlement under which DISH Network, DISH Network L.L.C. and Dish Network Service L.L.C. paid an immaterial amount. This matter is now concluded. Hughes Telecommunicaoes do Brasil v. State of São Paulo Treasury Department On December 12, 2019, Hughes Telecommunicaoes do Brasil (“HTB”) filed a tax annulment claim in the Judicial Court of São Paulo, claiming that a tax assessment from the State Treasury of São Paulo, for the period from January 2013 to December 2014, was based on an erroneous interpretation of an exemption to the ICMS (a state tax on, among other things, communications). In June 2022, a judicial expert determined that HTB’s interpretation of the exemption was correct. Nonetheless, in July 2023, the Court entered judgment against HTB, and in October 2023, rejected HTB’s request for clarification. In November 2023, HTB filed an appeal to the Court of Justice. We intend to vigorously defend this case. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit. Jones 401(k) Litigation On December 20, 2021, four former employees filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado against our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Network, its Board of Directors, and its Retirement Plan Committee alleging fiduciary breaches arising from the management of our 401(k) Plan. The putative class, comprised of all participants in the Plan on or after January 20, 2016, alleges that the Plan had excessive recordkeeping and administrative expenses and that it maintained underperforming funds. On February 1, 2023, a Magistrate Judge issued a recommendation that the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint be granted, and on March 27, 2023, the district court judge granted the motion. As permitted by the Court’s order, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 10, 2023, which is limited to allegations regarding the alleged underperformance of the Fidelity Freedom Funds. On November 7, 2023, a Magistrate Judge issued a recommendation that the defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint be denied as to the duty to prudently monitor fund performance, but be granted as to the duty of loyalty and, on November 27, 2023, the district court judge entered an order adopting the recommendation. On April 30, 2024, the parties filed a stipulation to certification of the proposed plaintiff class. We intend to vigorously defend this case. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages. License Fee Dispute with Government of India, Department of Telecommunications In 1994, the Government of India promulgated a “National Telecommunications Policy” under which the government liberalized the telecommunications sector and required telecommunications service providers to pay fixed license fees. Pursuant to this policy, our subsidiary Hughes Communications India Private Limited (“HCIPL”), formerly known as Hughes Escorts Communications Limited, obtained a license to operate a data network over satellite using VSAT systems. In 2002, HCIPL’s license was amended pursuant to a 1999 government policy that eliminated fixed license fees and replaced them with license fees based on service providers’ adjusted gross revenue (“AGR”). In March 2005, the Indian Department of Telecommunications (“DOT”) notified HCIPL that, based on its review of HCIPL’s audited accounts and AGR statements, HCIPL must pay additional license fees and penalties and interest on such fees and penalties. HCIPL responded that the DOT had improperly calculated its AGR by including revenue from both licensed and unlicensed activities. The DOT rejected this explanation and in 2006, HCIPL filed a petition with an administrative tribunal (the “Tribunal”), challenging the DOT’s calculation of its AGR. The DOT also issued license fee assessments to other telecommunications service providers and those other providers filed similar petitions with the Tribunal. These petitions were amended, consolidated, remanded and re-appealed several times. On April 23, 2015, the Tribunal issued a judgment affirming the DOT’s calculation of AGR for the telecommunications service providers but reversing the DOT’s imposition of interest, penalties and interest on such penalties as excessive. Over subsequent years, the DOT and HCIPL and other telecommunications service providers, respectively, filed several appeals of the Tribunal’s ruling. On October 24, 2019, the Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”) issued an order (the “October 2019 Order”) affirming the license fee assessments imposed by the DOT, including its imposition of interest, penalties and interest on the penalties, but without indicating the amount HCIPL was required to pay the DOT, and ordering payment by January 23, 2020. On November 23, 2019, HCIPL and other telecommunication service providers filed a petition asking the Supreme Court to reconsider the October 2019 Order. The petition was denied on January 20, 2020. On January 22, 2020, HCIPL and other telecommunication service providers filed an application requesting that the Supreme Court modify the October 2019 Order to permit the DOT to calculate the final amount due and extend HCIPL’s and the other telecommunication service providers’ payment deadline. On February 14, 2020, the Supreme Court directed HCIPL and the other telecommunication service providers to explain why the Supreme Court should not initiate contempt proceedings for failure to pay the amounts due. During a hearing on March 18, 2020, the Supreme Court ordered that all amounts that were due before the October 2019 Order must be paid, including interest, penalties and interest on the penalties. The Supreme Court also ordered that the parties appear for a further hearing addressing, among other things, a proposal by the DOT to allow for extended or deferred payments of amounts due. On June 11, 2020, the Supreme Court ordered HCIPL and the other telecommunication service providers to submit affidavits addressing the proposal made by the DOT to extend the time frame for payment of the amounts owed and for HCIPL and the other telecommunication providers to provide security for such payments. On September 1, 2020, the Supreme Court issued a judgment permitting a 10-year payment schedule. Under this payment schedule, HCIPL is required to make an annual paym |
