UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549

 

 

 

 

FORM 10-K

 

 

 

 

 

Commission file number 0-29752

LEAP WIRELESS INTERNATIONAL, INC.

(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in its Charter)

 

 

(858) 882-6000

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

 

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

 

 

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:

None.

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. YES o     NO þ

 

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act. YES o     NO þ

 

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 twelve 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 if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K.  þ

 

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.

Large accelerated filer þ  Accelerated filer o  Non-accelerated filer o  (Do not check if a smaller reporting company)

Smaller reporting company o

 

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

 

As of June 30, 2007, the aggregate market value of the registrant’s voting and nonvoting common stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant was approximately $4,079,005,970, based on the closing price of Leap’s common stock on the NASDAQ Global Select Market on June 29, 2007 of $84.50 per share.

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has filed all documents and reports required to be filed by Section 12, 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 subsequent to the distribution of securities under a plan confirmed by a court.  Yes þ     No o

 

The number of shares of registrant’s common stock outstanding on February 22, 2008 was 68,713,151.

 

Documents incorporated by reference: Portions of the definitive Proxy Statement relating to the 2008 Annual Meeting of Stockholders are incorporated by reference into Part III of this report.

 

 

LEAP WIRELESS INTERNATIONAL, INC.
ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K

 

For the Year Ended December 31, 2007

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

 

As used in this report, unless the context suggests otherwise, the terms “we,” “our,” “ours,” and “us” refer to Leap Wireless International, Inc., or Leap, and its subsidiaries, including Cricket Communications, Inc., or Cricket. Leap, Cricket and their subsidiaries are sometimes collectively referred to herein as “the Company.” Unless otherwise specified, information relating to population and potential customers, or POPs, is based on 2008 population estimates provided by Claritas Inc.

 

Cautionary Statement Regarding Forward-Looking Statements

 

Except for the historical information contained herein, this report contains “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Such statements reflect management’s current forecast of certain aspects of our future. You can identify most forward-looking statements by forward-looking words such as “believe,” “think,” “may,” “could,” “will,” “estimate,” “continue,” “anticipate,” “intend,” “seek,” “plan,” “expect,” “should,” “would” and similar expressions in this report. Such statements are based on currently available operating, financial and competitive information and are subject to various risks, uncertainties and assumptions that could cause actual results to differ materially from those anticipated or implied in our forward-looking statements. Such risks, uncertainties and assumptions include, among other things:

 

 

All forward-looking statements in this report should be considered in the context of these risk factors. We undertake no obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise. In light of these risks and uncertainties, the forward-looking events and circumstances discussed in this report may not occur and actual results could differ materially from those anticipated or implied in the forward-looking statements. Accordingly, users of this report are cautioned not to place undue reliance on the forward-looking statements.

 

Overview

 

We are a wireless communications carrier that offers digital wireless service in the U.S. under the “Cricket^®” brand. Our Cricket service offers customers unlimited wireless service for a flat monthly rate without requiring a fixed-term contract or credit check.

 

Cricket service is offered by Cricket, a wholly owned subsidiary of Leap, and is also offered in Oregon by LCW Wireless Operations, LLC, or LCW Operations, a designated entity under FCC regulations. Cricket owns an indirect 73.3% non-controlling interest in LCW Operations through a 73.3% non-controlling interest in LCW Wireless, LLC, or LCW Wireless. Cricket also owns an 82.5% non-controlling interest in Denali Spectrum, LLC, or Denali, which purchased a wireless license in Auction #66 covering the upper mid-west portion of the U.S. as a designated entity through its wholly owned subsidiary, Denali Spectrum License, LLC, or Denali License. We consolidate our interests in LCW Wireless and Denali in accordance with Financial Accounting Standards Board Interpretation No., or FIN, 46(R), “Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities,” because these entities are variable interest entities and we will absorb a majority of their expected losses.

 

Leap was formed as a Delaware corporation in 1998. Leap’s shares began trading publicly in September 1998 and we launched our innovative Cricket service in March 1999. On April 13, 2003, we filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 in federal bankruptcy court. On August 16, 2004, our plan of reorganization became effective and we emerged from Chapter 11 bankruptcy. On that date, a new board of directors of Leap was appointed, Leap’s previously existing stock, options and warrants were cancelled, and Leap issued 60 million shares of new Leap common stock for distribution to two classes of creditors. See “— Chapter 11 Proceedings Under the Bankruptcy Code” below. On June 29, 2005, Leap’s common stock became listed for trading on the NASDAQ National Market (now known as the NASDAQ Global Market) under the symbol “LEAP.” Effective July 1, 2006, Leap’s common stock became listed for trading on the NASDAQ Global Select Market, also under the symbol “LEAP.” Leap conducts operations through its subsidiaries and has no independent operations or sources of operating revenue other than through dividends, if any, from its subsidiaries.

 

Cricket Business Overview

 

Cricket Service

 

At December 31, 2007, Cricket service was offered in 23 states and had approximately 2.9 million customers. As of December 31, 2007, we, LCW License, LLC, or LCW License (a wholly owned subsidiary of LCW Wireless), and Denali License owned wireless licenses covering an aggregate of 186.5 million POPs (adjusted to eliminate duplication from overlapping licenses). The combined network footprint in our operating markets covered approximately 54 million POPs at the end of 2007, which includes new markets launched in 2007 and incremental POPs attributed to ongoing footprint expansion. The licenses we and Denali License purchased in Auction #66, together with the existing licenses we own, provide 20 MHz of coverage and the opportunity to offer enhanced data services in almost all markets in which we currently operate or are building out, assuming Denali License were to make available to us certain of its spectrum.

 

In addition to the approximately 54 million POPs we covered at the end of 2007 with our combined network footprint, we estimate that we and Denali License hold licenses in markets that cover up to approximately 85 million additional POPs that are suitable for Cricket service, and we and Denali License have already begun the build-out of some of our Auction #66 markets. We and Denali License expect to cover up to an additional 12 to 28 million POPs by the end of 2008, bringing total covered POPs to between 66 and 82 million by the end of 2008. We and Denali License may also develop some of the licenses covering these additional POPs through partnerships with others.

 

The AWS spectrum that was auctioned in Auction #66 currently is used by U.S. federal government and/or incumbent commercial licensees. Several federal government agencies have cleared or announced plans to promptly clear spectrum covered by licenses we and Denali License purchased in Auction #66. Other agencies, however, have not yet finalized plans to relocate their use to alternative spectrum. If these agencies do not relocate to alternative spectrum within the next several months, their continued use of the spectrum covered by licenses we and Denali License purchased in Auction #66 could delay the launch of certain markets.

We continue to seek additional opportunities to enhance our current market clusters and expand into new geographic markets by participating in FCC spectrum auctions, by acquiring spectrum and related assets from third parties, and/or by participating in new partnerships or joint ventures. We also expect to continue to look for opportunities to optimize the value of our spectrum portfolio. Because some of the licenses that we and Denali License hold include large regional areas covering both rural and metropolitan communities, we and Denali License may sell some of this spectrum and pursue the deployment of alternative products or services in portions of this spectrum.

 

We expect that we will continue to build out and launch new markets and pursue other strategic expansion activities for the next several years. We intend to be disciplined as we pursue these expansion efforts and to remain focused on our position as a low-cost leader in wireless telecommunications. We expect to achieve increased revenues and incur higher operating expenses as our existing business grows and as we build out and after we launch service in new markets. Large-scale construction projects for the build-out of our new markets will require significant capital expenditures and may suffer cost overruns. Any such significant capital expenditures or increased operating expenses would decrease earnings, operating income before depreciation and amortization, or OIBDA, and free cash flow for the periods in which we incur such costs. However, we are willing to incur such expenditures because we expect our expansion activities will be beneficial to our business and create additional value for our stockholders.

 

We believe that our business model is different from most other wireless companies. Our services primarily target market segments underserved by traditional communications companies: our customers tend to be younger, have lower incomes and include a greater percentage of ethnic minorities. We have designed the Cricket service to appeal to customers who value unlimited mobile calling with a predictable monthly bill and who make the majority of their calls from within Cricket service areas. Our internal customer surveys indicate that approximately 65% of our customers use our service as their sole phone service and approximately 90% as their primary phone service. For the year ended December 31, 2007, our customers used our Cricket service for an average of approximately 1,450 minutes per month, which we believe was substantially above the U.S. wireless national carrier customer average.

 

The majority of wireless customers in the U.S. subscribe to post-pay services that may require credit approval and a contractual commitment from the subscriber for a period of at least one year, and include overage charges for call volumes in excess of a specified maximum. According to International Data Corporation, U.S. wireless penetration was approximately 80% at December 31, 2007. We believe that a large portion of the remaining growth potential in the U.S. wireless market consists of customers who are price-sensitive, who have lower credit scores or who prefer not to enter into fixed-term contracts. We believe our services appeal strongly to these customer segments. We believe that we are able to serve these customers and generate significant OIBDA because of our high-quality network and low customer acquisition and operating costs.

 

We believe that our business model is scalable and can be expanded successfully into adjacent and new markets because we offer a differentiated service and an attractive value proposition to our customers at costs significantly lower than most of our competitors. As part of this expansion strategy, for example:

 

 

 

Cricket Business Strategy

 

Tucson markets and are joining these two markets into a single, contiguous local calling area for the first time. We expect to deploy approximately 250 cell sites in our established existing markets during 2008.

 

 

Cricket Business Operations

 

Products and Services

 

Cricket Service Plans.  Our service plans are designed to attract customers by offering simple, predictable and affordable wireless services that are a competitive alternative to traditional wireless and wireline services. Unlike traditional wireless services, we offer service on a flat-rate, unlimited usage basis, without requiring fixed-term contracts, early termination fees or credit checks. Our service plans allow our customers to place unlimited calls within Cricket service areas and receive unlimited calls from anywhere in the world.

 

In April 2007, we launched a new suite of Cricket rate plans, which all include unlimited wireless services, the foundation of our business. Our new premium plans offer unlimited local and U.S. long distance service from any Cricket service area and unlimited use of multiple calling features and messaging services, bundled with specified roaming minutes in the continental U.S. (previously only available a la carte) or unlimited mobile web access and directory assistance. Our most popular plan combines unlimited local and U.S. long distance service from any Cricket service area with unlimited use of multiple calling features and messaging services. In addition, we offer basic service plans that allow customers to make unlimited calls within their Cricket service area and receive unlimited calls from any area, combined with unlimited messaging and unlimited U.S. long distance service options. We have also launched a new weekly rate plan, Cricket By Week, and a flexible payment option, BridgePay, which give our customers greater flexibility in the use and payment of wireless service and which we believe will help us to improve customer retention.

 

With the completion of our deployment of EvDO technology across all of our existing and new markets, we are able to offer an expanded array of services to our customers, including high-demand wireless data services such as mobile content and high quality music downloads at speeds of up to 2.4 Megabits per second. We expect to continue to develop our product and service offerings in 2008 and beyond to better meet our customers’ needs.

 

Cricket Plan Upgrades.  We continue to evaluate new product and service offerings in order to enhance customer satisfaction and attract new customers. Examples of services that customers can add to their plans include: packages of international calling minutes to Canada and/or Mexico; roaming service packages, which allow our customers to use their Cricket phones outside of their Cricket service areas on a prepaid basis; and Cricket Flex Bucket^® service, which allows our customers to pre-purchase services (including additional directory assistance calls, roaming services, domestic and international long distance, ring tones, premium short message service (SMS) and text messaging to wireless users) and applications (including customized ring tones, wallpapers, photos, greeting cards, games and news and entertainment message deliveries) on a prepaid basis.

 

Handsets.  Our handsets range from high-end to budget low-cost models, and include models that provide mobile web browsers, picture-enabled caller ID, color screens, high-resolution cameras with digital zoom and flash,

integrated FM radio and MP3 stereo, USB, infrared and Bluetooth connectivity, over 20MB of on-board memory, and other features to facilitate digital data transmission. Currently, all of the handsets that we offer use CDMA2000 1xRTT, or CDMA 1xRTT, technology. In addition, we occasionally offer selective handset upgrade incentives for customers who meet certain criteria.

 

Handset Replacement and Returns.  We facilitate warranty exchanges between our customers and the handset manufacturers for handset issues that occur during the applicable warranty period, and we work with a third party who provides our customers with an extended handset warranty/insurance program. Customers have limited rights to return handsets and accessories based on the time elapsed since purchase and usage. Returns of handsets and accessories have historically been negligible.

 

Cricket Wireless Internet Service.  In September 2007, we introduced our first unlimited wireless broadband service in select markets. Like our Cricket unlimited service plans, this service allows customers to access the internet through their laptops for one low, flat rate with no long-term commitments or credit checks, and brings low-cost broadband data capability to the unlimited wireless segment. During 2008, we expect to expand the availability of our unlimited wireless broadband service.

 

Jump^® Mobile.  Our per-minute prepaid service, Jump Mobile, brings Cricket’s attractive value proposition to customers who prefer active control over their wireless usage and allows us to better target the urban youth market. Our Jump Mobile plan allows our customers to receive unlimited calls from anywhere in the world at any time, and to place calls to any place in the U.S. (excluding Alaska) at a flat rate of $0.10 per minute, provided they have sufficient funds in their account. In addition, our Jump Mobile customers receive free unlimited inbound and outbound text messaging, provided they have a credit balance in their account, as well as access to roaming service (for $0.69 per minute), international long distance service, and other services and applications.

 

Customer Care and Billing

 

Customer Care.  We outsource our call center operations to multiple call center vendors and strive to take advantage of call centers in the U.S. and abroad to continuously improve the quality of our customer care and reduce the cost of providing care to our customers. One of our international call centers is located in Central America, which facilitates the efficient provision of customer support to our large and growing Spanish-speaking customer segment.

 

Billing and Support Systems.  We outsource our billing, provisioning, and payment systems with external vendors and also contract out our bill presentment, distribution and fulfillment services to external vendors.

 

Sales and Distribution

 

Our sales and distribution strategy is to continue to increase our market penetration, while minimizing expenses associated with sales, distribution and marketing, by focusing on improving the sales process for customers and by offering easy-to-understand service plans and attractive handset pricing and promotions. We believe our sales costs are lower than traditional wireless providers in part because of this streamlined sales approach.

 

We sell our Cricket handsets and service primarily through two channels: Cricket’s own retail locations and kiosks (the direct channel); and authorized dealers and distributors, including premier dealers, local market authorized dealers, national retail chains and other indirect distributors (the indirect channel). Premier dealers are independent dealers that sell Cricket products, usually exclusively, in stores that look and function similar to our company-owned stores, enhancing the in-store experience and the level of customer service for customers and expanding our brand presence within a market. As of December 31, 2007, we and LCW Operations had 152 direct locations and 2,690 indirect distributors, including approximately 790 premier dealers. Our direct sales locations were responsible for approximately 22% of our gross customer additions in 2007. Premier dealers tend to generate significantly more business than other indirect dealers. We strategically place our direct and indirect retail locations to enable us to focus on our target customer demographic and provide the most efficient market coverage while minimizing cost. As a result of our product design and cost efficient distribution system, we have been able to

achieve a cost per gross customer addition, or CPGA, which measures the average cost of acquiring a new customer, that is significantly lower than most of our competitors.

 

We are focused on building and maintaining brand awareness in our markets and improving the productivity of our distribution system. We combine mass and local marketing strategies to build brand awareness of the Cricket service within the communities we serve. In order to reach our target segments, we advertise primarily on radio stations and, to a lesser extent, on television and in local publications. We also maintain the Cricket website (www.mycricket.com) for informational, e-commerce, and customer service purposes. Some third party internet retailers sell the Cricket service over the internet and, working with a third party, we have also developed and launched internet sales on our Cricket website. We also have redesigned and re-merchandized our stores and introduced a new sales process aimed at improving both the customer experience and our average revenue per user.

 

As a result of these marketing strategies and our unlimited calling value proposition, we believe our advertising expenditures are generally at much lower levels than those of traditional wireless carriers. We also believe that our CPGA is one of the lowest in the industry. See “Part II — Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Performance Measures.”

 

Network and Operations

 

We have deployed in each of our markets a high quality CDMA 1xRTT network that delivers high capacity and outstanding quality at a low cost that can be easily upgraded to support enhanced capacity. During 2007, we completed the upgrade to EvDO technology in all existing and new markets, providing us the technical ability to support next generation high-speed data services. Our network has regularly been ranked by third party surveys commissioned by us as one of the top networks within the advertised coverage area in the markets Cricket serves.

 

Our service is based on providing customers with levels of usage equivalent to landline service at prices substantially lower than those offered by most of our wireless competitors for similar usage and at prices that are competitive with unlimited wireline plans. We believe our success depends on operating our CDMA 1xRTT network to provide high quality, concentrated coverage and capacity rather than the broad, geographically dispersed coverage provided by traditional wireless carriers. CDMA 1xRTT technology provides us substantially higher capacity than other technologies, such as global system for mobile communications (GSM).

 

As of December 31, 2007, our wireless network consisted of approximately 5,100 cell sites (most of which are co-located on leased facilities), a Network Operations Center, or NOC, and 31 switches in 33 switching centers. A switching center serves several purposes, including routing calls, supervising call originations and terminations at cell sites, managing call handoffs and access to and from the public switched telephone network, or PSTN, and other value-added services. These locations also house platforms that enable services including text messaging, picture messaging, voice mail and data services. Our NOC provides dedicated, 24 hours per day monitoring capabilities every day of the year for all network nodes to ensure highly reliable service to our customers.

 

Our switches connect to the PSTN through fiber rings leased from third party providers which facilitate the first leg of origination and termination of traffic between our equipment and both local exchange and long distance carriers. We have negotiated interconnection agreements with relevant exchange carriers in each of our markets. We use third party providers for long distance services and for backhaul services carrying traffic to and from our cell sites and switching centers.

 

We monitor network quality metrics, including dropped call rates and blocked call rates. We also engage an independent third party to test the network call quality offered by us and our competitors in the markets where we offer service. According to the most recent results, we rank first or second in network quality within most of our core market footprints.

 

We generally build out our Cricket network in local population centers of metropolitan communities serving the areas where our customers live, work and play. During 2007, we expanded our network coverage and capacity in many of our existing markets, allowing us to offer our customers a larger local calling area. During this period, we deployed approximately 300 new cell sites in our established existing markets, thereby adding approximately 2 million POPs to our network footprint in these markets. For example, in Arizona we significantly expanded our network footprint in our Phoenix and Tucson markets and are joining these two markets into a

single, contiguous local calling area for the first time. We expect to deploy approximately 250 cell sites in our established existing markets during 2008.

 

Some of the Auction #66 licenses we and Denali License purchased include large regional areas covering both rural and metropolitan communities. Based on our preliminary analysis of the potential new markets covered by these Auction #66 licenses, we believe that a significant portion of the POPs included within such new licenses may not be well suited for Cricket service. Therefore, among other things, we and/or Denali License may seek to partner with others, sell spectrum or pursue alternative products or services to utilize or benefit from the spectrum not otherwise used for Cricket service.

 

Arrangements with LCW Wireless

 

In July 2006, we acquired a 72% non-controlling membership interest in LCW Wireless. In December 2006, we completed the replacement of certain network equipment of LCW Operations, entitling us to receive additional membership interests in LCW Wireless. The membership interests in LCW Wireless are now held as follows: Cricket holds a 73.3% non-controlling membership interest; CSM Wireless, LLC, or CSM, holds a 24.7% non-controlling membership interest; and WLPCS Management, LLC, or WLPCS, holds a 2% controlling membership interest. WLPCS contributed $1.3 million in cash to LCW Wireless in exchange for its controlling membership interest. LCW Wireless is a “very small business” designated entity under FCC regulations, which owned a wireless license for Portland, Oregon and to which we contributed two wireless licenses in Salem and Eugene, Oregon, related operating assets and approximately $21 million in cash.

 

LCW Wireless, together with its wholly owned subsidiaries, is a wireless communications carrier that offers digital wireless service in the Oregon market cluster through its subsidiary, LCW Operations, under the Cricket and Jump Mobile brands. LCW Operations launched service in Portland, Oregon in December 2006, creating a market cluster with its existing Salem and Eugene markets covering approximately 2.7 million POPs.

 

We anticipate that LCW Wireless’ working capital needs will be funded through Cricket’s initial equity contribution and through third party debt financing. In October 2006, LCW Operations entered into a senior secured credit agreement consisting of two term loans for $40 million in the aggregate. The loans bear interest at LIBOR plus the applicable margin ranging from 2.70% to 6.33%. The obligations under the loans are guaranteed by LCW Wireless and LCW License. Outstanding borrowings under the term loans must be repaid in varying quarterly installments starting in June 2008, with an aggregate final payment of $24.5 million due in June 2011. 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 or 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, sell assets or generate excess cash flow. The senior secured credit agreement requires that LCW Operations and the guarantors comply with financial covenants related to adjusted earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization, or EBITDA, gross additions of subscribers, minimum cash and cash equivalents and maximum capital expenditures, among other things.

 

Limited Liability Company Agreement.  In July 2006, Cricket entered into the LLC Agreement of LCW Wireless, LLC, or the LCW LLC Agreement, with CSM and WLPCS. Under the LCW LLC Agreement, a board of managers has the right and power to manage, operate and control LCW Wireless and its business and affairs, subject to certain protective provisions for the benefit of Cricket and CSM. The board of managers is currently comprised of five members, with three members designated by WLPCS (who have agreed to vote together as a block), one member designated by CSM and one member designated by Cricket. In the event that LCW Wireless fails to qualify as an “entrepreneur” and a “very small business” under FCC rules, then in certain circumstances, subject to FCC approval, WLPCS is required to sell its entire equity interest to LCW Wireless or a third party designated by the non-controlling members.

 

Under the LCW LLC Agreement, during the first five years following the date of the agreement, members generally may not transfer their membership interest, other than to specified permitted transferees or through the exercise of put rights set forth in the LCW LLC Agreement. Following such period, if a member desires to transfer

its interests in LCW Wireless to a third party, the non-controlling members have a right of first refusal to purchase such interests on a pro rata basis.

 

Under the LCW LLC Agreement, WLPCS has the option to put its entire equity interest in LCW Wireless to Cricket for a purchase price not to exceed $3.0 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. Alternatively, WLPCS is entitled to receive a liquidation preference equal to its capital contributions plus a specified rate of return, together with any outstanding mandatory distributions owed to WLPCS.

 

Under the LCW LLC Agreement, CSM also has the option, during specified periods, to put its entire equity interest in LCW Wireless to Cricket in exchange for either cash, Leap common stock, or a combination thereof, as determined by Cricket at its discretion, for a purchase price calculated on a pro rata basis using either the appraised value of LCW Wireless or a multiple of Leap’s enterprise value divided by its EBITDA and applied to LCW Wireless’ adjusted EBITDA to impute an enterprise value and equity value for LCW Wireless. If Cricket elects to satisfy its put obligations to CSM with Leap common stock, the obligations of the parties are conditioned upon the block of Leap common stock issuable to CSM not constituting more than five percent of Leap’s outstanding common stock at the time of issuance.

 

Management Agreement.  In July 2006, Cricket and LCW Wireless entered into 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.

 

Arrangements with Denali

 

In May 2006, Cricket and Denali Spectrum Manager, LLC, or DSM, formed Denali as a joint venture to participate (through its wholly owned subsidiary, Denali License) in Auction #66 as a “very small business” designated entity under FCC regulations. Cricket owns an 82.5% non-controlling membership interest and DSM owns a 17.5% controlling membership interest in Denali. DSM, as the sole manager of Denali, has the exclusive right and power to manage, operate and control Denali and its business and affairs, subject to certain protective provisions for the benefit of Cricket. On April 30, 2007, Denali purchased a wireless license in Auction #66 covering the upper mid-west portion of the U.S. as a designated entity through its wholly owned subsidiary Denali License.

 

Cricket’s principal agreements with the Denali entities are summarized below.

 

Limited Liability Company Agreement.  In July 2006, Cricket and DSM entered into an amended and restated limited liability company agreement, or the Denali LLC Agreement, under which Cricket and DSM made equity investments in Denali of approximately $7.6 million and $1.6 million, respectively. In October 2006, Cricket and DSM made further equity investments in Denali of $34.2 million and $7.3 million, respectively. In September and October 2007, Cricket and Denali made further equity investments in Denali of $41.8 million and $8.9 million, respectively.

 

Under the Denali LLC Agreement, DSM, as the sole manager of Denali, has the exclusive right and power to manage, operate and control Denali and its business and affairs, subject to certain protective provisions for the benefit of Cricket including, among other things, Cricket’s consent to the acquisition of wireless licenses or the sale of its wireless licenses or the sale of any additional membership interests. DSM can be removed as the manager of Denali in certain circumstances, including DSM’s fraud, gross negligence or willful misconduct, DSM’s insolvency or bankruptcy, or DSM’s failure to qualify as an “entrepreneur” and a “very small business” under FCC regulations, or other limited circumstances.

 

During the first ten years following the initial grant of wireless licenses to Denali License, members of Denali generally may not transfer their membership interests to non-affiliates without Cricket’s prior written consent. Following such period, if a member desires to transfer its interests in Denali to a third party, Cricket has a right of first refusal to purchase such interests or, in lieu of exercising this right, Cricket has a tag-along right to participate in the sale. DSM may offer to sell its entire membership interest in Denali to Cricket on the fifth anniversary of the

initial grant of wireless licenses to Denali License and on each subsequent anniversary thereof for a purchase price equal to DSM’s equity contributions in cash to Denali, plus a specified return, payable in cash. If exercised, the consummation of the sale will be subject to FCC approval.

 

Senior Secured Credit Agreement.  In July 2006, Cricket entered into a senior secured credit agreement with Denali License and Denali. Pursuant to this agreement, as amended, Cricket loaned to Denali License approximately $223.4 million to fund the payment of its net winning bid in Auction #66. Under the agreement, Cricket also agreed to loan to Denali License an amount equal to $0.75 times the aggregate number of POPs covered by the license for which it was the winning bidder (approximately $44.5 million) to fund a portion of the costs of the construction and operation of the wireless network using such license, which build-out loan sub-facility may be increased from time to time with Cricket’s approval. As at December 31, 2007, Cricket had loaned to Denali License approximately $6.0 million under this build-out loan sub-facility. 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 on the fourteenth anniversary of the grant date of the wireless license awarded to Denali License in Auction #66. Outstanding principal and accrued interest is amortized in quarterly installments commencing on the tenth anniversary of the license grant date. However, if DSM makes an offer to sell its membership interest in Denali to Cricket under the Denali LLC Agreement and Cricket accepts such offer, then the amortization commencement date under the credit agreement will be extended to the first business day following the date on which Cricket has paid DSM the offer price for its membership interest in Denali. Denali License may prepay loans under the credit agreement at any time without premium or penalty. In February 2008, Cricket entered into a letter of credit and reimbursement agreement, under which Cricket agreed to use reasonable efforts to procure stand-by letters of credit from financial institutions in favor of certain vendors and lessors of Denali in connection with its build-out activities, the aggregate stated amount of which may not exceed $7.5 million. Denali is required to reimburse Cricket with respect to any drawing under a letter of credit, and to pay interest with respect to any unreimbursed drawing. The obligations of Denali License and Denali under these agreements are secured by all of the personal property, fixtures and owned real property of Denali License and Denali, subject to certain permitted liens.

 

Management Agreement.  In July 2006, Cricket and Denali License entered into 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 licenses, network equipment, facilities and operations, including its product offerings, terms of service and pricing. The initial term of the management services agreement is ten years. The management services agreement may be terminated by Denali License or Cricket if the other party materially breaches its obligations under the agreement.

 

Alaska Native Broadband

 

In November 2004, we acquired a 75% non-controlling membership interest in Alaska Native Broadband 1, LLC, or ANB 1, whose wholly owned subsidiary, Alaska Native Broadband 1 License, LLC, or ANB 1 License, participated in the FCC’s Auction #58. Alaska Native Broadband, LLC, or ANB, owned a 25% controlling membership interest in and was the sole manager of ANB 1, and ANB 1 was the sole member and manager of ANB 1 License. ANB 1 License was eligible to bid on certain restricted licenses offered by the FCC in Auction #58 as a designated entity. In January 2007, ANB exercised its option to sell its entire 25% controlling interest in ANB 1 to Cricket. The FCC approved the application to transfer control of ANB 1 License to Cricket, we closed the sale transaction on March 5, 2007, and ANB and ANB 1 License became guarantors under our senior secured credit agreement, or Credit Agreement, and our senior unsecured indenture. On December 31, 2007, ANB 1 License transferred its wireless licenses to a Cricket subsidiary and ANB 1 and ANB 1 License were merged into Cricket, with Cricket as the surviving entity.

 

Competition

 

The telecommunications industry is very competitive. We believe that our primary competition in the U.S. wireless market is with national and regional wireless service providers including Alltel, AT&T, Sprint Nextel (and Sprint Nextel affiliates), T-Mobile, U.S. Cellular and Verizon Wireless. AT&T, Sprint Nextel, T-Mobile

and Verizon Wireless have each recently announced flat-rate unlimited service offerings. In addition, Sprint Nextel offers a flat-rate unlimited service offering under its Boost Unlimited brand, which is very similar to the Cricket service. Sprint Nextel has expanded and may further expand its Boost Unlimited service offering into certain markets in which we provide service or in which we plan to expand, and this service offering may present additional strong competition to Cricket service in markets in which our service offerings overlap. The competitive pressures of the wireless telecommunications market have also caused other carriers to offer service plans with unlimited service offerings or large bundles of minutes of use at low prices which are competing with the predictable and unlimited Cricket calling plans. Some competitors also offer prepaid wireless plans that are being advertised heavily to demographic segments in our current markets and in markets in which we may expand that are strongly represented in Cricket’s customer base. For example, T-Mobile has introduced a FlexPay plan which permits customers to pay in advance for its post-pay plans and avoid overage charges. These competitive offerings could adversely affect our ability to maintain our pricing and increase or maintain our market penetration and may have a material adverse effect on our financial results.

 

We also face competition from resellers or mobile virtual network operators, or MVNOs, such as Virgin Mobile USA, TracFone Wireless, and others, which provide wireless services to customers but do not hold FCC licenses or own network facilities. These resellers purchase bulk wireless telephone services and capacity from wireless providers and resell to the public under their own brand name generally through mass market retail outlets. Wireless providers are also increasingly competing in the provision of both voice and non-voice services. Non-voice services, including data transmission, text messaging, e-mail and internet access, are now available from personal communications service providers and enhanced specialized mobile radio carriers. In many cases, non-voice services are offered in conjunction with or as adjuncts to voice services.

 

In the future, we may also face competition from entities providing similar services using different technologies, including Wi-Fi, WiMax, and Voice over Internet Protocol, or VoIP. Additionally, some of the major internet search engines and service providers have entered the mobile service market, or announced plans or intentions to enter the mobile service market, by providing free internet and voice access through a fixed mobile network in partnership with some major municipalities in the U.S. As wireless service is becoming a viable alternative to traditional landline phone service, we are also increasingly competing directly with traditional landline telephone companies for customers. Competition is also increasing from local and long distance wireline carriers who have begun to aggressively advertise in the face of increasing competition from wireless carriers, cable operators and other competitors. Cable operators are providing telecommunications services to the home, and some of these carriers are providing local and long distance voice services using VoIP. In particular circumstances, these carriers may be able to avoid payment of access charges to local exchange carriers for the use of their networks on long distance calls. Cost savings for these carriers could result in lower prices to customers and increased competition for wireless services. Some of our competitors offer these other services together with their wireless communications service, which may make their services more attractive to customers. In the future, we may also face competition from mobile satellite service, or MSS, providers, as well as from resellers of these services. The FCC has granted, or may grant, MSS providers the flexibility to deploy an ancillary terrestrial component to their satellite services. This added flexibility may enhance MSS providers’ ability to offer more competitive mobile services.

 

There has also been an increasing trend towards consolidation of wireless service providers through joint ventures, reorganizations and acquisitions. These consolidated carriers may have substantially larger service areas, more capacity and greater financial resources and bargaining power than we do. As consolidation creates even larger competitors, the advantages our competitors have may increase. For example, in connection with the offering of our roaming service, we have encountered problems with certain large wireless carriers in negotiating reasonable terms for roaming arrangements, and believe that consolidation has contributed significantly to such carriers’ control over the terms and conditions of wholesale roaming services. Additionally, these agreements can be terminated by the carriers.

 

The telecommunications industry is experiencing significant technological changes, as evidenced by the increasing pace of improvements in the capacity and quality of digital technology, shorter cycles for new products and enhancements and changes in consumer preferences and expectations. Accordingly, we expect competition in the wireless telecommunications industry to be dynamic and intense as a result of competitors and the development of new technologies, products and services. We compete for customers based on numerous factors, including

wireless system coverage and quality, service value proposition (minutes and features relative to price), local market presence, digital voice and features, customer service, distribution strength, and brand name recognition. Some competitors also market other services, such as landline local exchange and internet access services, with their wireless service offerings. For example, T-Mobile has introduced an internet-based service upgrade which permits wireless customers to make unlimited local and long-distance calls from their home phone in place of a traditional landline phone service. Competition has caused, and we anticipate it will continue to cause, market prices for two-way wireless products and services to decline. Our ability to compete successfully will depend, in part, on our ability to distinguish our Cricket service from competitors through marketing and through our ability to anticipate and respond to other competitive factors affecting the industry, including new services that may be introduced, changes in consumer preferences, demographic trends, economic conditions, and competitors’ discount pricing and bundling strategies, all of which could adversely affect our operating margins, market penetration and customer retention. Because many of the wireless operators in our markets have substantially greater financial resources than we do, they may be able to offer prospective customers discounts or equipment subsidies that are substantially greater than those we could offer. In addition, to the extent that products or services that we offer, such as roaming capability, may depend upon negotiations with other wireless operators, discriminatory behavior by such operators or their refusal to negotiate with us could adversely affect our business. While we believe that our cost structure, combined with the differentiated value proposition that our Cricket service represents in the wireless marketplace, provides us with the means to react effectively to price competition, we cannot predict the effect that the market forces or the conduct of other operators in the industry will have on our business.

 

The FCC is currently pursuing policies designed to increase the number of wireless licenses available and new wireless provider competition. For example, the FCC has adopted rules that allow Personal Communications Service, or PCS, and other wireless licenses to be partitioned, disaggregated and leased. The FCC also continues to allocate and auction additional spectrum that can be used for wireless services. In February 2005, the FCC completed Auction #58, in which additional PCS spectrum was auctioned in numerous markets, including many markets where we currently provide service. In addition, the FCC in 2006 auctioned an additional 90 MHz of nationwide spectrum in the 1700 MHz to 2100 MHz band for AWS in Auction #66, and in January 2008 began an auction of 62 MHz of additional spectrum in the 700 MHz band (referred to in this report as Auctions #73 and #76). New companies, such as cable television operators or satellite operators, have purchased or may purchase licenses and begin offering wireless services. In addition, because the FCC has recently permitted the offering of broadband services over power lines, it is possible that utility companies will begin competing against us.

 

We believe that we are strategically positioned to compete with other communications technologies that now exist. Continuing technological advances in telecommunications and FCC policies that encourage the development of new spectrum-based technologies make it difficult, however, to predict the extent of future competition.

 

Chapter 11 Proceedings Under the Bankruptcy Code

 

On April 13, 2003, Leap, Cricket and substantially all of their subsidiaries filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 in federal bankruptcy court. On August 16, 2004, our plan of reorganization became effective and we emerged from bankruptcy. On that date a new board of directors of Leap was appointed, Leap’s previously existing stock, options and warrants were cancelled, and Leap issued 60 million shares of new Leap common stock for distribution to two classes of creditors. Leap also issued warrants to purchase 600,000 shares of new Leap common stock pursuant to a settlement agreement. A creditor trust, referred to as the Leap Creditor Trust, was formed for the benefit of Leap’s general unsecured creditors. The Leap Creditor Trust received shares of new Leap common stock for distribution to Leap’s general unsecured creditors, and certain other assets, as specified in our plan of reorganization, for liquidation by the Leap Creditor Trust with the proceeds to be distributed to holders of allowed Leap unsecured claims. Any cash held in reserve by Leap immediately prior to the effective date of the plan of reorganization that remains following satisfaction of all allowed administrative claims and allowed priority claims against Leap will be distributed to the Leap Creditor Trust.

 

Our plan of reorganization implemented a comprehensive financial reorganization that significantly reduced our outstanding indebtedness. On the effective date of our plan of reorganization, our long-term indebtedness was reduced from a book value of more than $2.4 billion to indebtedness with an estimated fair value of $412.8 million, consisting of new Cricket 13% senior secured pay-in-kind notes due in 2011 with a face value of $350 million and

an estimated fair value of $372.8 million, issued on the effective date of the plan of reorganization, and approximately $40 million of remaining indebtedness to the FCC (net of the repayment of $45 million of principal and accrued interest to the FCC on the effective date of the plan of reorganization). We entered into new syndicated senior secured credit facilities in January 2005, and we used a portion of the proceeds from the $500 million term loan included as a part of such facilities to redeem Cricket’s 13% senior secured pay-in-kind notes, to repay our remaining approximately $41 million of outstanding indebtedness and accrued interest to the FCC and to pay transaction fees and expenses of $6.4 million.

 

Government Regulation

 

The licensing, construction, modification, operation, sale, ownership and interconnection of wireless communications networks are regulated to varying degrees by the FCC, Congress, state regulatory agencies, the courts and other governmental bodies. Decisions by these bodies could have a significant impact on the competitive market structure among wireless providers and on the relationships between wireless providers and other carriers. These mandates may impose significant financial obligations on us and other wireless providers. We are unable to predict the scope, pace or financial impact of legal or policy changes that could be adopted in these proceedings.

 

Licensing of our Wireless Service Systems

 

Cricket and LCW License hold PCS licenses, and Cricket and Denali License hold AWS licenses. The licensing rules that apply to these two services are summarized below.

 

PCS Licenses.  A broadband PCS system operates under a license granted by the FCC for a particular market on one of six frequency blocks allocated for broadband PCS. Broadband PCS systems generally are used for two-way voice applications. Narrowband PCS systems, in contrast, generally are used for non-voice applications such as paging and data service and are separately licensed. The FCC has segmented the U.S. PCS markets into 51 large regions called major trading areas, or MTAs, which in turn are comprised of 493 smaller regions called basic trading areas, or BTAs. The FCC awards two broadband PCS licenses for each MTA and four licenses for each BTA. Thus, generally, six licensees are authorized to compete in each area. The two MTA licenses authorize the use of 30 MHz of spectrum. One of the BTA licenses is for 30 MHz of spectrum, and the other three BTA licenses are for 10 MHz each. The FCC permits licensees to split their licenses and assign a portion to a third party on either a geographic or frequency basis or both. Over time, the FCC has also further split licenses in connection with re-auctions of PCS spectrum, creating additional 15 MHz and 10 MHz licenses.

 

All PCS licensees must satisfy minimum geographic coverage requirements within five and, in some cases, ten years after the license grant date. These initial requirements are met for most 10 MHz licenses when a signal level sufficient to provide adequate service is offered to at least one-quarter of the population of the licensed area within five years, or in the alternative, a showing of substantial service is made for the licensed area within five years of being licensed. For 30 MHz licenses, a signal level must be provided that is sufficient to offer adequate service to at least one-third of the population within five years and two-thirds of the population within ten years after the license grant date. In the alternative, 30 MHz licensees may provide substantial service to their licensed area within the appropriate five- and ten-year benchmarks. “Substantial service” is defined by the FCC as service which is “sound, favorable, and substantially above a level of mediocre service which just might minimally warrant renewal.” In general, a failure to comply with FCC coverage requirements could cause the revocation of the relevant wireless license, with no eligibility to regain it, or the imposition of fines and/or other sanctions.

 

All PCS licenses have a 10-year term, at the end of which they must be renewed. Our PCS licenses began expiring in 2006 and will continue to expire through 2015. The FCC’s rules provide a formal presumption that a PCS license will be renewed, called a “renewal expectancy,” if the PCS licensee (1) has provided “substantial service” during its past license term, and (2) has substantially complied with applicable FCC rules and policies and the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, or Communications Act. If a licensee does not receive a renewal expectancy, then the FCC will accept competing applications for the license renewal period and, subject to a comparative hearing, may award the license to another party. If the FCC does not grant a renewal expectancy with respect to one or more of our licenses, or renew one or more of our licenses, our business may be materially harmed.

AWS Licenses.  Recognizing the increasing consumer demand for wireless mobile services, the FCC has allocated additional spectrum that can be used for two-way mobile wireless voice and broadband services, including AWS spectrum. The FCC has licensed six frequency blocks consisting of one 20 MHz license in each of 734 cellular market areas, or CMAs; one 20 MHz license and one 10 MHz license in each of 176 economic areas, or EAs; and two 10 MHz licenses and one 20 MHz license in each of 12 regional economic area groupings, or REAGs. The FCC auctioned these licenses in Auction #66. In that auction, we purchased 99 wireless licenses for an aggregate purchase price of $710.2 million. Denali License also acquired one wireless license on April 30, 2007 for a net purchase price of $274.1 million.

 

AWS licenses generally have a 15-year term, at the end of which they must be renewed. With respect to construction requirements, an AWS licensee must offer “substantial service” to the public at the end of the license term. As noted above, a failure to comply with FCC coverage requirements could cause the revocation of the relevant wireless license, with no eligibility to regain it, or the imposition of fines and/or other sanctions.

 

The AWS spectrum that was auctioned in Auction #66 currently is used 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. We and Denali License considered the estimated cost and time frame required to clear the spectrum which we and Denali License purchased in Auction #66 while placing bids in the auction. However, the actual cost of clearing the spectrum may exceed our estimated costs. Furthermore, delays in the provision of federal funds to relocate government users, or difficulties in negotiating with incumbent commercial licensees, may extend the date by which the auctioned spectrum can be cleared of existing operations, and thus may also delay the date on which we can launch commercial services using such licensed spectrum. In addition, certain existing government operations are using the spectrum for classified purposes. Although the government has agreed to clear that spectrum to allow the holders to utilize their AWS licenses in the affected areas, the government is only providing limited information to spectrum holders about these classified uses which creates additional uncertainty about the time at which such spectrum will be available for commercial use. Several federal government agencies have cleared or announced plans to promptly clear spectrum covered by licenses we and Denali License purchased in Auction #66. Other agencies, however, have not yet finalized plans to relocate their use to alternative spectrum. If these agencies do not relocate to alternative spectrum within the next several months, their continued use of the spectrum covered by licenses we and Denali License purchased in Auction #66 could delay the launch of certain markets.

 

Designated Entities.  Since the early 1990’s the FCC has pursued a policy in wireless licensing of attempting to assist various types of designated entities. The FCC generally has determined that designated entities who qualify as small businesses or very small businesses, as defined by a complex set of FCC rules, can receive additional benefits. These benefits can include eligibility to bid for certain licenses set aside only for designated entities. For example, the FCC’s spectrum allocation for PCS generally includes two licenses, a 30 MHz C-Block license and a 10 MHz F-Block license, which are designated as “Entrepreneurs’ Blocks.” The FCC generally requires holders of these licenses to meet certain maximum financial size qualifications. In addition, designated entities are eligible for bidding credits in most spectrum auctions and re-auctions (which has been the case in all PCS auctions to date, and was the case in Auction #66), and, in some cases, an installment loan from the federal government for a significant portion of the dollar amount of the winning bids (which was the case in the FCC’s initial auctions of C-Block and F-Block PCS licenses). A failure by an entity to maintain its qualifications to own licenses won through the designated entity program could cause a number of adverse consequences, including the ineligibility to hold licenses for which the FCC’s minimum coverage requirements have not been met, and the triggering of FCC unjust enrichment rules, which could require the recapture of bidding credits and the acceleration of any installment payments owed to the U.S. Treasury.

 

The FCC has initiated a rulemaking proceeding focused on addressing the alleged abuses of its designated entity program. In that proceeding, the FCC has re-affirmed its goals of ensuring that only legitimate small businesses benefit from the program, and that such small businesses are not controlled or manipulated by larger wireless carriers or other investors that do not meet the small business qualification tests. As a result, the FCC issued an initial round of changes aimed at curtailing certain types of spectrum leasing and wholesale capacity arrangements between wireless carriers and designated entities that it felt called into question the designated entity’s overall control of the venture. The FCC also changed its unjust enrichment rules, designed to trigger the repayment of

auction bidding credits, as follows: For the first five years of its license term, if a designated entity loses its eligibility or seeks to transfer its license or to enter into a de facto lease with an entity that does not qualify for bidding credits, 100 percent of the bidding credit amount, plus interest, would be owed to the FCC. For years six and seven of the license term, 75 percent of the bidding credit, plus interest, would be owed. For years eight and nine, 50 percent of the bidding credit, plus interest, would be owed, and for year ten, 25 percent of the bidding credit, plus interest, would be owed. In addition, if a designated entity seeks to transfer a license with a bidding credit to an entity that does not qualify for bidding credits in advance of filing the construction notification for the license, then 100 percent of the bidding credit amount, plus interest, would be owed to the FCC. Designated entity structures are also now subject to a new rule that requires them to seek approval for any event that might affect ongoing eligibility (e.g., changes in agreements that the FCC has not previously reviewed), as well as new annual reporting requirements, and a commitment by the FCC to audit each designated entity at least once during the license term.

 

The FCC has invited additional comment on other changes to its designated entity rules, and recently affirmed its first round of rule changes in response to certain parties’ petitions for reconsideration. Several parties have petitioned for further review of the recent rule changes at the FCC and/or in federal appellate court. We cannot predict the degree to which the FCC’s present or future rule changes or increased regulatory scrutiny that may follow from this proceeding will affect our current or future business ventures, including our arrangements with respect to LCW Wireless and Denali, or our participation in future FCC spectrum auctions.

 

Foreign Ownership.  Under existing law, no more than 20% of an FCC licensee’s capital stock may be owned, directly or indirectly, or voted by non-U.S. citizens or their representatives, by a foreign government or its representatives or by a foreign corporation. If an FCC licensee is controlled by another entity (as is the case with Leap’s ownership and control of subsidiaries that hold FCC licenses), up to 25% of that entity’s capital stock may be owned or voted by non-U.S. citizens or their representatives, by a foreign government or its representatives or by a foreign corporation. Foreign ownership above the 25% holding company level may be allowed if the FCC finds such higher levels consistent with the public interest. The FCC has ruled that higher levels of foreign ownership, even up to 100%, are presumptively consistent with the public interest with respect to investors from certain nations. If our foreign ownership were to exceed the permitted level, the FCC could revoke our wireless licenses, although we could seek a declaratory ruling from the FCC allowing the foreign ownership or could take other actions to reduce our foreign ownership percentage in order to avoid the loss of our licenses. We have no knowledge of any present foreign ownership in violation of these restrictions. Our wireless licenses are in good standing with the FCC.

 

Transfer and Assignment.  The Communications Act and FCC rules require the FCC’s prior approval of the assignment or transfer of control of a commercial wireless license, with limited exceptions. The FCC may prohibit or impose conditions on assignments and transfers of control of licenses. Non-controlling interests in an entity that holds a wireless license generally may be bought or sold without FCC approval. Although we cannot assure you that the FCC will approve or act in a timely fashion upon any pending or future requests for approval of assignment or transfer of control applications that we file, in general we believe the FCC will approve or grant such requests or applications in due course. Because an FCC license is necessary to lawfully provide wireless service, if the FCC were to disapprove any such filing, our business plans would be adversely affected.

 

Pursuant to an order released in December 2001, as of January 1, 2003, the FCC no longer limits the amount of PCS and other commercial mobile radio spectrum that an entity may hold in a particular geographic market. The FCC now engages in a case-by-case review of transactions that involve the consolidation of spectrum licenses or leases.

 

A C-Block or F-Block PCS license may be transferred to non-designated entities once the licensee has met its five-year coverage requirement. Such transfers will remain subject to certain costs and reimbursements to the government of any bidding credits or outstanding principal and interest payments owed to the FCC. AWS licenses acquired by designated entities in Auction #66 may be transferred to non-designated entities at any time, subject to certain costs and reimbursements to the government of any bidding credit amounts owed.

 

Auctions #73 and #76

 

As the FCC transitions television broadcasters to digital frequencies, it has reclaimed the 698-806 MHz band, referred to as the 700 MHz band, to make available for new commercial and public safety wireless services. The

FCC has already assigned licenses for certain licenses in the 700 MHz band, and on January 24, 2008 commenced the auction of 1,099 additional licenses in Auction #73, as follows: 176 EA licenses in the A Block, 734 CMA licenses in the B Block, 176 EA licenses in the E Block, 12 REAG licenses in the C Block, and 1 nationwide license, to be used as part of the 700 MHz Public/Private Partnership, in the D Block.

 

The FCC has set separate aggregate reserve prices for each block of 700 MHz band licenses in Auction #73. If licenses initially offered are not assigned because the auction results do not satisfy the applicable block-specific aggregate reserve price(s), the agency will offer alternative licenses for the relevant blocks in a subsequent auction (which will be designated as Auction #76), subject to the same reserve prices. Only qualified bidders from Auction #73 will be permitted to participate in Auction #76.

 

A wholly owned subsidiary of Leap is a participant in Auctions #73 and #76. We cannot assure you that our bidding strategy will be successful in Auctions #73 and #76 or that spectrum in the auction that meets our internally developed criteria will be available to us at acceptable prices. In addition, FCC anonymous bidding and anti-collusion auction rules applicable to these auctions restrict certain business communications that we can enter into with other applicants, as well as the degree of public disclosure we can make regarding our bidding activities. For example, the FCC has indicated that discussions with other carriers regarding roaming agreements, the partitioning of markets or the disaggregation of spectrum, or the acquisition or sale of licenses or licensees, may implicate the anti-collusion rule if both parties to the discussions are competing applicants in the auctions and, in the course of discussions, the parties exchange information that could directly or indirectly affect their bids, bidding strategy, or the post-auction market structure. These restrictions may affect the normal conduct of our business by inhibiting discussions and the conclusion of beneficial transactions with other parties during the auctions, which could last three to six months, or more.

 

FCC Regulation Generally

 

The FCC has a number of other complex requirements and proceedings that affect our operations and that could increase our costs or diminish our revenues. For example, the FCC requires wireless carriers to make available emergency 911, or E911, services, including enhanced E911 services that provide the caller’s telephone number and detailed location information to emergency responders, as well as a requirement that E911 services be made available to users with speech or hearing disabilities. Our obligations to implement these services occur on a market-by-market basis as emergency service providers request the implementation of enhanced E911 services in their locales. Absent a waiver, a failure to comply with these requirements could subject us to significant penalties. Furthermore, the FCC has initiated a comprehensive re-examination of E911 location accuracy and reliability requirements. The FCC recently issued an order requiring wireless carriers to satisfy E911 location and reliability standards at a geographical level defined by the coverage area of a Public Safety Answering Point (or PSAP) and has indicated that further action may be taken in future proceedings to establish more stringent, uniform location accuracy requirements across technologies, and to promote continuing development of technologies that might enable carriers to provide public safety with better information for locating persons in the event of an emergency. We cannot predict whether or how such actions will affect our business, financial condition or results of operations.

 

FCC rules also require that local exchange carriers and most commercial mobile radio service providers, including providers like Cricket, allow customers to change service providers without changing telephone numbers. For wireless service providers, this mandate is referred to as wireless local number portability. The FCC also has adopted rules governing the porting of wireline telephone numbers to wireless carriers.

 

The FCC has the authority to order interconnection between commercial mobile radio service operators and incumbent local exchange carriers, and FCC rules provide that all local exchange carriers must enter into compensation arrangements with commercial mobile radio service carriers for the exchange of local traffic, whereby each carrier compensates the other for terminating local traffic originating on the other carrier’s network. As a commercial mobile radio services provider, we are required to pay compensation to a wireline local exchange carrier that transports and terminates a local call that originated on our network. Similarly, we are entitled to receive compensation when we transport and terminate a local call that originated on a wireline local exchange network. We negotiate interconnection arrangements for our network with major incumbent local exchange carriers and other independent telephone companies. If an agreement cannot be reached, under certain circumstances, parties to

interconnection negotiations can submit outstanding disputes to state authorities for arbitration. Negotiated interconnection agreements are subject to state approval. The FCC’s interconnection rules and rulings, as well as state arbitration proceedings, will directly impact the nature and costs of facilities necessary for the interconnection of our network with other telecommunications networks. They will also determine the amount we receive for terminating calls originating on the networks of local exchange carriers and other telecommunications carriers. The FCC is currently considering changes to the local exchange-commercial mobile radio service interconnection and other intercarrier compensation arrangements, and the outcome of such proceedings may affect the manner in which we are charged or compensated for the exchange of traffic.

 

The FCC recently adopted a report and order clarifying that commercial mobile radio service providers are required to provide automatic roaming for voice services on just, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms. The FCC order, however, does not address roaming for data services nor does it provide any regulatory framework or scheme for determining roaming rates for voice services and so our ability to obtain roaming services from other carriers at attractive rates remains uncertain. In addition, the FCC order indicates that a host carrier is not required to provide roaming services to another carrier in areas in which that other carrier holds wireless licenses or usage rights that could be used to provide wireless services. Because we and Denali License hold a significant number of spectrum licenses for markets in which service has not yet been launched, we believe that this “in-market” roaming restriction could significantly and adversely affect our ability to receive roaming services in areas where we hold licenses. We and other wireless carriers have filed a petition with the FCC, asking that it reconsider this in-market exception to its roaming order. However, we can provide no assurances as to whether the FCC will reconsider this exception or the timeframe in which it might do so. Our inability to obtain roaming services on a cost-effective basis may limit our ability to compete effectively for wireless customers, which may increase our churn and decrease our revenues, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

 

The FCC recently released an order purporting to implement certain recommendations of an independent panel reviewing the impact of Hurricane Katrina on communications networks, which requires wireless carriers to provide emergency back-up power sources for their equipment and facilities, including up to 24 hours of emergency power for mobile switch offices and up to eight hours for cell site locations. The order was expected to become effective sometime in 2008. However, on February 28, 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit stayed the effective date of the order pending resolution of a petition for review of the FCC’s rules. In order for us to comply with the requirements of the order, we would likely need to purchase additional equipment, obtain additional state and local permits, authorizations and approvals and incur additional operating expenses. We are currently evaluating our compliance with this order should it become effective and the potential costs that may be incurred to achieve compliance could be material.

 

We also are subject, or potentially subject, to universal service obligations; number pooling rules; rules governing billing, subscriber privacy and customer proprietary network information; rules governing wireless resale and roaming obligations; rules that require wireless service providers to configure their networks to facilitate electronic surveillance by law enforcement officials; rate averaging and integration requirements; rules governing spam, telemarketing and truth-in-billing, and rules requiring us to offer equipment and services that are accessible to and usable by persons with disabilities, among others. Some of these requirements pose technical and operational challenges to which we, and the industry as a whole, have not yet developed clear solutions. These requirements are all the subject of pending FCC or judicial proceedings, and we are unable to predict how they may affect our business, financial condition or results of operations.

 

State, Local and Other Regulation

 

Congress has given the FCC the authority to preempt states from regulating rates or entry into commercial mobile radio service. The FCC, to date, has denied all state petitions to regulate the rates charged by commercial mobile radio service providers. State and local governments are permitted to manage public rights of way and can require fair and reasonable compensation from telecommunications providers, on a competitively neutral and nondiscriminatory basis, for the use of such rights of way by telecommunications carriers, including commercial mobile radio service providers, so long as the compensation required is publicly disclosed by the state or local government. States may also impose competitively neutral requirements that are necessary for universal service, to

protect the public safety and welfare, to ensure continued service quality and to safeguard the rights of consumers. While a state may not impose requirements that effectively function as barriers to entry or create a competitive disadvantage, the scope of state authority to maintain existing requirements or to adopt new requirements is unclear. State legislators, public utility commissions and other state agencies are becoming increasingly active in efforts to regulate wireless carriers and the service they provide, including efforts to conserve numbering resources and efforts aimed at regulating service quality, advertising, warranties and returns, rebates, and other consumer protection measures.

 

The location and construction of our wireless antennas and base stations and the towers we lease on which such antennas are located are subject to FCC and Federal Aviation Administration regulations, federal, state and local environmental and historic preservation regulations, and state and local zoning, land use or other requirements.

 

We cannot assure you that any federal, state or local regulatory requirements currently applicable to our systems will not be changed in the future or that regulatory requirements will not be adopted in those states and localities that currently have none. Such changes could impose new obligations on us that could adversely affect our operating results.

 

Privacy

 

We are obligated to comply with a variety of federal and state privacy and consumer protection requirements. The Communications Act and FCC rules, for example, impose various rules on us intended to protect against the disclosure of customer proprietary network information. Other FCC and Federal Trade Commission rules regulate the disclosure and sharing of subscriber information. We have developed and comply with a policy designed to protect the privacy of our customers and their personal information. State legislatures and regulators are considering imposing additional requirements on companies to further protect the privacy of wireless customers. Our need to comply with these rules, and to address complaints by subscribers invoking them, could adversely affect our operating results.

 

Intellectual Property

 

We have pursued registration of our primary trademarks and service marks in the United States. Leap is a U.S. registered trademark of Leap, and a trademark application for the Leap logo is pending. Cricket, Jump, the Cricket “K” and Flex Bucket are U.S. registered trademarks of Cricket. In addition, the following are trademarks or service marks of Cricket: BridgePay, Cricket By Week, Cricket Choice, Cricket Connect and Cricket Nation.

 

As of December 31, 2007, we had two issued patents relating to our local, unlimited wireless services offerings, and numerous other issued patents relating to various technologies we previously acquired. We also have several patent applications pending in the United States relating to our wireless services offerings, including an application to amend one of our issued patents. We cannot assure you that our pending, or any future, patent applications will be granted, that any existing or future patents will not be challenged, invalidated or circumvented, that any existing or future patents will be enforceable, or that the rights granted under any patent that may be issued will provide competitive advantages to us. See “Item 3. Legal Proceedings — Patent Litigation” below.

 

Our business is not substantially dependent upon any of our patents, patent applications, service marks or trademarks. We believe that our technical expertise, operational efficiency, industry-leading cost structure and ability to introduce new products in a timely manner are more critical to maintaining our competitive position in the future.

 

Availability of Public Reports

 

As soon as is reasonably practicable after they are electronically filed with or furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC, our proxy statements, annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, and any amendments to those reports, are available free of charge at www.leapwireless.com. They are also available free of charge on the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov. In addition, any materials filed with the SEC may be read and copied by the public at the SEC’s Public Reference Room at 100 F Street, NE, Washington, DC 20549. The public may obtain information on the operation of the Public

Reference Room by calling the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330. The information on our website is not part of this report or any other report that we furnish to or file with the SEC.

 

Financial Information Concerning Segments and Geographical Information

 

Financial information concerning our operating segment and the geographic area in which we operate is included in “Part II — Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data” of this report.

 

Employees

 

As of December 31, 2007, Cricket employed 2,425 full-time employees, and Leap had no employees.

 

Seasonality

 

Our customer activity is influenced by seasonal effects related to traditional retail selling periods and other factors that arise from our target customer base. Based on historical results, we generally expect new sales activity to be highest in the first and fourth quarters, and customer turnover, or churn, to be highest in the third quarter and lowest in the first quarter. However, sales activity and churn can be strongly affected by the launch of new markets, promotional activity and competitive actions, which have the ability to reduce or outweigh certain seasonal effects.

 

Inflation

 

We believe that inflation has not had a material effect on our results of operations.

 

Executive Officers of the Registrant

 

 

S. Douglas Hutcheson was appointed as our chief executive officer, or CEO, and president in February 2005, and has served as a member of our board of directors since then, and has also served as our acting chief financial officer, or CFO, since September 2007, having previously served as our president and CFO from January 2005 to February 2005, as our executive vice president and CFO from January 2004 to January 2005, as our senior vice president and CFO from August 2002 to January 2004, as our senior vice president and chief strategy officer from March 2002 to August 2002, as our senior vice president, product development and strategic planning from July 2000 to March 2002, as our senior vice president, business development from March 1999 to July 2000 and as our vice president, business development from September 1998 to March 1999. From February 1995 to September 1998, Mr. Hutcheson served as vice president, marketing in the Wireless Infrastructure Division at Qualcomm Incorporated. Mr. Hutcheson is on the board of directors of the Children’s Museum of San Diego and of San Diego’s Regional Economic Development Corporation. Mr. Hutcheson holds a B.S. in mechanical engineering from California Polytechnic University and an M.B.A. from University of California, Irvine.

 

Albin F. Moschner has served as our executive vice president and chief marketing officer since January 2005, having previously served as senior vice president, marketing from September 2004 to January 2005. Prior to this, Mr. Moschner was president of Verizon Card Services from December 2000 to November 2003. Prior to joining Verizon, Mr. Moschner was president and chief executive officer of OnePoint Services, Inc., a telecommunications company that he founded and that was acquired by Verizon in December 2000. Mr. Moschner also was a principal and the vice chairman of Diba, Inc., a development stage internet software company, and served as senior vice

president of operations, a member of the board of directors and ultimately president and chief executive officer of Zenith Electronics from October 1991 to July 1996. Mr. Moschner holds a master’s degree in electrical engineering from Syracuse University and a B.E. in electrical engineering from the City College of New York.

 

Glenn T. Umetsu has served as our executive vice president and chief technical officer since January 2005, having previously served as our executive vice president and chief operating officer from January 2004 to January 2005, as our senior vice president, engineering operations and launch deployment from June 2002 to January 2004, and as vice president, engineering operations and launch development from April 2000 to June 2002. From September 1996 to April 2000, Mr. Umetsu served as vice president, engineering and technical operations for Cellular One in the San Francisco Bay Area. Before Cellular One, Mr. Umetsu served in various telecommunications operations roles for 24 years with AT&T Wireless, McCaw Communications, RAM Mobile Data, Honolulu Cellular, PacTel Cellular, AT&T Advanced Mobile Phone Service, Northwestern Bell and the United States Air Force. Mr. Umetsu holds a B.A. in mathematics and economics from Brown University.

 

William Ingram has served as our senior vice president, financial operations and strategy since February 2008, having previously served as a consultant to us since August 2007. Prior to joining us, Mr. Ingram served as vice president and general manager of AudioCodes, Inc., a telecommunications equipment company from July 2006 to March 2007. Prior to that, Mr. Ingram served as the president and chief executive officer of Nuera Communications, Inc., a provider of VoIP infrastructure solutions, from September 1996 until it was acquired by AudioCodes, Inc. in July 2006. Prior to joining Nuera Communications in 1996, Mr. Ingram served as the chief operating officer of the clarity products division of Pacific Communication Sciences, Inc. a provider of wireless data communications products, as president of Ivie Industries, Inc. a computer security and hardware manufacturer, and as president of KevTon, Inc. an electronics manufacturing company. Mr. Ingram holds an A.B. in economics from Stanford University and an M.B.A. from Harvard Business School.

 

Robert J. Irving, Jr. has served as our senior vice president, general counsel and secretary since May 2003, having previously served as our vice president, legal from August 2002 to May 2003, and as our senior legal counsel from September 1998 to August 2002. Previously, Mr. Irving served as administrative counsel for Rohr, Inc., a corporation that designed and manufactured aerospace products from 1991 to 1998, and prior to that served as vice president, general counsel and secretary for IRT Corporation, a corporation that designed and manufactured x-ray inspection equipment. Before joining IRT Corporation, Mr. Irving was an attorney at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. Mr. Irving was admitted to the California Bar Association in 1982. Mr. Irving holds a B.A. from Stanford University, an M.P.P. from The John F. Kennedy School of Government of Harvard University and a J.D. from Harvard Law School, where he graduated cum laude.

 

Steven R. Martin has served as our acting chief accounting officer since February 2008, having previously served as an accounting consultant to us and our Audit Committee since October 2007. From July 2005 to September 2007, Mr. Martin served as vice president and chief financial officer of Stratagene Corporation, a publicly traded life sciences company, and served as director of finance of Stratagene Corporation from May 2004 to July 2005. From March 2001 to May 2003, Mr. Martin served as controller of Gen-Probe Incorporated, a publicly traded life sciences company. Prior to Gen-Probe, Mr. Martin held various senior finance positions at two other international manufacturing companies and was a senior audit manager at the public accounting firm of Deloitte & Touche. Mr. Martin is a certified public accountant and holds a B.S. in accounting from San Diego State University.

 

Leonard C. Stephens has served as our senior vice president, human resources since our formation in June 1998. From December 1995 to September 1998, Mr. Stephens was vice president, human resources operations for Qualcomm Incorporated. Before joining Qualcomm Incorporated, Mr. Stephens was employed by Pfizer Inc., where he served in a number of human resources positions over a 14-year period. Mr. Stephens holds a B.A. from Howard University.

 

Risks Related to Our Business and Industry

 

We Have Experienced Net Losses, and We May Not Be Profitable in the Future.

 

We experienced net losses of $75.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2007, $24.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2006, $6.1 million and $43.1 million (excluding reorganization items, net) for the five months ended December 31, 2004 and the seven months ended July 31, 2004, respectively, $597.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2003 and $664.8 million for the year ended December 31, 2002. Although we had net income of $30.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2005, we may not generate profits in the future on a consistent basis, or at all. Our strategic objectives depend, in part, on our ability to build out and launch networks associated with newly acquired FCC licenses, including the licenses that we and Denali License acquired in Auction #66, and we will experience higher operating expenses as we build out and after we launch our service in these new markets. If we fail to achieve consistent profitability, that failure could have a negative effect on our financial condition.

 

We May Not Be Successful in Increasing Our Customer Base Which Would Negatively Affect Our Business Plans and Financial Outlook.

 

Our growth on a quarter-by-quarter basis has varied substantially in the past. We believe that this uneven growth generally reflects seasonal trends in customer activity, promotional activity, competition in the wireless telecommunications market, our pace of new market launches, and varying national economic conditions. Our current business plans assume that we will increase our customer base over time, providing us with increased economies of scale. If we are unable to attract and retain a growing customer base, our current business plans and financial outlook may be harmed.

 

Our Business Could Be Adversely Affected By General Economic Conditions; If We Experience Low Rates of Customer Acquisition or High Rates of Customer Turnover, Our Ability to Become Profitable Will Decrease.

 

Our business could be adversely affected in a number of ways by general economic conditions, including interest rates, consumer credit conditions, unemployment and other macro-economic factors. Because we do not require customers to sign fixed-term contracts or pass a credit check, our service is available to a broader customer base than that served by many other wireless providers. As a result, during economic downturns or during periods of high gasoline prices, we may have greater difficulty in gaining new customers within this base for our services and some of our existing customers may be more likely to terminate service due to an inability to pay than the average industry customer. Recent disruptions in the sub-prime mortgage market may also affect our ability to gain new customers or the ability of our existing customers to pay for their service. In addition, our rate of customer acquisition and turnover may be affected by other factors, including the size of our calling areas, network performance and reliability issues, our handset or service offerings (including the ability of customers to cost-effectively roam onto other wireless networks), customer care concerns, phone number portability, higher deactivation rates among less-tenured customers we gained as a result of our new market launches, and other competitive factors. We have also experienced an increasing trend of current customers upgrading their handset by buying a new phone, activating a new line of service, and letting their existing service lapse, which trend has resulted in a higher churn rate as these customers are counted as having disconnected service but have actually been retained. Our strategies to acquire new customers and address customer turnover may not be successful. A high rate of customer turnover or low rate of new customer acquisition would reduce revenues and increase the total marketing expenditures required to attract the minimum number of customers required to sustain our business plan which, in turn, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

 

We Have Made Significant Investment, and Will Continue to Invest, in Joint Ventures That We Do Not Control.

 

In July 2006, we acquired a 72% non-controlling interest in LCW Wireless, which was awarded a wireless license for the Portland, Oregon market in Auction #58 and to which we contributed, among other things, two wireless licenses in Eugene and Salem, Oregon and related operating assets. In December 2006, we completed the

replacement of certain network equipment of a subsidiary of LCW Wireless and, as a result, we now own a 73.3% non-controlling membership interest in LCW Wireless. In July 2006, we acquired an 82.5% non-controlling interest in Denali, an entity which participated in Auction #66. LCW Wireless and Denali acquired their wireless licenses as “very small business” designated entities under FCC regulations. Our participation in these joint ventures is structured as a non-controlling interest in order to comply with FCC rules and regulations. We have agreements with our joint venture partners in LCW Wireless and Denali, and we plan to have similar agreements in connection with any future designated entity joint venture arrangements we may enter into, which are intended to allow us to actively participate to a limited extent in the development of the business through the joint venture. However, these agreements do not provide us with control over the business strategy, financial goals, build-out plans or other operational aspects of any such joint venture. The FCC’s rules restrict our ability to acquire controlling interests in such entities during the period that such entities must maintain their eligibility as a designated entity, as defined by the FCC. The entities or persons that control the joint ventures may have interests and goals that are inconsistent or different from ours which could result in the joint venture taking actions that negatively impact our business or financial condition. In addition, if any of the other members of a joint venture files for bankruptcy or otherwise fails to perform its obligations or does not manage the joint venture effectively, we may lose our equity investment in, and any present or future opportunity to acquire the assets (including wireless licenses) of, such entity.

 

The FCC recently implemented rule changes aimed at addressing alleged abuses of its designated entity program, affirmed these changes on reconsideration and sought comment on further rule changes. In that proceeding, the FCC re-affirmed its goals of ensuring that only legitimate small businesses reap the benefits of the program, and that such small businesses are not controlled or manipulated by larger wireless carriers or other investors that do not meet the small business qualification tests. While we do not believe that the FCC’s recent rule changes materially affect our current joint ventures with LCW Wireless and Denali, the scope and applicability of these rule changes to such current designated entity structures remain in flux, and parties have already sought further reconsideration or judicial review of these rule changes. In addition, we cannot predict how further rule changes or increased regulatory scrutiny by the FCC flowing from this proceeding will affect our current or future business ventures with designated entities or our participation with such entities in future FCC spectrum auctions.

 

We Face Increasing Competition Which Could Have a Material Adverse Effect on Demand for the Cricket Service.

 

The telecommunications industry is very competitive. In general, we compete with national facilities-based wireless providers and their prepaid affiliates or brands, local and regional carriers, non-facilities-based MVNOs, VoIP service providers and traditional landline service providers.

 

Many of these competitors often have greater name and brand recognition, access to greater amounts of capital and established relationships with a larger base of current and potential customers. Because of their size and bargaining power, our larger competitors may be able to purchase equipment, supplies and services at lower prices than we can. Prior to the launch of a large market in 2006, disruptions by a competitor interfered with our indirect dealer relationships, reducing the number of dealers offering Cricket service during the initial weeks of launch. In addition, some of our competitors are able to offer their customers roaming services at lower rates. As consolidation in the industry creates even larger competitors, any purchasing advantages our competitors have, as well as their bargaining power as wholesale providers of roaming services, may increase. For example, in connection with the offering of our nationwide roaming service, we have encountered problems with certain large wireless carriers in negotiating terms for roaming arrangements that we believe are reasonable, and we believe that consolidation has contributed significantly to such carriers’ control over the terms and conditions of wholesale roaming services.

 

These competitors may also offer potential customers more features and options in their service plans than those currently provided by Cricket, as well as new technologies and/or alternative delivery plans.

 

Some of our competitors offer rate plans substantially similar to Cricket’s service plans or products that customers may perceive to be similar to Cricket’s service plans in markets in which we offer wireless service. For example, AT&T, Sprint Nextel, T-Mobile and Verizon Wireless have each recently announced flat-rate unlimited service offerings. In addition, Sprint Nextel offers a flat-rate unlimited service offering under its Boost Unlimited brand, which is very similar to the Cricket service. Sprint Nextel has expanded and may further expand its Boost

Unlimited service offering into certain markets in which we provide service and could further expand service into other markets in which we provide service or in which we plan to expand, and this service offering may present additional strong competition in markets in which our offerings overlap. The competitive pressures of the wireless telecommunications market have also caused other carriers to offer service plans with large bundles of minutes of use at low prices, which are competing with the predictable and unlimited Cricket calling plans. Some competitors also offer prepaid wireless plans that are being advertised heavily to demographic segments in our current markets and in markets in which we may expand that are strongly represented in Cricket’s customer base. For example, T-Mobile has introduced a FlexPay plan which permits customers to pay in advance for its post-pay plans and avoid overage charges, and an internet-based service upgrade which permits wireless customers to make unlimited local and long-distance calls from their home phone in place of a traditional landline phone service. These competitive offerings could adversely affect our ability to maintain our pricing and increase or maintain our market penetration and may have a material adverse effect on our financial results.

 

We may also face additional competition from new entrants in the wireless marketplace, many of whom may have significantly more resources than we do. The FCC is pursuing policies designed to increase the number of wireless licenses and spectrum available for the provision of wireless voice and data services in each of our markets. For example, the FCC has adopted rules that allow the partitioning, disaggregation or leasing of PCS and other wireless licenses, and continues to allocate and auction additional spectrum that can be used for wireless services, which may increase the number of our competitors. The FCC has also in recent years allowed satellite operators to free up portions of their spectrum for ancillary terrestrial use, and recently permitted the offering of broadband services over power lines. In addition, the auction and licensing of new spectrum, including the 700 MHz band licenses currently being auctioned by the FCC, may result in new competitors and/or allow existing competitors to acquire additional spectrum, which could allow them to offer services that we may not technologically or cost effectively be able to offer with the licenses we hold or to which we have access.

 

Our ability to remain competitive will depend, in part, on our ability to anticipate and respond to various competitive factors and to keep our costs low.

 

Recent Disruptions in the Financial Markets Could Affect Our Ability to Obtain Debt or Equity Financing On Reasonable Terms (or At All), and Have Other Adverse Effects On Us.

 

We may wish to raise significant capital to finance business expansion activities and our ability to raise debt or equity capital in the public or private markets could be impaired by various factors. For example, U.S. credit markets have recently experienced significant dislocations and liquidity disruptions which have caused the spreads on prospective debt financings to widen considerably. These circumstances have materially impacted liquidity in the debt markets, making financing terms for borrowers less attractive, and in certain cases have resulted in the unavailability of certain types of debt financing. Continued uncertainty in the credit markets may negatively impact our ability to access additional debt financing or to refinance existing indebtedness on favorable terms (or at all). These events in the credit markets have also had an adverse effect on other financial markets in the U.S., which may make it more difficult or costly for us to raise capital through the issuance of common stock, preferred stock or other equity securities. If we require additional capital to fund or accelerate the pace of any of our business expansion efforts or other strategic activities and were unable to obtain such capital on terms that we found acceptable or at all, we would likely reduce our investments in expansion activities or slow the pace of expansion activities as necessary to match our capital requirements to our available liquidity. Any of these risks could impair our ability to fund our operations or limit our ability to expand our business, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial results. In addition, we maintain investments in commercial paper and other short-term investments, and any volatility or uncertainty in the financial markets could result in losses from a decline in the value of those investments.

 

We May Be Unable to Obtain the Roaming Services We Need From Other Carriers to Remain Competitive.

 

We believe that our customers prefer that we offer roaming services that allow them to make calls automatically when they are outside of their Cricket service area. Many of our competitors have regional or national networks which enable them to offer automatic roaming services to their subscribers at a lower cost than we can

offer. We do not have a national network, and we must pay fees to other carriers who provide roaming services to us. We currently have roaming agreements with several other carriers which allow our customers to roam on those carriers’ networks. However, these roaming agreements generally cover voice but not data services and some of these agreements may be terminated on relatively short notice. In addition, we believe that the rates charged to us by some of these carriers are higher than the rates they charge to certain other roaming partners.

 

The FCC recently adopted a report and order clarifying that commercial mobile radio service providers are required to provide automatic roaming for voice services on just, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms. The FCC order, however, does not address roaming for data services nor does it provide or mandate any specific mechanism for determining the reasonableness of roaming rates for voice services, and so our ability to obtain roaming services from other carriers at attractive rates remains uncertain. In addition, the FCC order indicates that a host carrier is not required to provide roaming services to another carrier in areas in which that other carrier holds wireless licenses or usage rights that could be used to provide wireless services. Because we and Denali License hold a significant number of spectrum licenses for markets in which service has not yet been launched, we believe that this “in-market” roaming restriction could significantly and adversely affect our ability to receive roaming services in areas where we hold licenses. We and other wireless carriers have filed a petition with the FCC, asking that it reconsider this in-market exception to its roaming order. However, we can provide no assurances as to whether the FCC will reconsider this exception or the timeframe in which it might do so.

 

In light of the current FCC order, we cannot provide assurances that we will be able to continue to provide roaming services for our customers across the nation or that we will be able to provide such services on a cost-effective basis. We may be unable to enter into or maintain roaming arrangements for voice services at reasonable rates, including in areas in which we hold wireless licenses or have usage rights but have not yet constructed wireless facilities, and we may be unable to secure roaming arrangements for our data services. Our inability to obtain these roaming services on a cost-effective basis may limit our ability to compete effectively for wireless customers, which may increase our churn and decrease our revenues, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

 

We Are a Participant in Auctions #73 and #76, Which May Restrict Certain Business and Commercial Arrangements That We May Enter Into.

 

We are a participant in Auctions #73 and #76, which commenced on January 24, 2008. Our participation in these auctions may require that we raise additional capital through a combination of additional debt and/or equity financing. We cannot assure you that we will be able to obtain any such additional financing on commercially reasonable terms or at all. We intend to focus in the auctions on those areas that we believe present attractive growth prospects for our service offering based on an analysis of demographic, economic and other factors and intend to be financially disciplined with respect to prices we are willing to pay for any such licenses. We cannot, however, assure you that our bidding strategy will be successful in the auctions or that spectrum in the auctions that meets our internally developed criteria will be available to us at acceptable prices.

 

In addition, because we are a participant in these auctions, applicable FCC rules restrict us from engaging in certain business communications that we may desire to enter into with other auction applicants or their affiliates. For example, the FCC has indicated that discussions with other carriers regarding roaming agreements, the partitioning of markets or the disaggregation of spectrum, or the acquisition of licenses or licensees, may implicate the anti-collusion rules if both parties to the discussions are competing applicants in the auctions and, in the course of the discussions, the parties exchange information pertaining to or affecting their bids, bidding strategy or the post-auction market structure. These anti-collusion restrictions may affect the normal conduct of our business by inhibiting discussions and the conclusion of beneficial transactions with other carriers during the auction process, which could last three to six months, or more.

 

We Have Restated Our Prior Consolidated Financial Statements, Which Has Led to Additional Risks and Uncertainties, Including Shareholder Litigation.

 

As discussed in Note 2 to our consolidated financial statements included in “Part II — Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data” of our Annual Report on Form 10-K, as amended, for the year ended

December 31, 2006 filed with the SEC on December 26, 2007, we have restated our consolidated financial statements as of and for the years ended December 31, 2006 and 2005 (including interim periods therein), for the period from August 1, 2004 to December 31, 2004, and for the period from January 1, 2004 to July 31, 2004. In addition, we have restated our condensed consolidated financial statements as of and for the quarterly periods ended June 30, 2007 and March 31, 2007. The determination to restate these consolidated financial statements and quarterly condensed consolidated financial statements was made by Leap’s Audit Committee upon management’s recommendation following the identification of errors related to (i) the timing of recognition of certain service revenues prior to or subsequent to the period in which they were earned, (ii) the recognition of service revenues for certain customers that voluntarily disconnected service, (iii) the classification of certain components of service revenues, equipment revenues and operating expenses and (iv) the determination of a tax valuation allowance during the second quarter of 2007.

 

As a result of these events, we have become subject to a number of additional risks and uncertainties, including substantial unanticipated costs for accounting and legal fees in connection with or related to the restatement. In particular, three shareholder derivative actions have been filed, and we have also recently been named in a number of alleged securities class action lawsuits. The plaintiffs in these lawsuits may make additional claims, expand existing claims and/or expand the time periods covered by the complaints. Other plaintiffs may bring additional actions with other claims based on the restatement. We may incur substantial defense costs with respect to these claims, regardless of their outcome. Likewise, these claims might cause a diversion of our management’s time and attention. If we do not prevail in any such actions, we could be required to pay substantial damages or settlement costs.

 

Our Business and Stock Price May Be Adversely Affected If Our Internal Controls Are Not Effective.

 

Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 requires companies to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of their internal control over financial reporting. To comply with this statute, we are required to document and test our internal control over financial reporting; our management is required to assess and issue a report concerning our internal control over financial reporting; and our independent registered public accounting firm is required to report on the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting.

 

As described in “Part II — Item 9A. Controls and Procedures” of this report, our CEO and CFO concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were not effective at the reasonable assurance level as of December 31, 2007. Currently, our CEO, S. Douglas Hutcheson, is also serving as acting CFO. The material weakness we have identified in our internal control over financial reporting related to the design of controls over the preparation and review of the account reconciliations and analysis of revenues, cost of revenue and deferred revenues, and ineffective testing of changes made to our revenue and billing systems in connection with the introduction or modification of service offerings.

 

We have taken and are taking actions to remediate this material weakness. In addition, management has developed and presented to the Audit Committee a plan and timetable for the implementation of remediation measures (to the extent not already implemented), and the committee intends to monitor such implementation. We believe that these actions will remediate the control deficiencies we have identified and strengthen our internal control over financial reporting.

 

We previously reported that certain material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting existed at various times during the period from September 30, 2004 through September 30, 2007. These material weaknesses included excessive turnover and inadequate staffing levels in our accounting, financial reporting and tax departments, weaknesses in the preparation of our income tax provision, and weaknesses in our application of lease-related accounting principles, fresh-start reporting oversight, and account reconciliation procedures.

 

Although we believe we are taking appropriate actions to remediate the control deficiencies we have identified and to strengthen our internal control over financial reporting, we cannot assure you that we will not discover other material weaknesses in the future. The existence of one or more material weaknesses could result in errors in our financial statements, and substantial costs and resources may be required to rectify these or other internal control deficiencies. If we cannot produce reliable financial reports, investors could lose confidence in our reported financial information, the market price of Leap’s common stock could decline significantly, we may be unable to

obtain additional financing to operate and expand our business, and our business and financial condition could be harmed.

 

Our Primary Business Strategy May Not Succeed in the Long Term.

 

A major element of our business strategy is to offer consumers service plans that allow unlimited calls from within a Cricket calling area for a flat monthly rate without entering into a fixed-term contract or passing a credit check. However, unlike national wireless carriers, we do not currently provide ubiquitous coverage across the U.S. or all major metropolitan centers, and instead have a smaller network footprint covering only the principal population centers of our various markets. This strategy may not prove to be successful in the long term. Some companies that have offered this type of service in the past have been unsuccessful. From time to time, we also evaluate our service offerings and the demands of our target customers and may modify, change, adjust or discontinue our service offerings or offer new services. We cannot assure you that these service offerings will be successful or prove to be profitable.

 

We Expect to Incur Substantial Costs in Connection With the Build-Out of Our New Markets, and Any Delays or Cost Increases in the Build-Out of Our New Markets Could Adversely Affect Our Business.

 

Our ability to achieve our strategic objectives will depend in part on the successful, timely and cost-effective build-out of the networks associated with newly acquired FCC licenses, including the licenses that we and Denali License acquired in Auction #66 and any licenses that we may acquire in Auctions #73 or #76 or from third parties. Large-scale construction projects for the build-out of our new markets will require significant capital expenditures and may suffer cost overruns. In addition, we expect to incur higher operating expenses as our existing business grows and as we build out and after we launch service in new markets. Any such significant capital expenditures or increased operating expenses, including in connection with the build-out and launch of markets for the licenses that we and Denali License acquired in Auction #66, would decrease earnings, OIBDA and free cash flow for the periods in which we incur such costs. If we are unable to fund the build-out of these new markets with our existing cash and our cash generated from operations, we may be required to raise additional equity capital or incur further indebtedness, which we cannot guarantee would be available to us on acceptable terms, or at all. In addition, the build-out of the networks may be delayed or adversely affected by a variety of factors, uncertainties and contingencies, such as natural disasters, difficulties in obtaining zoning permits or other regulatory approvals, our relationships with our joint venture partners, and the timely performance by third parties of their contractual obligations to construct portions of the networks.

 

The AWS spectrum that was auctioned in Auction #66 currently is used 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. We and Denali License considered the estimated cost and time frame required to clear the spectrum which we and Denali License purchased in Auction #66 while placing bids in the auction. However, the actual cost of clearing the spectrum may exceed our estimated costs. Furthermore, delays in the provision of federal funds to relocate government users, or difficulties in negotiating with incumbent commercial licensees, may extend the date by which the auctioned spectrum can be cleared of existing operations, and thus may also delay the date on which we can launch commercial services using such licensed spectrum. In addition, certain existing government operations are using the spectrum for classified purposes. Although the government has agreed to clear that spectrum to allow the holders to utilize their AWS licenses in the affected areas, the government is only providing limited information to spectrum holders about these classified uses which creates additional uncertainty about the time at which such spectrum will be available for commercial use. Several federal government agencies have cleared or announced plans to promptly clear spectrum covered by licenses we and Denali License purchased in Auction #66. Other agencies, however, have not yet finalized plans to relocate their use to alternative spectrum. If these agencies do not relocate to alternative spectrum within the next several months, their continued use of the spectrum covered by licenses we and Denali License purchased in Auction #66 could delay the launch of certain markets, and as a result, could adversely affect our competitive position and results of operations.

 

Although our vendors have announced their intention to manufacture and supply handsets that operate in the AWS spectrum bands, these handsets are not yet commercially available. If handsets for the AWS spectrum do not

become commercially available on a timely basis in the future by our suppliers, our proposed launches of new Auction #66 markets could be delayed, which would negatively impact our earnings and cash flows. Any significant increase in our expected capital expenditures in connection with the build-out and launch of Auction #66 licenses could negatively impact our earnings and free cash flow for those periods in which we incur such capital expenditures.

 

Any failure to complete the build-out of our new markets on budget or on time could delay the implementation of our clustering and strategic expansion strategies, and could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition.

 

If We Are Unable to Manage Our Planned Growth, Our Operations Could Be Adversely Impacted.

 

We have experienced substantial growth in a relatively short period of time, and we expect to continue to experience growth in the future in our existing and new markets. The management of such growth will require, among other things, continued development of our financial and management controls and management information systems, stringent control of costs and handset inventories, diligent management of our network infrastructure and its growth, increased spending associated with marketing activities and acquisition of new customers, the ability to attract and retain qualified management personnel and the training of new personnel. In addition, continued growth will eventually require the expansion of our billing, customer care and sales systems and platforms, which will require additional capital expenditures and may divert the time and attention of management personnel who oversee any such expansion. Furthermore, the implementation of any such systems or platforms, including the transition to such systems or platforms from our existing infrastructure, could result in unpredictable technological or other difficulties. Failure to successfully manage our expected growth and development, to enhance our processes and management systems or to timely and adequately resolve any such difficulties could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

 

Our Significant Indebtedness Could Adversely Affect Our Financial Health and Prevent Us From Fulfilling Our Obligations.

 

We have now and will continue to have a significant amount of indebtedness. As of December 31, 2007, our total outstanding indebtedness under our Credit Agreement was $886.5 million, and we also had a $200 million undrawn revolving credit facility (which forms part of our senior secured credit facility). Indebtedness under our senior secured credit facility bears interest at a variable rate, but we have entered into interest rate swap agreements with respect to $355 million of our indebtedness. We have also issued $1,100 million in unsecured senior notes due 2014. In addition, looking forward we may raise significant capital to finance business expansion activities, which could consist of debt financing from the public and/or private capital markets.

 

Our significant indebtedness could have material consequences. For example, it could:

 

 

Any of these risks could impair our ability to fund our operations or limit our ability to expand our business, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial results.

 

Despite Current Indebtedness Levels, We May Incur Substantially More Indebtedness. This Could Further Increase The Risks Associated With Our Leverage.

 

We may incur significant additional indebtedness in the future over time, as market conditions permit, to enable us to take advantage of business expansion activities. The terms of our senior unsecured indenture permit us, subject to specified limitations, to incur additional indebtedness, including secured indebtedness. In addition, our Credit Agreement permits us to incur additional indebtedness under various financial ratio tests.

 

If new indebtedness is added to our current levels of indebtedness, the related risks that we now face could intensify. Furthermore, the subsequent build-out of the networks covered by the licenses we acquired in Auction #66 may significantly reduce our free cash flow, increasing the risk that we may not be able to service our indebtedness.

 

To Service Our Indebtedness and Fund Our Working Capital and Capital Expenditures, We Will Require a Significant Amount of Cash. Our Ability to Generate Cash Depends on Many Factors Beyond Our Control.

 

Our ability to make payments on our indebtedness will depend upon our future operating performance and on our ability to generate cash flow in the future, which are subject to general economic, financial, competitive, legislative, regulatory and other factors that are beyond our control. We cannot assure you that our business will generate sufficient cash flow from operations, or that future borrowings, including borrowings under our revolving credit facility, will be available to us in an amount sufficient to enable us to pay our indebtedness or to fund our other liquidity needs, or at all. If the cash flow from our operating activities is insufficient, we may take actions, such as delaying or reducing capital expenditures (including expenditures to build out our newly acquired wireless licenses), attempting to restructure or refinance our indebtedness prior to maturity, selling assets or operations or seeking additional equity capital. Any or all of these actions may be insufficient to allow us to service our debt obligations. Further, we may be unable to take any of these actions on commercially reasonable terms, or at all.

 

We May Be Unable to Refinance Our Indebtedness.

 

We may need to refinance all or a portion of our indebtedness before maturity. We cannot assure you that we will be able to refinance any of our indebtedness, including under our senior unsecured indenture or our Credit Agreement, on commercially reasonable terms, or at all. There can be no assurance that we will be able to obtain sufficient funds to enable us to repay or refinance our debt obligations on commercially reasonable terms, or at all.

 

Covenants in Our Indenture and Credit Agreement and Other Credit Agreements or Indentures That We May Enter Into in the Future May Limit Our Ability to Operate Our Business.

 

Our senior unsecured indenture and Credit Agreement contain covenants that restrict the ability of Leap, Cricket and the subsidiary guarantors to make distributions or other payments to our investors or creditors until we satisfy certain financial tests or other criteria. In addition, the indenture and our Credit Agreement include covenants restricting, among other things, the ability of Leap, Cricket and their restricted subsidiaries to:

 

 

 

Under our Credit Agreement, we must also comply with, among other things, financial covenants with respect to a maximum consolidated senior secured leverage ratio and, if a revolving credit loan or uncollateralized letter of credit is outstanding or requested, with respect to a minimum consolidated interest coverage ratio, a maximum consolidated leverage ratio and a minimum consolidated fixed charge coverage ratio. The restrictions in our Credit Agreement could limit our ability to make borrowings, obtain debt financing, repurchase stock, refinance or pay principal or interest on our outstanding indebtedness, complete acquisitions for cash or debt or react to changes in our operating environment. Any credit agreement or indenture that we may enter into in the future may have similar restrictions.

 

Our Credit Agreement also prohibits the occurrence of a change of control, which includes the acquisition of beneficial ownership of 35% or more of Leap’s equity securities, a change in a majority of the members of Leap’s board of directors that is not approved by the board and the occurrence of a “change of control” under any of our other credit instruments. Under our indenture, 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 we default under our indenture or our Credit Agreement because of a covenant breach or otherwise, all outstanding amounts thereunder could become immediately due and payable. Our failure to timely file our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2007 constituted a default under our Credit Agreement, and the restatement of certain of our historical consolidated financial information (as described in Note 2 to our consolidated financial statements included in “Part II — Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data” of our Annual Report on Form 10-K, as amended, for the year ended December 31, 2006 filed with the SEC on December 26, 2007) may have constituted a default under our Credit Agreement. Although we were able to obtain limited waivers under our Credit Agreement with respect to these events, we cannot assure you that we will be able to obtain a waiver in the future should a default occur. We cannot assure you that we would have sufficient funds to repay all of the outstanding amounts under our indenture or our Credit Agreement, and any acceleration of amounts due would have a material adverse effect on our liquidity and financial condition.

 

Rises in Interest Rates Could Adversely Affect Our Financial Condition.

 

An increase in prevailing interest rates would have an immediate effect on the interest rates charged on our variable rate debt, which rise and fall upon changes in interest rates. As of December 31, 2007, approximately 28% of our debt was variable rate debt, after considering the effect of our interest rate swap agreements. If prevailing interest rates or other factors result in higher interest rates on our variable rate debt, the increased interest expense would adversely affect our cash flow and our ability to service our debt.

 

A Majority of Our Assets Consists of Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets.

 

As of December 31, 2007, 52.7% of our assets consisted of goodwill and other intangibles, including wireless licenses. The value of our assets, and in particular, our intangible assets, will depend on market conditions, the availability of buyers and similar factors. By their nature, our intangible assets may not have a readily ascertainable market value or may not be saleable or, if saleable, there may be substantial delays in their liquidation. For example, prior FCC approval is required in order for us to sell, or for any remedies to be exercised by our lenders with respect to, our wireless licenses, and obtaining such approval could result in significant delays and reduce the proceeds obtained from the sale or other disposition of our wireless licenses.

The Wireless Industry is Experiencing Rapid Technological Change, and We May Lose Customers If We Fail to Keep Up With These Changes.

 

The wireless communications industry is experiencing significant technological change, as evidenced by the ongoing improvements in the capacity and quality of digital technology, the development and commercial acceptance of wireless data services, shorter development cycles for new products and enhancements and changes in end-user requirements and preferences. In the future, competitors may seek to provide competing wireless telecommunications service through the use of developing technologies such as Wi-Fi, WiMax, and VoIP. The cost of implementing or competing against future technological innovations may be prohibitive to us, and we may lose customers if we fail to keep up with these changes.

 

For example, we have expended a substantial amount of capital to upgrade our network with EvDO technology to offer advanced data services. However, if such upgrades, technologies or services do not become commercially acceptable, our revenues and competitive position could be materially and adversely affected. We cannot assure you that there will be widespread demand for advanced data services or that this demand will develop at a level that will allow us to earn a reasonable return on our investment.

 

In addition, CDMA2000 infrastructure networks could become less popular in the future, which could raise the cost to us of equipment and handsets that use that technology relative to the cost of handsets and equipment that utilize other technologies.

 

The Loss of Key Personnel and Difficulty Attracting and Retaining Qualified Personnel Could Harm Our Business.

 

We believe our success depends heavily on the contributions of our employees and on attracting, motivating and retaining our officers and other management and technical personnel. We do not, however, generally provide employment contracts to our employees. If we are unable to attract and retain the qualified employees that we need, our business may be harmed.

 

We have experienced higher than normal employee turnover in the past, in part because of our bankruptcy, including turnover of individuals at the most senior management levels. In addition, our business is managed by a small number of key executive officers, including our CEO, S. Douglas Hutcheson. During September 2007, Amin Khalifa resigned as our executive vice president and CFO and the board of directors appointed Mr. Hutcheson to serve as acting CFO until we find a successor to Mr. Khalifa. We may have difficulty attracting and retaining key personnel in future periods, particularly if we were to experience poor operating or financial performance. The loss of key individuals in the future may have a material adverse impact on our ability to effectively manage and operate our business.

 

Risks Associated With Wireless Handsets Could Pose Product Liability, Health and Safety Risks That Could Adversely Affect Our Business.

 

We do not manufacture handsets or other equipment sold by us and generally rely on our suppliers to provide us with safe equipment. Our suppliers are required by applicable law to manufacture their handsets to meet certain governmentally imposed safety criteria. However, even if the handsets we sell meet the regulatory safety criteria, we could be held liable with the equipment manufacturers and suppliers for any harm caused by products we sell if such products are later found to have design or manufacturing defects. We generally have indemnification agreements with the manufacturers who supply us with handsets to protect us from direct losses associated with product liability, but we cannot guarantee that we will be fully protected against all losses associated with a product that is found to be defective.

 

Media reports have suggested that the use of wireless handsets may be linked to various health concerns, including cancer, and may interfere with various electronic medical devices, including hearing aids and pacemakers. Certain class action lawsuits have been filed in the industry claiming damages for alleged health problems arising from the use of wireless handsets. In addition, interest groups have requested that the FCC investigate claims that wireless technologies pose health concerns and cause interference with airbags, hearing aids and other medical devices. The media has also reported incidents of handset battery malfunction, including reports of batteries that

have overheated. Malfunctions have caused at least one major handset manufacturer to recall certain batteries used in its handsets, including batteries in a handset sold by Cricket and other wireless providers.

 

Concerns over radio frequency emissions and defective products may discourage the use of wireless handsets, which could decrease demand for our services. In addition, if one or more Cricket customers were harmed by a defective product provided to us by the manufacturer and subsequently sold in connection with our services, our ability to add and maintain customers for Cricket service could be materially adversely affected by negative public reactions.

 

There also are some safety risks associated with the use of wireless handsets while driving. Concerns over these safety risks and the effect of any legislation that has been and may be adopted in response to these risks could limit our ability to sell our wireless service.

 

We Rely Heavily on Third Parties to Provide Specialized Services; a Failure by Such Parties to Provide the Agreed Upon Services Could Materially Adversely Affect Our Business, Results of Operations and Financial Condition.

 

We depend heavily on suppliers and contractors with specialized expertise in order for us to efficiently operate our business. In the past, our suppliers, contractors and third-party retailers have not always performed at the levels we expect or at the levels required by their contracts. If key suppliers, contractors or third-party retailers fail to comply with their contracts, fail to meet our performance expectations or refuse or are unable to supply us in the future, our business could be severely disrupted. Generally, there are multiple sources for the types of products we purchase. However, some suppliers, including software suppliers, are the exclusive sources of their specific products. Because of the costs and time lags that can be associated with transitioning from one supplier to another, our business could be substantially disrupted if we were required to replace the products or services of one or more major suppliers with products or services from another source, especially if the replacement became necessary on short notice. Any such disruption could have a material adverse affect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

 

System Failures Could Result in Higher Churn, Reduced Revenue and Increased Costs, and Could Harm Our Reputation.

 

Our technical infrastructure (including our network infrastructure and ancillary functions supporting our network such as service activation, billing and customer care) is vulnerable to damage or interruption from technology failures, power loss, floods, windstorms, fires, human error, terrorism, intentional wrongdoing, or similar events. Unanticipated problems at our facilities, system failures, hardware or software failures, computer viruses or hacker attacks could affect the quality of our services and cause network service interruptions. In addition, we are in the process of upgrading some of our internal network systems, and we cannot assure you that we will not experience delays or interruptions while we transition our data and existing systems onto our new systems. Any failure in or interruption of systems that we or third parties maintain to support ancillary functions, such as billing, customer care and financial reporting, could materially impact our ability to timely and accurately record, process and report information important to our business. If any of the above events were to occur, we could experience higher churn, reduced revenues and increased costs, any of which could harm our reputation and have a material adverse effect on our business.

 

To accommodate expected growth in our business, management has been considering replacing our customer billing and activation system, which we license from a third party. The vendor who licenses the software to us and provides certain billing services to us has a contract with us through 2010. The vendor has developed a new billing product and has introduced that product in a limited number of markets operated by another wireless carrier. The vendor was working to adapt the new billing product for our use, but we are now unlikely to use this product because the vendor has announced that it intends to exit the billing business. The vendor is currently exploring alternative exit strategies, including selling its business to a third party. If the vendor or its successor does not provide us with an improved billing system in the future, we might choose to terminate our contract for convenience and purchase a billing system from a different vendor if we believed it was necessary to do so to meet the requirements of our business. In such an event, we may owe substantial termination fees.

We May Not Be Successful in Protecting and Enforcing Our Intellectual Property Rights.

 

We rely on a combination of patent, service mark, trademark, and trade secret laws and contractual restrictions to establish and protect our proprietary rights, all of which only offer limited protection. We endeavor to enter into agreements with our employees and contractors and agreements with parties with whom we do business in order to limit access to and disclosure of our proprietary information. Despite our efforts, the steps we have taken to protect our intellectual property may not prevent the misappropriation of our proprietary rights. Moreover, others may independently develop processes and technologies that are competitive to ours. The enforcement of our intellectual property rights may depend on any legal actions that we undertake against such infringers being successful, but we cannot be sure that any such actions will be successful, even when our rights have been infringed.

 

We cannot assure you that our pending, or any future, patent applications will be granted, that any existing or future patents will not be challenged, invalidated or circumvented, that any existing or future patents will be enforceable, or that the rights granted under any patent that may issue will provide competitive advantages to us. For example, see “Item 3. Legal Proceedings — Patent Litigation” for a description of our patent litigation with MetroPCS Communications, Inc., or MetroPCS, and other affiliated entities. We intend to vigorously defend against the matters brought by the MetroPCS entities. Due to the complex nature of the legal and factual issues involved, however, the outcome of these matters is not presently determinable. If the MetroPCS entities were to prevail in any of these matters, it could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

 

In addition to these outstanding matters, we cannot assure you that any trademark or service mark registrations will be issued with respect to pending or future applications or that any registered trademarks or service marks will be enforceable or provide adequate protection of our brands. Our inability to secure trademark or service mark protection with respect to our brands could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

 

We and Our Suppliers May Be Subject to Claims of Infringement Regarding Telecommunications Technologies That Are Protected By Patents and Other Intellectual Property Rights.

 

Telecommunications technologies are protected by a wide array of patents and other intellectual property rights. As a result, third parties may assert infringement claims against us or our suppliers from time to time based on our or their general business operations, the equipment, software or services that we or they use or provide, or the specific operation of our wireless networks. For example, see “Item 3. Legal Proceedings — Patent Litigation” for a description of certain patent infringement lawsuits that have been brought against us.

 

We generally have indemnification agreements with the manufacturers, licensors and suppliers who provide us with the equipment, software and technology that we use in our business to protect us against possible infringement claims, but we cannot guarantee that we will be fully protected against all losses associated with infringement claims. Our suppliers may be subject to infringement claims that could prevent or make it more expensive for them to supply us with the products and services we require to run our business. For example, we purchase certain CDMA handsets that incorporate EvDO chipsets manufactured by Qualcomm Incorporated, or Qualcomm, which are the subject of patent infringement actions brought by Broadcom Corporation in separate proceedings before the United States International Trade Commission, or ITC, and the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Both the ITC and District Court have issued orders in their proceedings that prevent or limit Qualcomm’s ability, subject to various conditions and timelines, to sell, import or support the infringing chips, and restrict third parties from importing the handsets that incorporate the chips. Although these orders are currently on appeal and the ITC order is stayed as to certain third parties (including most of our handset suppliers), these patent infringement actions could have the effect of slowing or limiting our ability to introduce and offer EvDO handsets and devices to our customers. Moreover, we may be subject to claims that products, software and services provided by different vendors which we combine to offer our services may infringe the rights of third parties, and we may not have any indemnification from our vendors for these claims. Whether or not an infringement claim against us or a supplier was valid or successful, it could adversely affect our business by diverting management attention, involving us in costly and time-consuming litigation, requiring us to enter into royalty or licensing agreements (which may not be available on acceptable terms, or at all) or requiring us to redesign our business

operations or systems to avoid claims of infringement. In addition, infringement claims against our suppliers could also require us to purchase products and services at higher prices or from different suppliers and could adversely affect our business by delaying our ability to offer certain products and services to our customers.

 

Regulation by Government Agencies May Increase Our Costs of Providing Service or Require Us to Change Our Services.

 

The FCC regulates the licensing, construction, modification, operation, ownership, sale and interconnection of wireless communications systems, as do some state and local regulatory agencies. We cannot assure you that the FCC or any state or local agencies having jurisdiction over our business will not adopt regulations or take other enforcement or other actions that would adversely affect our business, impose new costs or require changes in current or planned operations. For example, the FCC recently released an order implementing certain recommendations of an independent panel reviewing the impact of Hurricane Katrina on communications networks, which requires that wireless carriers provide emergency back-up power sources for their equipment and facilities, including up to 24 hours of emergency power for mobile switch offices and up to eight hours for cell site locations. As a result, in order for us to comply with the new requirements should they become effective, we may need to purchase additional equipment, obtain additional state and local permits, authorizations and approvals or incur additional operating expenses, and such costs could be material. In addition, state regulatory agencies are increasingly focused on the quality of service and support that wireless carriers provide to their customers and several agencies have proposed or enacted new and potentially burdensome regulations in this area.

 

In addition, we cannot assure you that the Communications Act from which the FCC obtains its authority, will not be further amended in a manner that could be adverse to us. The FCC recently implemented rule changes and sought comment on further rule changes focused on addressing alleged abuses of its designated entity program, which gives certain categories of small businesses preferential treatment in FCC spectrum auctions based on size. In that proceeding, the FCC has re-affirmed its goals of ensuring that only legitimate small businesses benefit from the program, and that such small businesses are not controlled or manipulated by larger wireless carriers or other investors that do not meet the small business qualification tests. We cannot predict the degree to which rule changes or increased regulatory scrutiny that may follow from this proceeding will affect our current or future business ventures or our participation in future FCC spectrum auctions.

 

Our operations are subject to various other regulations, including those regulations promulgated by the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Aviation Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and state and local regulatory agencies and legislative bodies. Adverse decisions or regulations of these regulatory bodies could negatively impact our operations and costs of doing business. Because of our smaller size, governmental regulations and orders can significantly increase our costs and affect our competitive position compared to other larger telecommunications providers. We are unable to predict the scope, pace or financial impact of regulations and other policy changes that could be adopted by the various governmental entities that oversee portions of our business.

 

If Call Volume Under Our Cricket Service Exceeds Our Expectations, Our Costs of Providing Service Could Increase, Which Could Have a Material Adverse Effect on Our Competitive Position.

 

Cricket customers generally use their handsets for an average of approximately 1,450 minutes per month, and some markets experience substantially higher call volumes. Our Cricket service plans bundle certain features, long distance and unlimited service in Cricket calling areas for a fixed monthly fee to more effectively compete with other telecommunications providers. If customers exceed expected usage, we could face capacity problems and our costs of providing the services could increase. Although we own less spectrum in many of our markets than our competitors, we seek to design our network to accommodate our expected high call volume, and we consistently assess and try to implement technological improvements to increase the efficiency of our wireless spectrum. However, if future wireless use by Cricket customers exceeds the capacity of our network, service quality may

suffer. We may be forced to raise the price of Cricket service to reduce volume or otherwise limit the number of new customers, or incur substantial capital expenditures to improve network capacity.

 

We May Be Unable to Acquire Additional Spectrum in the Future at a Reasonable Cost or On a Timely Basis.

 

Because we offer unlimited calling services for a fixed fee, our customers’ average minutes of use per month is substantially above the U.S. wireless customer average. We intend to meet this demand by utilizing spectrally efficient technologies. Despite our recent spectrum purchases, there may come a point where we need to acquire additional spectrum in order to maintain an acceptable grade of service or provide new services to meet increasing customer demands. We also intend to acquire additional spectrum in order to enter new strategic markets. However, we cannot assure you that we will be able to acquire additional spectrum at auction or in the after-market at a reasonable cost or that additional spectrum would be made available by the FCC on a timely basis. If such additional spectrum is not available to us when required or at a reasonable cost, our results of operations could be adversely affected.

 

Our Wireless Licenses are Subject to Renewal, and May Be Revoked in the Event that We Violate Applicable Laws.

 

Our existing wireless licenses are subject to renewal upon the expiration of the 10-year or 15-year period for which they are granted, which renewal period commenced for some of our PCS wireless licenses in 2006. The FCC will award a renewal expectancy to a wireless licensee that timely files a renewal application, has provided “substantial service” during its past license term and has substantially complied with applicable FCC rules and policies and the Communications Act. The FCC has routinely renewed wireless licenses in the past. However, the Communications Act provides that licenses may be revoked for cause and license renewal applications denied if the FCC determines that a renewal would not serve the public interest. FCC rules provide that applications competing with a license renewal application may be considered in comparative hearings, and establish the qualifications for competing applications and the standards to be applied in hearings. We cannot assure you that the FCC will renew our wireless licenses upon their expiration.

 

Future Declines in the Fair Value of Our Wireless Licenses Could Result in Future Impairment Charges.

 

As of December 31, 2007, the carrying value of our wireless licenses and those of Denali License and LCW License was approximately $1.9 billion. During the years ended December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005, we recorded impairment charges of $1.0 million, $7.9 million and $12.0 million, respectively.

 

The market values of wireless licenses have varied dramatically over the last several years, and may vary significantly in the future. In particular, valuation swings could occur if:

 

 

In addition, the price of wireless licenses could decline as a result of the FCC’s pursuit of policies designed to increase the number of wireless licenses available in each of our markets. For example, the FCC has recently auctioned an additional 90 MHz of spectrum in the 1700 MHz to 2100 MHz band in Auction #66, is currently auctioning additional spectrum in the 700 MHz band in Auctions #73 and #76 and has announced that it intends to auction additional spectrum in the 2.5 GHz band. If the market value of wireless licenses were to decline significantly, the value of our wireless licenses could be subject to non-cash impairment charges.

 

We assess potential impairments to our indefinite-lived intangible assets, including wireless licenses, annually and when there is evidence that events or changes in circumstances indicate that an impairment condition may exist. We conduct our annual tests for impairment of our wireless licenses during the third quarter of each year. Estimates

of the fair value of our wireless licenses are based primarily on available market prices, including successful bid prices in FCC auctions and selling prices observed in wireless license transactions, pricing trends among historical wireless license transactions, our spectrum holdings within a given market relative to other carriers’ holdings and qualitative demographic and economic information concerning the areas that comprise our markets. A significant impairment loss could have a material adverse effect on our operating income and on the carrying value of our wireless licenses on our balance sheet.

 

Declines in Our Operating Performance Could Ultimately Result in an Impairment of Our Indefinite-Lived Assets, Including Goodwill, or Our Long-Lived Assets, Including Property and Equipment.

 

We assess potential impairments to our long-lived assets, including property and equipment and certain intangible assets, when there is evidence that events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying value may not be recoverable. We assess potential impairments to indefinite-lived intangible assets, including goodwill and wireless licenses, annually and when there is evidence that events or changes in circumstances indicate that an impairment condition may exist. If we do not achieve our planned operating results, this may ultimately result in a non-cash impairment charge related to our long-lived and/or our indefinite-lived intangible assets. A significant impairment loss could have a material adverse effect on our operating results and on the carrying value of our goodwill or wireless licenses and/or our long-lived assets on our balance sheet.

 

We May Incur Higher Than Anticipated Intercarrier Compensation Costs.

 

When our customers use our service to call customers of other carriers, we are required under the current intercarrier compensation scheme to pay the carrier that serves the called party. Similarly, when a customer of another carrier calls one of our customers, that carrier is required to pay us. While in most cases we have been successful in negotiating agreements with other carriers that impose reasonable reciprocal compensation arrangements, some carriers have claimed a right to unilaterally impose what we believe to be unreasonably high charges on us. The FCC is actively considering possible regulatory approaches to address this situation but we cannot assure you that the FCC rulings will be beneficial to us. An adverse ruling or FCC inaction could result in carriers successfully collecting higher intercarrier fees from us, which could adversely affect our business.

 

The FCC also is considering making various significant changes to the intercarrier compensation scheme to which we are subject. We cannot predict with any certainty the likely outcome of this FCC proceeding. Some of the alternatives that are under active consideration by the FCC could severely increase the interconnection costs we pay. If we are unable to cost-effectively provide our products and services to customers, our competitive position and business prospects could be materially adversely affected.

 

If We Experience High Rates of Credit Card, Subscription or Dealer Fraud, Our Ability to Generate Cash Flow Will Decrease.

 

Our operating costs can increase substantially as a result of customer credit card, subscription or dealer fraud. We have implemented a number of strategies and processes to detect and prevent efforts to defraud us, and we believe that our efforts have substantially reduced the types of fraud we have identified. However, if our strategies are not successful in detecting and controlling fraud in the future, the resulting loss of revenue or increased expenses could have a material adverse impact on our financial condition and results of operations.

 

Risks Related to Ownership of Our Common Stock

 

Our Stock Price May Be Volatile, and You May Lose All or Some of Your Investment.

 

The trading prices of the securities of telecommunications companies have been highly volatile. Accordingly, the trading price of Leap common stock has been, and is likely to be, subject to wide fluctuations. Factors affecting the trading price of Leap common stock may include, among other things:

 

 

 

We May Elect To Raise Additional Equity Capital Which May Dilute Existing Stockholders.

 

We may raise significant capital to finance business expansion activities, which could consist of debt and/or equity financing from the public and/or private capital markets. To the extent that we elect to raise equity capital, this financing may not be available in sufficient amounts or on terms acceptable to us and may be dilutive to existing stockholders. In addition, these sales could reduce the trading price of Leap’s common stock and impede our ability to raise future capital. If we required additional financing in the capital markets to take advantage of business expansion activities or to accelerate our pace of new market launches and could not obtain such financing on terms we found acceptable, we would likely reduce our investment in expansion activities or slow the pace of expansion activities to match our capital requirements to our available liquidity.

 

Your Ownership Interest in Leap Will Be Diluted Upon Issuance of Shares We Have Reserved for Future Issuances, and Future Issuances or Sales of Such Shares May Adversely Affect The Market Price of Leap’s Common Stock.

 

As of February 22, 2008, 68,713,151 shares of Leap common stock were issued and outstanding, and 7,426,849 additional shares of Leap common stock were reserved for issuance, including 6,094,410 shares reserved for issuance upon exercise of awards granted or available for grant under Leap’s 2004 Stock Option, Restricted Stock and Deferred Stock Unit Plan, as amended, 732,439 shares reserved for issuance under Leap’s Employee Stock Purchase Plan, and 600,000 shares reserved for issuance upon exercise of outstanding warrants.

 

In addition, Leap has reserved five percent of its outstanding shares, which represented 3,435,658 shares of common stock as of February 22, 2008, for potential issuance to CSM upon the exercise of CSM’s option to put its entire equity interest in LCW Wireless to Cricket. Under the amended and restated limited liability company agreement with CSM and WLPCS, the purchase price for CSM’s equity interest is calculated on a pro rata basis using either the appraised value of LCW Wireless or a multiple of Leap’s enterprise value divided by its adjusted EBITDA and applied to LCW Wireless’ adjusted EBITDA to impute an enterprise value and equity value for LCW Wireless. Cricket may satisfy the put price either in cash or in Leap common stock, or a combination thereof, as determined by Cricket in its discretion. However, the covenants in the Credit Agreement do not permit Cricket to satisfy any substantial portion of its put obligations to CSM in cash. If Cricket elects to satisfy its put obligations to CSM with Leap common stock, the obligations of the parties are conditioned upon the block of Leap common stock issuable to CSM not constituting more than five percent of Leap’s outstanding common stock at the time of issuance. Dilution of the outstanding number of shares of Leap’s common stock could adversely affect prevailing market prices for Leap’s common stock.

 

We have agreed to prepare and file a resale shelf registration statement for any shares of Leap common stock issued to CSM in connection with the put, and to use our reasonable efforts to cause such registration statement to be declared effective by the SEC. In addition, we have registered all shares of common stock that we may issue under our stock option, restricted stock and deferred stock unit plan and under our employee stock purchase plan. When we issue shares under these stock plans, they can be freely sold in the public market. If any of Leap’s stockholders cause a large number of securities to be sold in the public market, these sales could reduce the trading price of Leap’s common stock. These sales also could impede our ability to raise future capital.

Our Directors and Affiliated Entities Have Substantial Influence over Our Affairs, and Our Ownership Is Highly Concentrated. Sales of a Significant Number of Shares by Large Stockholders May Adversely Affect the Market Price of Leap Common Stock.

 

Our directors and entities affiliated with them beneficially owned in the aggregate approximately 23.1% of Leap common stock as of February 22, 2008. Moreover, our four largest stockholders and entities affiliated with them beneficially owned in the aggregate approximately 58.1% of Leap common stock as of February 22, 2008. These stockholders have the ability to exert substantial influence over all matters requiring approval by our stockholders. These stockholders will be able to influence the election and removal of directors and any merger, consolidation or sale of all or substantially all of Leap’s assets and other matters. This concentration of ownership could have the effect of delaying, deferring or preventing a change in control or impeding a merger or consolidation, takeover or other business combination.

 

Our resale shelf registration statement, as amended, registers for resale 11,755,806 shares of Leap common stock held by entities affiliated with one of our directors, or approximately 17.1% of Leap’s outstanding common stock. We are unable to predict the potential effect that sales into the market of any material portion of such shares, or any of the other shares held by our other large stockholders and entities affiliated with them, may have on the then-prevailing market price of Leap common stock. If any of Leap’s stockholders cause a large number of securities to be sold in the public market, these sales could reduce the trading price of Leap common stock. These sales could also impede our ability to raise future capital.

 

Provisions in Our Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation and Bylaws or Delaware Law, and Provisions in Our Credit Agreement and Indenture, Might Discourage, Delay or Prevent a Change in Control of Our Company or Changes in Our Management and, Therefore, Depress The Trading Price of Our Common Stock.

 

Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and bylaws contain provisions that could depress the trading price of Leap common stock by acting to discourage, delay or prevent a change in control of our company or changes in our management that our stockholders may deem advantageous. These provisions:

 

 

We are also subject to Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, which generally prohibits a Delaware corporation from engaging in any of a broad range of business combinations with any “interested” stockholder for a period of three years following the date on which the stockholder became an “interested” stockholder and which may discourage, delay or prevent a change in control of our company.

 

In addition, our Credit Agreement also prohibits the occurrence of a change of control and, under our indenture, if a “change of control” occurs, 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. See “Part II — Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Liquidity and Capital Resources.”

 

 

None.

 

As of December 31, 2007, Cricket leased space, totaling approximately 130,000 square feet, in three office buildings in San Diego, California for our corporate headquarters. We use these offices for engineering and administrative purposes. Cricket also leases approximately 30,000 square feet of space in Denver, Colorado which is used for sales and marketing, product development, information technology and regional administrative purposes. In addition, Cricket leased approximately 30,000 square feet of offices in Nashville, Tennessee. We use these offices for engineering and administrative purposes.

 

Cricket has approximately 60 additional office leases in its individual markets that range from approximately 2,500 square feet to approximately 14,000 square feet. Cricket also leases approximately 160 retail locations in its markets, including stores ranging in size from approximately 1,000 square feet to 5,600 square feet, as well as six kiosks and retail spaces within another store. In addition, as of December 31, 2007, Cricket leased approximately 5,800 cell sites, 33 switching centers and two warehouse facilities (which range in size from approximately 3,000 square feet to 20,000 square feet). We do not own any real property.

 

As of December 31, 2007, LCW Operations leased five retail locations in its markets, consisting of stores ranging in size from approximately 1,900 square feet to 3,400 square feet. In addition, as of December 31, 2007, LCW Operations leased approximately 285 cell site locations and one office and switch location. LCW Operations does not own any real property.

 

As of December 31, 2007, a wholly owned subsidiary of Denali leased approximately 105 cell sites and one office and two switch locations. Denali and its subsidiaries do not own any real property.

 

As we and Denali continue to develop existing Cricket markets, and as additional markets are built out, we and Denali will lease additional or substitute office facilities, retail stores, cell sites, switch sites and warehouse facilities.

 

 

Patent Litigation

 

On June 14, 2006, we sued MetroPCS in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,813,497 “Method for Providing Wireless Communication Services and Network and System for Delivering Same,” issued to us. Our complaint seeks damages and an injunction against continued infringement. On August 3, 2006, MetroPCS (i) answered the complaint, (ii) raised a number of affirmative defenses, and (iii) together with certain related entities (referred to, collectively with MetroPCS, as the “MetroPCS entities”), counterclaimed against Leap, Cricket, numerous Cricket subsidiaries, Denali License, and current and former employees of Leap and Cricket, including our CEO, S. Douglas Hutcheson. MetroPCS has since amended its complaint and Denali License has been dismissed, without prejudice, as a counterclaim defendant. The countersuit now alleges claims for breach of contract, misappropriation, conversion and disclosure of trade secrets, fraud, misappropriation of confidential information and breach of confidential relationship, relating to information provided by MetroPCS to such employees, including prior to their employment by Leap, and asks the court to award attorneys fees and damages, including punitive damages, impose an injunction enjoining us from participating in any auctions or sales of wireless spectrum, impose a constructive trust on our business and assets for the benefit of the MetroPCS entities, transfer our business and assets to MetroPCS, and declare that the MetroPCS entities have not infringed U.S. Patent No. 6,813,497 and that such patent is invalid. MetroPCS’s claims allege that we and the other counterclaim defendants improperly obtained, used and disclosed trade secrets and confidential information of the MetroPCS entities and breached confidentiality agreements with the MetroPCS entities. On October 31, 2007, pursuant to a stipulation between the parties, the court administratively closed the case for a period not to exceed six months. The parties stipulated that neither will move the court to reopen the case until at least 90 days following the administrative closure. On November 1, 2007, MetroPCS formally withdrew its September 4, 2007 unsolicited merger proposal, which our board of directors had previously rejected on September 16, 2007. On February 14, 2008, in response to our motion, the court re-opened the case. On September 22, 2006, Royal Street Communications, LLC, or Royal Street, an entity affiliated with MetroPCS, filed an action in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, seeking a declaratory judgment that our U.S. Patent No. 6,813,497 (the same patent that is the subject of our infringement action

against MetroPCS) is invalid and is not being infringed by Royal Street or its PCS systems. Upon our request, the court has transferred the Royal Street case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas due to the affiliation between MetroPCS and Royal Street. On February 25, 2008, we filed an answer to the Royal Street complaint, together with counterclaims for patent infringement. We intend to vigorously defend against the counterclaims filed by the MetroPCS entities and the action brought by Royal Street. Due to the complex nature of the legal and factual issues involved, however, the outcome of these matters is not presently determinable. If the MetroPCS entities were to prevail in these matters, it could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

 

On August 17, 2006, we were served with a complaint filed by certain MetroPCS entities, along with another affiliate, MetroPCS California, LLC, in the Superior Court of the State of California, which names Leap, Cricket, certain of its subsidiaries, and certain current and former employees of Leap and Cricket, including Mr. Hutcheson, as defendants. In response to demurrers by us and by the court, two of the plaintiffs amended their complaint twice, dropped the other plaintiffs and have filed a third amended complaint. In the current complaint, the plaintiffs allege statutory unfair competition, statutory misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, intentional interference with contract, and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, seek preliminary and permanent injunction, and ask the court to award damages, including punitive damages, attorneys fees, and restitution. We have filed a demurrer to the third amended complaint. On October 25, 2007, pursuant to a stipulation between the parties, the court entered a stay of the litigation for a period of 90 days. On January 28, 2008, the court ordered that the stay remain in effect for a further 120 days, or until May 27, 2008. If and when the case proceeds, we intend to vigorously defend against these claims. Due to the complex nature of the legal and factual issues involved, however, the outcome of this matter is not presently determinable. If the MetroPCS entities were to prevail in this action, it could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

 

On June 6, 2007, we were sued by Minerva Industries, Inc., or Minerva, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,681,120 entitled “Mobile Entertainment and Communication Device.” Minerva alleges that certain handsets sold by us infringe a patent relating to mobile entertainment features, and the complaint seeks damages (including enhanced damages), an injunction and attorneys’ fees. We filed an answer to the complaint and counterclaims of invalidity on January 7, 2008. On January 21, 2008, Minerva filed another suit against us in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, for infringement of its newly issued U.S. Patent No. 7,321,738 entitled “Mobile Entertainment and Communication Device.” This matter has been transferred to the judge overseeing the first Minerva action, and it is likely the two actions will be consolidated. On June 7, 2007, we were sued by Barry W. Thomas, or Thomas, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 4,777,354 entitled “System for Controlling the Supply of Utility Services to Consumers.” Thomas alleges that certain handsets sold by us infringe a patent relating to actuator cards for controlling the supply of a utility service, and the complaint seeks damages (including enhanced damages) and attorneys’ fees. We and other co-defendants have filed a motion to stay the litigation pending the determination of similar litigation in the Western District of North Carolina. We intend to vigorously defend against these matters brought by Minerva and Thomas. Due to the complex nature of the legal and factual issues involved, however, the outcome of these matters is not presently determinable. We have notified our handset suppliers of these lawsuits, the majority of whom were also sued by Minerva and Thomas in other actions, and we anticipate that we will be indemnified by such suppliers for the costs of defense and any damages arising with respect to such lawsuits.

 

On June 8, 2007, we were sued by Ronald A. Katz Technology Licensing, L.P., or Katz, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, for infringement of 19 U.S. patents, 15 of which have expired. Katz alleged that we have infringed patents relating to automated telephone systems, including customer service systems, and the complaint sought damages (including enhanced damages), an injunction, and attorneys’ fees. We have since settled this matter with Katz.

 

On October 15, 2007, Leap was sued by Visual Interactive Phone Concepts, Inc., or Visual Interactive, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,724,092 entitled “Videophone Mailbox Interactive Facility System and Method of Processing Information” and U.S. Patent No. 5,606,361 entitled “Videophone Mailbox Interactive Facility System and Method of Processing Information.” Visual Interactive alleged that Leap infringed these patents relating to interactive videophone systems, and the complaint sought an accounting for damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284, an injunction and attorneys’ fees. We filed our

answer to the complaint on December 13, 2007, and on the same day, Cricket filed a complaint against Visual Interactive in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California seeking a declaration by the court that the patents alleged against us are neither valid nor infringed by us. Visual Interactive agreed to dismiss its complaint against Leap and file an amended complaint against Cricket, and Cricket filed its answer on January 23, 2008. We intend to vigorously defend against this matter. Due to the complex nature of the legal and factual issues involved, however, the outcome of this matter is not presently determinable.

 

On December 10, 2007, we were sued by Freedom Wireless, Inc., or Freedom Wireless, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, for 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 alleges that its patents claim a novel cellular system that enables prepaid services subscribers to both place and receive cellular calls without dialing access codes or using modified telephones. The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages, increased damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 together with interest, costs and attorneys’ fees, and an injunction. On February 15, 2008, we filed a motion to sever and stay the proceedings against Cricket or, alternatively, to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. We intend to vigorously defend against this matter. Due to the complex nature of the legal and factual issues involved, however, the outcome of this matter is not presently determinable.

 

On February 4, 2008, we and certain other wireless carriers were sued by Electronic Data Systems Corporation, or EDS, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,156,300 entitled “ System and Method for Dispensing of a Receipt Reflecting Prepaid Phone Services” and U.S. Patent No. 7,255,268 entitled “System for Purchase of Prepaid Telephone Services.” EDS alleges that the sale and marketing by us of prepaid wireless cellular telephone services infringes these patents, and the complaint seeks an injunction against further infringement, damages (including enhanced damages) and attorneys’ fees. We intend to vigorously defend against this lawsuit. Due to the complex nature of the legal and factual issues involved, however, the outcome of this lawsuit is not presently determinable.

 

American Wireless Group

 

On December 31, 2002, several members of American Wireless Group, LLC, or AWG, filed a lawsuit against various officers and directors of Leap in the Circuit Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County, Mississippi, referred to herein as the Whittington Lawsuit. Leap purchased certain FCC wireless licenses from AWG and paid for those licenses with shares of Leap stock. The complaint alleges that Leap failed to disclose to AWG material facts regarding a dispute between Leap and a third party relating to that party’s claim that it was entitled to an increase in the purchase price for certain wireless licenses it sold to Leap. In their complaint, plaintiffs seek rescission and/or damages according to proof at trial of not less than the aggregate amount paid for the Leap stock (alleged in the complaint to have a value of approximately $57.8 million in June 2001 at the closing of the license sale transaction), plus interest, punitive or exemplary damages in the amount of not less than three times compensatory damages, and costs and expenses. Plaintiffs contend that the named defendants are the controlling group that was responsible for Leap’s alleged failure to disclose the material facts regarding the third party dispute and the risk that the shares held by the plaintiffs might be diluted if the third party was successful with respect to its claim. The defendants in the Whittington Lawsuit filed a motion to compel arbitration or, in the alternative, to dismiss the Whittington Lawsuit. The motion noted that plaintiffs, as members of AWG, agreed to arbitrate disputes pursuant to the license purchase agreement, that they failed to plead facts that show that they are entitled to relief, that Leap made adequate disclosure of the relevant facts regarding the third party dispute and that any failure to disclose such information did not cause any damage to the plaintiffs. The court denied defendants’ motion and the defendants appealed the denial of the motion to the Mississippi Supreme Court. On November 15, 2007, the Mississippi Supreme Court issued an opinion denying the appeal and remanded the action to the trial court. The defendants have since filed a motion to stay the remand pending application to the United States Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari. The Mississippi Supreme Court granted the motion and the remand is now stayed until at least April 2, 2008.

 

In a related action to the action described above, in June 2003, AWG filed a lawsuit in the Circuit Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County, Mississippi, referred to herein as the AWG Lawsuit, against the same

individual defendants named in the Whittington Lawsuit. The complaint generally sets forth the same claims made by the plaintiffs in the Whittington Lawsuit. In its complaint, plaintiff seeks rescission and/or damages according to proof at trial of not less than the aggregate amount paid for the Leap stock (alleged in the complaint to have a value of approximately $57.8 million in June 2001 at the closing of the license sale transaction), plus interest, punitive or exemplary damages in the amount of not less than three times compensatory damages, and costs and expenses. Defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration or, in the alternative, to dismiss the AWG Lawsuit, making arguments similar to those made in their motion to dismiss the Whittington Lawsuit. AWG has since agreed to arbitrate this lawsuit. The arbitration is proceeding and a briefing schedule for motions for summary judgment has been set.

 

Although Leap is not a defendant in either the Whittington or AWG Lawsuits, several of the defendants have indemnification agreements with us. Management believes that the defendants’ liability, if any, from the AWG and Whittington Lawsuits and any further indemnity claims of the defendants against Leap is not presently determinable.

 

Securities Litigation

 

Two shareholder derivative lawsuits were filed in the California Superior Court for the County of San Diego in November 2007 and January 2008, and one shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California in February 2008 against certain of our current and former directors and executive officers, and against Leap as a nominal defendant. Plaintiffs in one of the state shareholder derivative lawsuits have indicated that they have filed a notice of dismissal of the lawsuit. The claims asserted in these lawsuits include breaches of fiduciary duty, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, unjust enrichment and violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or the Exchange Act, arising from Leap’s restatement of its financial statements as described in Note 2 to our consolidated financial statements included in “Part II — Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data” of our Annual Report on Form 10-K, as amended, for the year ended December 31, 2006, filed with the SEC on December 26, 2007, the September 2007 unsolicited merger proposal from MetroPCS and sales of Leap common stock by certain of the defendants between December 2004 and June 2007. The complaints variously seek unspecified damages, equitable and/or injunctive relief, a constructive trust, disgorgement and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. Due to the complex nature of the legal and factual issues involved, the outcome of these matters is not presently determinable.

 

We and certain of our current and former officers and directors have been named as defendants in multiple securities class action lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California between November 2007 and February 2008 purportedly on behalf of investors who purchased Leap common stock between May 16, 2004 and November 9, 2007. Our independent registered public accounting firm, PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP, has been named in one of these lawsuits. The class action lawsuits allege that all defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, and allege the individual defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, by making false and misleading statements about our business and financial results arising from Leap’s November 9, 2007 announcement of its restatement of its financial statements as described in Note 2 to our consolidated financial statements included in “Part II — Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data” of our Annual Report on Form 10-K, as amended, for the year ended December 31, 2006, filed with the SEC on December 26, 2007. Some of these lawsuits also allege false and misleading statements revealed by Leap’s August 7, 2007 second quarter 2007 earnings release. The class action lawsuits seek, among other relief, determinations that the actions are proper class actions, unspecified damages and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. Plaintiffs have filed motions for the appointment of lead plaintiff, lead plaintiffs’ counsel and consolidation of all related cases, and these motions are scheduled to be heard on March 28, 2008. We intend to vigorously defend against these lawsuits. Due to the complex nature of the legal and factual issues involved, however, the outcome of these matters is not presently determinable.

 

Other Litigation

 

In addition to the matters described above, we are often involved in certain other claims, arising in the ordinary course of business, seeking monetary damages and other relief, none of which claims, based upon current

information, is currently expected to have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

 

 

No matters were submitted to a vote of Leap’s stockholders, through the solicitation of proxies or otherwise, during the fourth quarter of the year ended December 31, 2007.

 

 

Market Price of and Dividends on the Registrant’s Common Equity and Related Stockholder Matters

 

Our common stock traded on the OTC Bulletin Board until August 16, 2004 under the symbol “LWINQ.” When we emerged from our Chapter 11 proceedings on August 16, 2004, all of our formerly outstanding common stock was cancelled in accordance with our plan of reorganization and our former common stockholders ceased to have any ownership interest in us. The new shares of our common stock issued under our plan of reorganization traded on the OTC Bulletin Board under the symbol “LEAP.” Commencing on June 29, 2005, our common stock became listed for trading on the NASDAQ National Market (now known as the NASDAQ Global Market) under the symbol “LEAP.” Commencing on July 1, 2006, our common stock became listed for trading on the NASDAQ Global Select Market, also under the symbol “LEAP.”

 

The following table sets forth the high and low closing prices per share of our common stock for the quarterly periods indicated, which correspond to our quarterly fiscal periods for financial reporting purposes. Through June 30, 2006, prices for our common stock are sales prices on the NASDAQ National Market. On and after July 1, 2006, prices for our common stock are sales prices on the NASDAQ Global Select Market.

 

 

On February 22, 2008, the last reported sale price of Leap’s common stock on the NASDAQ Global Select Market was $36.24 per share. As of February 22, 2008, there were 68,713,151 shares of common stock outstanding held by approximately 241 holders of record.

 

Dividends

 

Leap has never paid or declared any cash dividends on its common stock and we do not anticipate paying any cash dividends on our common stock in the foreseeable future. As more fully described in “Part II — Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations,” the terms of our Credit Agreement entered into in June 2006 and the indenture governing our unsecured senior notes entered into in October 2006 restrict our ability to declare or pay dividends. We intend to retain future earnings, if any, to fund our growth. Any future payment of dividends to our stockholders will depend on decisions that will be made by our board of directors and will depend on then existing conditions, including our financial condition, contractual restrictions, capital requirements and business prospects.

Securities Authorized For Issuance Under Equity Compensation Plans

 

The following table provides information as of December 31, 2007 with respect to equity compensation plans (including individual compensation arrangements) under which Leap’s common stock is authorized for issuance.

 

 

 

 

The following selected financial data were derived from our audited consolidated financial statements. These tables should be read in conjunction with “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and “Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data” included elsewhere in this report. References in these tables to “Predecessor Company” refer to the Company on or prior to July 31, 2004. References to “Successor Company” refer to the Company after July 31, 2004, after giving effect to the implementation of fresh-start reporting. The financial statements of the Successor Company are not comparable in many respects to the financial statements of the Predecessor Company because of the effects of the consummation of the plan of reorganization as well as the adjustments for fresh-start reporting.

 

 

 

 

 

The following information should be read in conjunction with the audited consolidated financial statements and notes thereto included in “Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data” of this report.

 

Overview

 

We are a wireless communications carrier that offers digital wireless service in the U.S. under the “Cricket” brand. Our Cricket service offers customers unlimited wireless service for a flat monthly rate without requiring a fixed-term contract or credit check. Cricket service is offered by Cricket, a wholly owned subsidiary of Leap, and is also offered in Oregon by LCW Operations, a designated entity under FCC regulations. Cricket owns an indirect 73.3% non-controlling interest in LCW Operations through a 73.3% non-controlling interest in LCW Wireless. Cricket also owns an 82.5% non-controlling interest in Denali, which purchased a wireless license in Auction #66 covering the upper mid-west portion of the U.S. as a designated entity through its wholly owned subsidiary, Denali License. We consolidate our interests in LCW Wireless and Denali in accordance with FIN 46-R, “Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities,” because these entities are variable interest entities and we will absorb a majority of their expected losses.

 

At December 31, 2007, Cricket service was offered in 23 states and had approximately 2.9 million customers. As of December 31, 2007, we, LCW License (a wholly owned subsidiary of LCW Operations) and Denali License owned wireless licenses covering an aggregate of 186.5 million POPs (adjusted to eliminate duplication from overlapping licenses). The combined network footprint in our operating markets covered approximately 54 million POPs at the end of 2007, which includes new markets launched in 2007 and incremental POPs attributed to ongoing footprint expansion. The licenses we and Denali License purchased in Auction #66, together with the existing licenses we own, provide 20 MHz of coverage and the opportunity to offer enhanced data services in almost all markets in which we currently operate or are building out, assuming Denali License were to make available to us certain of its spectrum.

 

In addition to the approximately 54 million POPs we covered at the end of 2007 with our combined network footprint, we estimate that we and Denali License hold licenses in markets that cover up to approximately 85 million additional POPs that are suitable for Cricket service, and we and Denali License have already begun the build-out of some of our Auction #66 markets. We and Denali License expect to cover up to an additional 12 to 28 million POPs by the end of 2008, bringing total covered POPs to between 66 and 82 million by the end of 2008. We and Denali License may also develop some of the licenses covering these additional POPs through partnerships with others.

 

The AWS spectrum that was auctioned in Auction #66 currently is used by U.S. federal government and/or incumbent commercial licensees. Several federal government agencies have cleared or announced plans to promptly clear spectrum covered by licenses we and Denali License purchased in Auction #66. Other agencies, however, have not yet finalized plans to relocate their use to alternative spectrum. If these agencies do not relocate to alternative spectrum within the next several months, their continued use of the spectrum covered by licenses we and Denali License purchased in Auction #66 could delay the launch of certain markets.

 

Our Cricket rate plans are based on providing unlimited wireless services to customers, and the value of unlimited wireless services is the foundation of our business. Our premium rate plans offer unlimited local and U.S. long distance service from any Cricket service area and unlimited use of multiple calling features and messaging services, bundled with specified roaming minutes in the continental U.S. or unlimited mobile web access and directory assistance. Our most popular plan combines unlimited local and U.S. long distance service from any Cricket service area with unlimited use of multiple calling features and messaging services. In addition, we offer basic service plans that allow customers to make unlimited calls within their Cricket service area and receive unlimited calls from any area, combined with unlimited messaging and unlimited U.S. long distance service options. We have also launched a new weekly rate plan, Cricket By Week, and a flexible payment option, BridgePay, which give our customers greater flexibility in the use and payment of wireless service and which we believe will help us to improve customer retention. In September 2007, we introduced our first unlimited wireless broadband service in select markets, which allows customers to access the internet through their laptops for one low, flat rate with no long-term commitments or credit checks. Our per-minute prepaid service, Jump Mobile,

brings Cricket’s attractive value proposition to customers who prefer to actively control their wireless usage and to allow us to better target the urban youth market. We expect to continue to broaden our voice and data product and service offerings in 2008 and beyond.

 

We believe that our business model is scalable and can be expanded successfully into adjacent and new markets because we offer a differentiated service and an attractive value proposition to our customers at costs significantly lower than most of our competitors. We continue to seek additional opportunities to enhance our current market clusters and expand into new geographic markets by participating in FCC spectrum auctions, acquiring spectrum and related assets from third parties, and/or participating in new partnerships or joint ventures. We also expect to continue to look for opportunities to optimize the value of our spectrum portfolio. Because some of the licenses that we and Denali License hold include large regional areas covering both rural and metropolitan communities, we and Denali License may sell some of this spectrum and pursue the deployment of alternative products or services in portions of this spectrum.

 

Our principal sources of liquidity are our existing unrestricted cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments, cash generated from operations, and cash available from borrowings under our $200 million revolving credit facility (which was undrawn at December 31, 2007). From time to time, we may also generate additional liquidity through capital markets transactions or by selling assets that are not material to or are not required for our ongoing business operations. See “Liquidity and Capital Resources” below.

 

Among the most significant factors affecting our financial condition and performance from period to period are our new market expansions and growth in customers, the impacts of which are reflected in our revenues and operating expenses. Throughout 2006 and 2007, we and our joint ventures continued expanding existing market footprints and expanded into 20 new markets, increasing the number of potential customers covered by our networks from approximately 28 million covered POPs as of December 31, 2005, to approximately 48 million covered POPs as of December 31, 2006, to approximately 54 million covered POPs as of December 31, 2007. This network expansion, together with organic customer growth in our existing markets, has resulted in substantial additions of new customers, as our total end-of-period customers increased from 1.67 million customers as of December 31, 2005, to 2.23 million customers as of December 31, 2006, to 2.86 million customers as of December 31, 2007. In addition, our total revenues have increased from $957.8 million for fiscal 2005, to $1.17 billion for fiscal 2006, to $1.63 billion for fiscal 2007. During the past two years, we also introduced several higher-priced, higher-value service plans which have helped increase average revenue per user per month over time, as customer acceptance of the higher-priced plans has been favorable.

 

As our business activities have expanded, our operating expenses have also grown, including increases in cost of service reflecting: the increase in customers and the broader variety of products and services provided to such customers; increased depreciation expense related to our expanded networks; and increased selling and marketing expenses and general and administrative expenses generally attributable to expansion into new markets, selling and marketing to a broader potential customer base, and expenses required to support the administration of our growing business. In particular, total operating expenses increased from $901.4 million for fiscal 2005, to $1.17 billion for fiscal 2006, to $1.57 billion for fiscal 2007. We also incurred substantial additional indebtedness to finance the costs of our business expansion and acquisitions of additional wireless licenses in 2006 and 2007. As a result, our interest expense has increased from $30.1 million for fiscal 2005, to $61.3 million for fiscal 2006, to $121.2 million for fiscal 2007. Also, during the third quarter of 2007, we changed our tax accounting method for amortizing wireless licenses, contributing substantially to our income tax expense of $37.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2007, compared to an income tax expense of $9.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2006.

 

Primarily as a result of the factors described above, our net income of $30.7 million for fiscal 2005 decreased to a net loss of $24.4 million for fiscal 2006. Our net loss increased to $75.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2007.

 

We expect that we will continue to build out and launch new markets and pursue other strategic expansion activities for the next several years. We intend to be disciplined as we pursue these expansion efforts and to remain focused on our position as a low-cost leader in wireless telecommunications. We expect to achieve increased revenues and incur higher operating expenses as our existing business grows and as we build out and after we launch service in new markets. Large-scale construction projects for the build-out of our new markets will require

significant capital expenditures and may suffer cost overruns. Any such significant capital expenditures or increased operating expenses would decrease earnings, operating income before depreciation and amortization, or OIBDA, and free cash flow for the periods in which we incur such costs. However, we are willing to incur such expenditures because we expect our expansion activities will be beneficial to our business and create additional value for our stockholders.

 

Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates

 

Our discussion and analysis of our results of operations and liquidity and capital resources are based on our consolidated financial statements which have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America, or GAAP. These principles require us to make estimates and judgments that affect our reported amounts of assets and liabilities, our disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities, and our reported amounts of revenues and expenses. On an ongoing basis, we evaluate our estimates and judgments, including those related to revenue recognition and the valuation of deferred tax assets, long-lived assets and indefinite-lived intangible assets. We base our estimates on historical and anticipated results and trends and on various other assumptions that we believe are reasonable under the circumstances, including assumptions as to future events. These estimates form the basis for making judgments about the carrying values of assets and liabilities that are not readily apparent from other sources. By their nature, estimates are subject to an inherent degree of uncertainty. Actual results may differ from our estimates.

 

We believe that the following critical accounting policies and estimates involve a higher degree of judgment or complexity than others used in the preparation of our consolidated financial statements.

 

Principles of Consolidation

 

The consolidated financial statements include the accounts of Leap and its wholly owned subsidiaries as well as the accounts of LCW Wireless and Denali and their wholly owned subsidiaries. We consolidate our interests in LCW Wireless and Denali in accordance with FIN 46(R), “Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities,” because these entities are variable interest entities and we will absorb a majority of their expected losses. Prior to March 2007, we consolidated our interests in ANB 1 and its wholly owned subsidiary ANB 1 License in accordance with FIN 46(R). We acquired the remaining interests in ANB 1 in March 2007 and merged ANB 1 and ANB 1 License into Cricket in December 2007. All significant intercompany accounts and transactions have been eliminated in the consolidated financial statements.

 

Revenues

 

Cricket’s business revenues principally arise from the sale of wireless services, handsets and accessories. Wireless services are generally provided on a month-to-month basis. New and reactivating customers are required to pay for their service in advance, and generally, customers who activated their service prior to May 2006 pay in arrears. We do not require any of our customers to sign fixed-term service commitments or submit to a credit check. These terms generally appeal to less affluent customers who are considered more likely to terminate service for inability to pay than wireless customers in general. Consequently, we have concluded that collectibility of our 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 we activate a new customer, we frequently sell that customer a handset and the first month of service in a bundled transaction. Under the provisions of Emerging Issues Task Force, or EITF, Issue No. 00-21, “Revenue Arrangements with Multiple Deliverables,” the sale of a handset along with a month of wireless service constitutes a multiple element arrangement. Under EITF Issue No. 00-21, 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 EITF Issue No. 00-21 to these transactions results in our recognition of the total consideration received, less one month of wireless service revenue (at the customer’s stated rate plan), as equipment revenue.

 

Equipment revenues and related costs from the sale of handsets 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

handsets and accessories sold are recorded in cost of equipment. In addition to handsets that we sell directly to our customers at Cricket-owned stores, we also sell handsets to third-party dealers. These dealers then sell the handsets to the ultimate Cricket customer, and that customer also receives the first month of service in a bundled transaction (identical to the sale made at a Cricket-owned store). Sales of handsets 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 handsets are sold by such dealers to customers. Thus, handsets sold to third-party dealers are recorded as consigned inventory and deferred equipment revenue until they are sold to, and service is activated by, customers.

 

Through a third-party provider, our customers may elect to participate in an extended handset warranty/insurance program. We recognize revenue on replacement handsets sold to our customers under the program when the customer purchases a replacement handset.

 

Sales incentives offered without charge to customers and volume-based incentives paid to our third-party dealers are recognized as a reduction of revenue and as a liability when the related service or equipment revenue is recognized. Customers have limited rights to return handsets and accessories based on time and/or usage; as a result, customer returns of handsets and accessories have historically been negligible.

 

Amounts billed by us in advance of customers’ wireless service periods are not reflected in accounts receivable or deferred revenue as 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 handsets and accessories sold to third-party dealers.

 

Depreciation and Amortization

 

Depreciation of property and equipment is applied using the straight-line method over the estimated useful lives of our assets once the assets are placed in service. The following table summarizes the depreciable lives (in years):

 

 

Amortization of intangible assets is applied using the straight-line method over the estimated useful lives of four years for customer relationships and fourteen years for trademarks.

 

Short-Term Investments

 

Short-term investments generally consist of highly liquid, fixed-income investments with an original maturity at the time of purchase of greater than three months. Such investments consist of commercial paper, asset-backed commercial paper, auction rate securities, obligations of the U.S. government, and investment grade fixed-income securities guaranteed by U.S. government agencies.

 

Investments are classified as available-for-sale and stated at fair value. The net unrealized gains or losses on available-for-sale securities are reported as a component of comprehensive income (loss). The specific identification method is used to compute the realized gains and losses on investments. Investments are periodically reviewed for impairment. If the carrying value of an investment exceeds its fair value and the decline in value is determined to be other-than-temporary, an impairment loss is recognized for the difference.

Wireless Licenses

 

We and LCW Wireless operate broadband PCS networks under 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. In addition, through our and Denali License’s participation in Auction #66 in December 2006, we and Denali License acquired a number of AWS licenses that can be used to provide services comparable to the PCS services we currently provide, in addition to other advanced wireless 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 we and LCW Wireless expect to continue to provide wireless service using the relevant licenses for the foreseeable future, PCS and AWS licenses are routinely renewed for 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 our and our consolidated joint ventures’ PCS and AWS licenses. On a quarterly basis, we evaluate the remaining useful life of our indefinite lived wireless licenses to determine whether events and circumstances, such as any 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, we test the wireless license for impairment in accordance with Statement of Financial Accounting Standards, or SFAS, No. 142, “Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets,” or SFAS 142. The wireless license would then be amortized prospectively over its estimated remaining useful life. In addition to our quarterly evaluation of the indefinite useful lives of our wireless licenses, we also test our wireless licenses for impairment in accordance with SFAS 142 on an annual basis. Wireless licenses to be disposed of by sale are carried at the lower of carrying value or fair value less costs to sell. The spectrum that we and Denali License purchased in Auction #66 currently is used 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. The spectrum clearing costs we and Denali License incur are capitalized to wireless licenses.

 

Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets

 

Goodwill 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. Other intangible assets were recorded upon adoption of fresh-start reporting and consist of customer relationships and trademarks which are being amortized on a straight-line basis over their estimated useful lives of four and fourteen years, respectively.

 

Impairment of Long-Lived Assets

 

We assess potential impairments to our long-lived assets, including property and equipment and certain intangible assets, when there is evidence that events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying value may not be recoverable. An impairment loss may be required to be recognized when the undiscounted cash flows expected to be generated by a long-lived asset (or group of such assets) is less than its carrying value. Any required impairment loss would be measured as the amount by which the asset’s carrying value exceeds its fair value and would be recorded as a reduction in the carrying value of the related asset and charged to results of operations.

 

Impairment of Indefinite-Lived Intangible Assets

 

We assess potential impairments to our 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. The annual impairment test is conducted during the third quarter of each year.

 

The wireless licenses in our operating markets are combined into a single unit of accounting 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. Our non-operating licenses are tested for impairment on an individual basis. An impairment loss is recognized 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. Estimates of the fair value of our wireless licenses are based primarily on available market prices, including

successful bid prices in FCC auctions and selling prices observed in wireless license transactions, pricing trends among historical wireless license transactions and qualitative demographic and economic information concerning the areas that comprise our markets. Any required impairment losses are recorded as a reduction in the carrying value of the wireless license and charged to results of operations.

 

The goodwill impairment test involves a two-step process. First, the book value of our net assets, which are combined into a single reporting unit for purposes of the impairment test of goodwill, is compared to the fair value of our net assets. If the fair value was determined to be less than book value, a second step would be performed to measure the amount of the impairment, if any.

 

The accounting estimates for our wireless licenses and goodwill require management to make significant assumptions about fair value. Management’s assumptions regarding fair value require significant judgment about economic factors, industry factors and technology considerations, as well as its views regarding our business prospects. Changes in these judgments may have a significant effect on the estimated fair values.

 

Share-Based Compensation

 

We account for share-based awards exchanged for employee services in accordance with SFAS No. 123(R), “Share-Based Payment,” or SFAS 123(R). Under SFAS 123(R), share-based compensation expense is measured at the grant date, based on the estimated fair value of the award, and is recognized as expense over the employee’s requisite service period. Prior to adopting SFAS 123(R), we recognized compensation expense for employee share-based awards based on their intrinsic value on the grant date pursuant to Accounting Principles Board Opinion, or APB, No. 25 “Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees,” and provided the required pro forma disclosures of SFAS No. 123, “Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation,” or SFAS 123.

 

We adopted SFAS 123(R) using the modified prospective approach under SFAS 123(R) and, as a result, have not retroactively adjusted results from prior periods. The valuation provisions of SFAS 123(R) apply to awards that have been granted on or subsequent to January 1, 2006 or that were outstanding on that date and subsequently modified or cancelled. Compensation expense, net of estimated forfeitures, for awards outstanding at the effective date is recognized over the remaining service period using the compensation cost calculated for pro forma disclosure purposes in prior periods.

 

Compensation expense is amortized on a straight-line basis over the requisite service period for the entire award, which is generally the maximum vesting period of the award. No share-based compensation was capitalized as part of inventory or fixed assets prior to or during 2007.

 

The determination of the fair value of stock options using an option valuation model is affected by our stock price, as well as assumptions regarding a number of complex and subjective variables. The methods used to determine these variables are generally similar to the methods used prior to fiscal 2006 for purposes of our pro forma information under SFAS 123. The volatility assumption is based on a combination of the historical volatility of our common stock and the volatilities of similar companies over a period of time equal to the expected term of the stock options. The volatilities of similar companies are used in conjunction with our historical volatility because of the lack of sufficient relevant history for our common stock equal to the expected term. The expected term of employee stock options represents the weighted-average period the stock options are expected to remain outstanding. The expected term assumption is estimated based primarily on the options’ vesting terms and remaining contractual life and employees’ expected exercise and post-vesting employment termination behavior. The risk-free interest rate assumption is based upon observed interest rates during the period appropriate for the expected term of the employee stock options. The dividend yield assumption is based on the expectation of no future dividend payouts by us.

 

As share-based compensation expense under SFAS 123(R) is based on awards ultimately expected to vest, it is reduced for estimated forfeitures. SFAS 123(R) requires forfeitures to be estimated at the time of grant and revised, if necessary, in subsequent periods if actual forfeitures differ from those estimates.

 

At December 31, 2007, total unrecognized compensation cost related to unvested stock options was $45.5 million, which is expected to be recognized over a weighted-average period of 2.7 years. At December 31,

2007, total unrecognized compensation cost related to unvested restricted stock awards was $33.0 million, which is expected to be recognized over a weighted-average period of 2.3 years.

 

Income Taxes

 

We calculate income taxes in each of the jurisdictions in which we operate. This process involves calculating the actual 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 carryforwards, capital loss carryforwards, and income tax credits.

 

We must then periodically assess the likelihood that our deferred tax assets will be recovered from future taxable income, which assessment requires significant judgment. To the extent we believe it is more likely than not that our deferred tax assets will not be recovered, we must establish a valuation allowance. As part of this periodic assessment for the year ended December 31, 2007, we weighed the positive and negative factors with respect to this determination and, at this time, except with respect to the realization of a $2.5 million Texas Margins Tax, or TMT, credit, do 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 our deferred tax assets will be realized. We will continue to closely monitor the positive and negative factors to determine whether our valuation allowance should be released. 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. At such time as we determine 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. Pursuant to American Institute of Certified Public Accountants’ Statement of Position No. 90-7, “Financial Reporting by Entities in Reorganization under the Bankruptcy Code,” or SOP 90-7, up to $218.5 million in future decreases in the valuation allowance established in fresh-start reporting will be accounted for as a reduction of goodwill rather than as a reduction of income tax expense if the valuation allowance decrease occurs prior to the effective date of SFAS No. 141 (revised 2007), “Business Combinations,” or SFAS 141(R). Effective January 1, 2009, SFAS 141(R) provides that any reduction to the valuation allowance established in fresh-start reporting be accounted for as a reduction to income tax expense.

 

Subscriber Recognition and Disconnect Policies

 

We recognize a new customer as a gross addition in the month that he or she activates service. The customer must pay his or her monthly service amount by the payment due date or his or her service will be suspended after a grace period of up to three days. When service is suspended, the customer will not be able to make or receive calls. Any call attempted by a suspended customer is routed directly to our customer service center in order to arrange payment. In order to re-establish service, a customer must make all past-due payments and pay a $15 reactivation charge, in addition to the amount past due, to re-establish service. If a new customer does not pay all amounts due on his or her first bill within 30 days of the due date, the account is disconnected and deducted from gross customer additions during the month in which the customer’s service was discontinued. If a customer has made payment on his or her first bill and in a subsequent month does not pay all amounts due within 30 days of the due date, the account is disconnected and counted as churn.

 

Customer turnover, frequently referred to as churn, is an important business metric in the telecommunications industry because it can have significant financial effects. Because we do not require customers to sign fixed-term contracts or pass a credit check, our service is available to a broader customer base than many other wireless providers and, as a result, some of our customers may be more likely to have their service terminated due to an inability to pay than the average industry customer.

 

Results of Operations

 

Operating Items

 

The following tables summarize operating data for our consolidated operations (in thousands, except percentages).

 

 

 

The following table summarizes customer activity:

 

 

Service Revenues

 

Service revenues increased $439.3 million, or 45.9%, for the year ended December 31, 2007 compared to the corresponding period of the prior year. This increase resulted from a 39.1% increase in average total customers due to new market launches and existing market customer growth and a 4.9% increase in average monthly revenues per customer. The increase in average monthly revenues per customer was due primarily to the continued increase in customer adoption of our higher-end service plans and value added services.

 

Service revenues increased $187.4 million, or 24.4%, for the year ended December 31, 2006 compared to the corresponding period of the prior year. This increase resulted from the 15.6% increase in average total customers and a 7.6% increase in average revenues per customer. The increase in average revenues per customer was due primarily to the continued increase in customer adoption of our higher-end service plans and value-added services.

 

Equipment Revenues

 

Equipment revenues increased $24.3 million, or 11.5%, for the year ended December 31, 2007 compared to the corresponding period of the prior year. An increase of 36.4% in handset sales volume was largely offset by increases in promotional incentives for customers and an increased shift in handset sales to our exclusive indirect distribution channel, to which handsets are sold at lower prices.

Equipment revenues increased $22.0 million, or 11.6%, for the year ended December 31, 2006 compared to the corresponding period of the prior year. An increase of 58.5% in handset sales volume was largely offset by lower net revenues per handset sold as a result of bundling the first month of service with the initial handset price, eliminating activation fees for new customers purchasing equipment and a larger proportion of total handset sales being activated through our indirect channel partners.

 

Cost of Service

 

Cost of service increased $120.0 million, or 45.4%, for the year ended December 31, 2007 compared to the corresponding period of the prior year. As a percentage of service revenues, cost of service decreased to 27.5% from 27.6% in the prior year period. Variable product costs increased by 1.9% as a percentage of service revenues due to increased customer usage of our value-added services. This increase was offset by a 0.9% decrease in network infrastructure costs as a percentage of service revenues and a 1.0% decrease in labor and related costs as a percentage of service revenues due to the increase in service revenues and consequent benefits of scale.

 

Cost of service increased $60.6 million, or 29.8%, for the year ended December 31, 2006 compared to the corresponding period of the prior year. As a percentage of service revenues, cost of service increased to 27.6% from 26.5% in the prior year period. Variable product costs increased by 0.6% of service revenues due to increased customer usage of our value-added services. In addition, labor and related costs increased by 0.4% of service revenues due to new market launches during 2006. The increased fixed network infrastructure costs associated with the new market launches offset the benefits of scale we would generally expect to experience with increasing customers and service revenues.

 

Cost of Equipment

 

Cost of equipment increased $95.2 million, or 30.6%, for the year ended December 31, 2007 compared to the corresponding period of the prior year. This increase was primarily attributable to a 36.4% increase in handset sales volume.

 

Cost of equipment increased $80.3 million, or 34.8%, for the year ended December 31, 2006 compared to the corresponding period of the prior year. This increase was primarily attributable to the 58.5% increase in handset sales volume, partially offset by reductions in costs to support our handset replacement programs for existing customers.

 

Selling and Marketing Expenses

 

Selling and marketing expenses increased $47.0 million, or 29.5%, for the year ended December 31, 2007 compared to the corresponding period of the prior year. As a percentage of service revenues, such expenses decreased to 14.8% from 16.7% in the prior year period. This decrease was primarily attributable to a 0.7% decrease in store and staffing and related costs as a percentage of services revenues due to the increase in service revenues and consequent benefits of scale and a 1.2% decrease in media and advertising costs as a percentage of service revenues reflecting large new market launches in the prior year and consequent benefits of scale.

 

Selling and marketing expenses increased $59.2 million, or 59.2%, for the year ended December 31, 2006 compared to the corresponding period of the prior year. As a percentage of service revenues, such expenses increased to 16.7% from 13.0% in the prior year period. This increase was primarily due to increased media and advertising costs and labor and related costs of 2.4% and 0.9% of service revenues, respectively, which were primarily attributable to our new market launches.

 

General and Administrative Expenses

 

General and administrative expenses increased $74.9 million, or 38.1%, for the year ended December 31, 2007 compared to the corresponding period of the prior year. As a percentage of service revenues, such expenses decreased to 19.5% from 20.6% in the prior year period. Customer care expenses decreased by 0.5% as a percentage of service revenues and employee related costs decreased by 0.8% as a percentage of service revenues both due to the increase in service revenues and consequent benefits of scale. These decreases were partially offset by a 0.4%

increase in professional services fees and other expenses as a percentage of service revenues due to costs incurred in connection with the unsolicited merger proposal received from MetroPCS during 2007 and other strategic merger and acquisition activities. During the three months ended December 31, 2007, we amended the contract for our primary customer billing and activation system. The amended contract has been accounted for as a capital lease and, accordingly, amounts related to the leased elements were classified as amortization expense and interest expense, rather than as a general and administrative expense under the previous contract. These amounts approximated $4 million during the fourth quarter of 2007 and will approximate $14 million per year from 2008 to 2010.

 

General and administrative expenses increased $36.9 million, or 23.1%, for the year ended December 31, 2006 compared to the corresponding period of the prior year. As a percentage of service revenues, such expenses decreased to 20.6% from 20.8% in the prior year period. Customer care expenses decreased by 1.7% as a percentage of service revenues due to decreases in call center and other customer care-related program costs. Professional services fees and other expenses decreased by 0.5% as a percentage of service revenues in the aggregate due to the increase in service revenues and consequent benefits in scale. Partially offsetting these decreases were increases in labor and related costs of 1.6% as a percentage of service revenues due primarily to new employee additions necessary to support our growth and the increase in share-based compensation expense of 0.4% as a percentage of service revenues due partially to our adoption of SFAS 123(R) in 2006.

 

Depreciation and Amortization

 

Depreciation and amortization expense increased $75.5 million, or 33.3%, for the year ended December 31, 2007 compared to the corresponding period of the prior year. The increase in the dollar amount of depreciation and amortization expense was due primarily to the build-out and launch of our new markets and the improvement and expansion of our existing markets. Such expenses decreased as a percentage of service revenues compared to the corresponding period of the prior year.

 

Depreciation and amortization expense increased $31.3 million, or 16.0%, for the year ended December 31, 2006 compared to the corresponding period of the prior year. The increase in depreciation and amortization expense was due primarily to the build-out of our new markets and the upgrade of network assets in our other markets. Such expenses decreased as a percentage of service revenues compared to the corresponding period of the prior year.

 

Impairment Charges

 

As a result of our annual impairment tests of wireless licenses, we recorded impairment charges of $1.0 million, $4.7 million and $0.7 million during the years ended December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005, respectively, to reduce the carrying values of certain non-operating wireless licenses to their estimated fair values. In addition, we recorded an impairment charge of $3.2 million during the year ended December 31, 2006 in connection with an agreement to sell certain non-operating wireless licenses. We adjusted the carrying values of those licenses to their estimated fair values, which were based on the agreed upon sales prices.

 

Gains on Sale or Disposal of Assets

 

During the year ended December 31, 2007, we completed the sale of three wireless licenses that we were not using to offer commercial service for an aggregate purchase price of $9.5 million, resulting in a net gain of $1.3 million. During the year ended December 31, 2006, we completed the sale of our wireless licenses and operating assets in the Toledo and Sandusky, Ohio markets to Cleveland Unlimited, Inc., or CUI, in exchange for $28.0 million and CUI’s equity interest in LCW Wireless, resulting in a gain of $21.6 million.

Non-Operating Items

 

The following tables summarize non-operating data for the Company’s consolidated operations (in thousands).

 

 

 

Minority Interests in Consolidated Subsidiaries

 

Minority interests in consolidated subsidiaries for the years ended December 31, 2007 and 2006 reflected the shares of net losses allocated to the other members of certain consolidated entities, partially offset by accretion expense associated with certain members’ put options. Minority interests in consolidated subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 2005 reflected accretion expense only.

 

Equity in Net Loss of Investee

 

Equity in net loss of investee reflects our share of losses in a regional wireless service provider in which we previously made an investment.

 

Interest Income

 

Interest income increased $5.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2007 compared to the corresponding period of the prior year and $13.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2006 compared to the corresponding period of the prior year. These increases were primarily due to the increases in the average cash and cash equivalents and investment balances.

 

Interest Expense

 

Interest expense increased $59.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2007 compared to the corresponding period of the prior year. The increase in interest expense resulted from our issuance of $750 million and $350 million of 9.375% unsecured senior notes due 2014 during October 2006 and June 2007, respectively. See “— Liquidity and Capital Resources” below. These increases were partially offset by the capitalization of $45.6 million of interest during the year ended December 31, 2007. We capitalize interest costs associated with our wireless licenses and property and equipment during the build-out of new markets. The amount of such capitalized interest depends on the carrying values of the licenses and property and equipment involved in those markets and the duration of the build-out. We expect capitalized interest to continue to be significant during the build-out of our planned new markets in 2008. At December 31, 2007, the effective interest rate on our $895.5 million term loan was 7.9%, including the effect of interest rate swaps, and the effective interest rate on LCW Operations’ term loans was 9.1%. We expect that interest expense will increase further in 2008 due to the additional $350 million of 9.375% unsecured

senior notes due 2014 that we issued in June 2007 and the increase in the interest rate applicable to our $895.5 million term loan effective November 20, 2007. See “— Liquidity and Capital Resources” below.

 

Interest expense increased $31.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2006 compared to the corresponding period of the prior year. The increase in interest expense resulted from the increase in the amount of the term loan under our amended and restated senior secured credit agreement, our issuance of $750 million of 9.375% unsecured senior notes and the issuance of $40 million of term loans under LCW Operations’ senior secured credit agreement. These increases were partially offset by the capitalization of $16.7 million of interest during the year ended December 31, 2006. We capitalize interest costs associated with our wireless licenses and property and equipment during the build-out of new markets. The amount of such capitalized interest depends on the carrying values of the licenses and property and equipment involved in those markets and the duration of the build-out. At December 31, 2006, the effective interest rate on our $900 million term loan was 7.7%, including the effect of interest rate swaps, and the effective interest rate on LCW Operations’ term loans was 9.6%.

 

Other Income (Expense), Net

 

Other expense, net of other income, increased by $3.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2007 compared to the corresponding period of the prior year. During 2007, we recorded a $5.4 million impairment charge to reduce the carrying value of certain investments in asset-backed commercial paper. During January 2008, these investments declined by an additional $0.9 million.

 

Other income, net of other expenses, decreased by $4.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2006 compared to the corresponding period of the prior year. The decrease was primarily attributed to a write off of unamortized deferred debt issuance costs related to our previous financing arrangements, partially offset by a sales tax refund and the resolution of a tax contingency.

 

Income Tax Expense

 

During the year ended December 31, 2007, we recorded income tax expense of $37.4 million compared to income tax expense of $9.3 million during the year ended December 31, 2006. Income tax expense for the year ended December 31, 2007 consisted primarily of the tax effect of changes in deferred tax liabilities associated with wireless licenses, tax goodwill and investments in certain joint ventures.

 

During the year ended December 31, 2007, we changed our tax accounting method for amortizing wireless licenses. Under the prior method, we began amortizing wireless licenses for tax purposes on the date a license was placed into service. Under the new tax accounting method, we generally begin amortizing wireless licenses for tax purposes on the date the wireless license is acquired. The new tax accounting method generally allows us to amortize wireless licenses for tax purposes at an earlier date and allows us to accelerate our tax deductions. At the same time, the new method increases our income tax expense due to the deferred tax effect of accelerating amortization on wireless licenses. We have applied the new method as if it had been in effect for all prior tax periods, and the resulting cumulative increase to income tax expense of $28.9 million was recorded during the year ended December 31, 2007. This tax accounting method change also affects the characterization of certain income tax gains and losses on the sale of non-operating wireless licenses. Under the prior method, gains or losses on the sale of non-operating licenses were characterized as capital gains or losses; however, under the new method, gains or losses on the sale of non-operating licenses for which we had commenced tax amortization prior to the sale are characterized as ordinary gains or losses. As a result of this change, $64.7 million of net income tax losses previously reported as capital loss carryforwards have been recharacterized as net operating loss carryforwards. These net operating loss carryforwards can be used to offset future taxable income and reduce the amount of cash required to settle future tax liabilities.

 

We recorded a $4.7 million income tax benefit during the year ended December 31, 2007 related to a net reduction in our effective state income tax rate. We carry a net deferred tax liability that results from the valuation allowance recorded against a majority of our deferred tax assets. A reduction to our effective state income tax rate during the year ended December 31, 2007 resulted in a reduction to our net deferred tax liability and a corresponding decrease to our income tax expense. This decrease in our effective state income tax rate was primarily attributable to expansion of our operating footprint into lower taxing states and state tax planning. We

recorded an additional $2.5 million income tax benefit during the year ended December 31, 2007 due to a TMT credit, which has been recorded as a deferred tax asset. We estimate that our future TMT liability will be based on our gross revenues in Texas, rather than our apportioned taxable income. Therefore, we believe that it is more likely than not that our TMT credit will be recovered and, accordingly, we have not established a valuation allowance against this asset.

 

We record deferred tax assets and liabilities arising from differing treatments of items for tax and accounting purposes. Deferred tax assets are also established for the expected future tax benefits to be derived from net operating loss carryforwards, capital loss carryforwards and income tax credits. We then periodically assess the likelihood that our deferred tax assets will be recovered from future taxable income. This assessment requires significant judgment. To the extent we believe it is more likely than not that our deferred tax assets will not be recovered, we must establish a valuation allowance. As part of this periodic assessment for the year ended December 31, 2007, we weighed the positive and negative factors with respect to this determination and, at this time, except with respect to the realization of the TMT credit discussed above, do 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 our deferred tax assets will be realized. We will continue to closely monitor the positive and negative factors to determine whether its valuation allowance should be released. 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.

 

At such time as we determine 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. Pursuant to SOP 90-7, up to $218.5 million in future decreases in the valuation allowance established in fresh-start reporting will be accounted for as a reduction of goodwill rather than as a reduction of income tax expense if the valuation allowance decrease occurs prior to the effective date of SFAS 141(R). Effective January 1, 2009, SFAS 141(R) provides that any reduction in the valuation allowance established in fresh-start reporting be accounted for as a reduction to income tax expense.

 

On January 1, 2007, we adopted the provisions of FIN 48, “Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes — an interpretation of FASB Statement No. 109,” or FIN 48. At the date of adoption and during the year ended December 31, 2007, our unrecognized income tax benefits and uncertain tax positions were not material. Interest and penalties related to uncertain tax positions are recognized by us as a component of income tax expense but were immaterial on the date of adoption and for the year ended December 31, 2007. All of our tax years from 1998 to 2006 remain open to examination by federal and state taxing authorities.

 

During the years ended December 31, 2006 and 2005, we recorded income tax expense of $9.3 million and $21.6 million, respectively. Income tax expense for the year ended December 31, 2006 consisted primarily of the tax effect of changes in deferred tax liabilities associated with wireless licenses, tax goodwill and investments in certain joint ventures. During the year ended December 31, 2005, we recorded income tax expense at an effective tax rate of 41.3%. Despite the fact that we recorded a full valuation allowance on our deferred tax assets, we recognized income tax expense for 2005 because the release of valuation allowance associated with the reversal of deferred tax assets recorded in fresh-start reporting was recorded as a reduction of goodwill rather than as a reduction of income tax expense. The effective tax rate for 2005 was higher than the statutory tax rate due primarily to permanent items not deductible for tax purposes. We incurred tax losses for the year due to, among other things, tax deductions associated with the repayment of our 13% senior secured pay-in-kind notes and tax losses and reversals of deferred tax assets associated with the sale of wireless licenses and operating assets. We paid only minimal cash income taxes for 2006, and we expect to pay $1.3 million in cash income taxes for the year ended December 31, 2007.

 

Quarterly Financial Data (Unaudited)

 

The following tables present summarized data for each interim period for the years ended December 31, 2007 and 2006. The following financial information reflects all normal recurring adjustments that are, in the opinion of management, necessary for a fair statement of our results of operations for the interim periods presented (in thousands, except per share data):

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quarterly Results of Operations Data (Unaudited)

 

The following table presents our unaudited condensed consolidated quarterly statement of operations data for 2007 (in thousands) which has been derived from our unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements.

 

 

 

 

Performance Measures

 

In managing our business and assessing our financial performance, management supplements the information provided by financial statement measures with several customer-focused performance metrics that are widely used in the telecommunications industry. These metrics include average revenue per user per month, or ARPU, which measures service revenue per customer; CPGA, which measures the average cost of acquiring a new customer; cash costs per user per month, or CCU, which measures the non-selling cash cost of operating our business on a per customer basis; and churn, which measures turnover in our customer base. CPGA and CCU are non-GAAP financial measures. A non-GAAP financial measure, within the meaning of Item 10 of Regulation S-K promulgated by the SEC, is a numerical measure of a company’s financial performance or cash flows that (a) excludes amounts, or is subject to adjustments that have the effect of excluding amounts, which are included in the most directly comparable measure calculated and presented in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in the consolidated balance sheets, consolidated statements of operations or consolidated statements of cash flows; or (b) includes amounts, or is subject to adjustments that have the effect of including amounts, which are excluded

from the most directly comparable measure so calculated and presented. See “Reconciliation of Non-GAAP Financial Measures” below for a reconciliation of CPGA and CCU to the most directly comparable GAAP financial measures.

 

ARPU is service revenue divided by the weighted-average number of customers, divided by the number of months during the period being measured. Management uses ARPU to identify average revenue per customer, to track changes in average customer revenues over time, to help evaluate how changes in our business, including changes in our service offerings and fees, affect average revenue per customer, and to forecast future service revenue. In addition, ARPU provides management with a useful measure to compare our subscriber revenue to that of other wireless communications providers. We believe investors use ARPU primarily as a tool to track changes in our average revenue per customer and to compare our per customer service revenues to those of other wireless communications providers. Other companies may calculate this measure differently.

 

CPGA is selling and marketing costs (excluding applicable share-based compensation expense included in selling and marketing expense), and equipment subsidy (generally defined as cost of equipment less equipment revenue), less the net loss on equipment transactions unrelated to initial customer acquisition, divided by the total number of gross new customer additions during the period being measured. The net loss on equipment transactions unrelated to initial customer acquisition includes the revenues and costs associated with the sale of handsets to existing customers as well as costs associated with handset replacements and repairs (other than warranty costs which are the responsibility of the handset manufacturers). We deduct customers who do not pay their first monthly bill from our gross customer additions, which tends to increase CPGA because we incur the costs associated with this customer without receiving the benefit of a gross customer addition. Management uses CPGA to measure the efficiency of our customer acquisition efforts, to track changes in our average cost of acquiring new subscribers over time, and to help evaluate how changes in our sales and distribution strategies affect the cost-efficiency of our customer acquisition efforts. In addition, CPGA provides management with a useful measure to compare our per customer acquisition costs with those of other wireless communications providers. We believe investors use CPGA primarily as a tool to track changes in our average cost of acquiring new customers and to compare our per customer acquisition costs to those of other wireless communications providers. Other companies may calculate this measure differently.

 

CCU is cost of service and general and administrative costs (excluding applicable share-based compensation expense included in cost of service and general and administrative expense) plus net loss on equipment transactions unrelated to initial customer acquisition (which includes the gain or loss on the sale of handsets to existing customers and costs associated with handset replacements and repairs (other than warranty costs which are the responsibility of the handset manufacturers)), divided by the weighted-average number of customers, divided by the number of months during the period being measured. CCU does not include any depreciation and amortization expense. Management uses CCU as a tool to evaluate the non-selling cash expenses associated with ongoing business operations on a per customer basis, to track changes in these non-selling cash costs over time, and to help evaluate how changes in our business operations affect non-selling cash costs per customer. In addition, CCU provides management with a useful measure to compare our non-selling cash costs per customer with those of other wireless communications providers. We believe investors use CCU primarily as a tool to track changes in our non-selling cash costs over time and to compare our non-selling cash costs to those of other wireless communications providers. Other companies may calculate this measure differently.

 

Churn, which measures customer turnover, is calculated as the net number of customers that disconnect from our service divided by the weighted-average number of customers divided by the number of months during the period being measured. Customers who do not pay their first monthly bill are deducted from our gross customer additions in the month that they are disconnected; as a result, these customers are not included in churn. In addition, customers are generally disconnected from service approximately 30 days after failing to pay a monthly bill. Beginning during the quarter ended June 30, 2007, pay-in-advance customers who ask to terminate their service are disconnected when their paid service period ends, whereas previously these customers were generally disconnected on the date of their request to terminate service. Management uses churn to measure our retention of customers, to measure changes in customer retention over time, and to help evaluate how changes in our business affect customer retention. In addition, churn provides management with a useful measure to compare our customer turnover activity to that of other wireless communications providers. We believe investors use churn primarily as a tool to track

changes in our customer retention over time and to compare our customer retention to that of other wireless communications providers. Other companies may calculate this measure differently.

 

The following table shows metric information for 2007:

 

 

Reconciliation of Non-GAAP Financial Measures

 

We utilize certain financial measures, as described above, that are widely used in the industry but that are not calculated based on GAAP. Certain of these financial measures are considered “non-GAAP” financial measures within the meaning of Item 10 of Regulation S-K promulgated by the SEC.

 

CPGA — The following table reconciles total costs used in the calculation of CPGA to selling and marketing expense, which we consider to be the most directly comparable GAAP financial measure to CPGA (in thousands, except gross customer additions and CPGA):

 

CCU — The following table reconciles total costs used in the calculation of CCU to cost of service, which we consider to be the most directly comparable GAAP financial measure to CCU (in thousands, except weighted-average number of customers and CCU):