Case 20-32299-KLP Doc 2247 Filed 05/24/21 Entered 05/24/21 17:44:23 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 19
WATT, TIEDER, HOFFAR & WHITE AND WILLIAMS LLP FITZGERALD, L.L.P. Heidi J. Sorvino, Esq. (pro hac vice pending) Jennifer Larkin Kneeland (VSB 71187) James C. Vandermark, Esq. (pro hac vice pending) Marguerite Lee DeVoll (VSB 93474) 7 Times Square, Suite 2900 1765 Greensboro Station Place New York, NY 10036 Suite 1000 (212) 244-9500 McLean, Virginia 22102 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA RICHMOND DIVISION
In re: Chapter 11
INTELSAT, S.A. et al.,1 Case No. 20-32299 (KLP) Debtor. (Jointly Administered)
OBJECTION AND RESERVATION OF RIGHTS OF SPACE-COMMUNICATION LTD. WITH RESPECT TO NOTICE OF REJECTION OF CERTAIN EXECUTORY CONTRACTS AND/OR UNEXPIRED LEASES
Space-Communication Ltd. (“Spacecom”) hereby files this objection (the “Objection”) in
response to the Notice of Rejection of Certain Executory Contracts and/or Unexpired Leases [ECF
No. 2160] (the “Rejection Notice”) filed by the debtors in the above captioned chapter 11
proceedings (the “Debtors”) seeking to reject certain agreements between Spacecom and Intelsat
Satellite LLC (“Intelsat”). In support of this Objection, Spacecom submits the Declaration of
Ariel Perets (the “Perets Declaration”) and states as follows:
1 Due to the large number of Debtors in these chapter 11 cases, for which joint administration has been granted, a complete list of the Debtor entities and the last four digits of their federal tax identification numbers is not provided herein. A complete list may be obtained on the website of the Debtors’ claims and noticing agent at https://cases.stretto.com/intelsat. Case 20-32299-KLP Doc 2247 Filed 05/24/21 Entered 05/24/21 17:44:23 Desc Main Document Page 2 of 19
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1. Intelsat and Spacecom entered into the Spacecom Agreements (as defined below)
to coordinate the use of certain satellite frequencies. The continuation of the terms of these
agreements is critical to the success of both parties and Intelsat should not be permitted to reject
them in these chapter 11 proceedings.
2. Moreover, the Debtors’ attempt at rejecting these agreements must fail because:
a. the Satellite Network Agreement (as defined below) is not executory and thus,
not subject to rejection;
b. the Debtors cannot show that the rejection of the Spacecom Agreements meets
the public interest standard, which is applicable due to the significant
government interests involved, including those of the State of Israel and the
International Telecommunications Union (the “ITU”) as set forth in the letter
dated May 23, 2021, from Mr. Nati Schubert, on behalf of the State of Israel’s
Ministry of Communications, to Jessica Rosenworcel, Acting Chairwoman of
the Federal Communications Commission (the “FCC Letter”);
c. the Debtors also cannot show that the rejection of the Spacecom Agreements
meets the business judgment standard because they have not shown any benefit
to the general unsecured creditors in this case, plus the benefit to the Debtors of
rejecting the Spacecom Agreements, if any, is minor compared to the
devastation to Spacecom and third parties; and
d. even if the Spacecom Agreements are rejected they are not terminated, so
Spacecom is entitled to the ongoing exclusive use of Group A Frequencies (as
defined below) and Intelsat will still be obligated to pay the Coordination Fee
-2- Case 20-32299-KLP Doc 2247 Filed 05/24/21 Entered 05/24/21 17:44:23 Desc Main Document Page 3 of 19
(as defined below) for the benefits conveyed on Intelsat for use of Group B
Frequencies (as defined below) after January 1, 2021.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The Parties
3. As set forth in the Declaration of David Tolley, Executive Vice President, Chief
Financial Officer, and Co-Chief Restructuring Officer of Intelsat S.A. in Support of Chapter 11
Petitions and First Day Motions [ECF No. 6] (the “Tolley Declaration”), the Debtors “operate[]
the world’s largest satellite fleet and connectivity infrastructure, and provide[] diversified
communications services to many of the world’s leading media companies, telecommunications
operators, Internet service providers, and the U.S. government and military.” Tolley Declaration,
¶ 5.
4. Spacecom is a global fixed satellite operator and satellite service provider, offering
tailored end-to-end communication solutions to the media and broadband industries. Spacecom’s
partners include, a variety of leading broadcasters, satellite service providers, government
agencies, and other communications businesses throughout Europe, the Middle East, Asia and
Africa. Perets Declaration, ¶ 3.
Agreements Between the Parties
5. On August 31, 2013, Spacecom launched a new satellite known as AMOS-4, which
established an orbital position at 65ºE and began its commercial operation in such position during
December 2013. Perets Declaration, ¶ 4. This enabled Spacecom to provide a full range of satellite
services in Asia, the Middle East, and Africa, including extensive broadcast and broadband
services into both the urban and rural areas of these regions. Perets Declaration, ¶ 4. It is expected
-3- Case 20-32299-KLP Doc 2247 Filed 05/24/21 Entered 05/24/21 17:44:23 Desc Main Document Page 4 of 19
the AMOS-4 will have a useful life expectancy of approximately fifteen (15) years. Perets
Declaration, ¶ 4.
6. Spacecom and Intelsat entered into that certain Coordination Agreement dated June
6, 2013 (the “Coordination Agreement”) to establish mutually acceptable conditions for the
simultaneous operations of Spacecom networks at the orbital location of 65ºE and Intelsat
networks at the orbital locations of 62ºE, 64ºE, 66ºE, and 68.5ºE. Perets Declaration, ¶ 5. The
Coordination Agreement, inter alia, effectively provides each party with the exclusive use of
certain frequencies in certain geographical areas, in which the other party originally had rights, as
follows:
#Band Frequency Associated Party with Use Party with Use Range Geographical Rights Before Rights Under the Area Coordination Coordination Agreement Agreement 1 10.95-11.075 H- South East Asia Intelsat Spacecom pol 2 12.6635-12.75 V- Russian beam Intelsat Spacecom pol 3 13.75-13.8835 Middle East/ Spacecom Intelsat H/V-pol Europe beam, Russian beam 4 13.8835-14.0 V- South African Spacecom Intelsat pol region 5 14.0-14.125 H/V- South East Asia Intelsat Spacecom pol
Perets Declaration, ¶ 5.
7. Spacecom and Intelsat also entered into a Satellite Network Agreement also dated
June 6, 2013 (the “Satellite Network Agreement” or “SNA” and with the Coordination
Agreement, collectively, the “Spacecom Agreements”) to supplement the Coordination
Agreement with certain additional commercial terms that Intelsat’s obligation to pay Spacecom a
coordination fee of US$650,000 per calendar year (the “Coordination Fee”) as additional
-4- Case 20-32299-KLP Doc 2247 Filed 05/24/21 Entered 05/24/21 17:44:23 Desc Main Document Page 5 of 19
consideration for the transfer to Intelsat of the rights to use those certain frequencies as more
specifically set forth in the Spacecom Agreements (i.e. 13.75-13.8835 H/V-pol, and 13.8835-14.0
V-pol, collectively, “Group B Frequencies”). Perets Declaration, ¶ 6. The payment of the
Coordination Fee is the only obligation remaining under the Satellite Network Agreement, which
continues through the later to occur of (i) the 15th anniversary of the start of the commercial
operations of AMOS-4 (i.e., the end of 2028) or (ii) the cessation of station-kept operations of
AMOS-4 at the nominal orbital location of 65ºE. Perets Declaration, ¶ 6.
8. Based on Spacecom’s exclusive rights to use certain frequencies of Intelsat at
certain geographical areas as set forth in the Spacecom Agreements (i.e. 10.95-11.075 H-pol,
12.6635-12.75 V-pol, and 14.0-14.125 H/V-pol (collectively, “Group A Frequencies”)),
Spacecom entered into subsequent agreements with third parties (the “Third Party
Agreements”). Perets Declaration, ¶ 7. The Third Party Agreements provided certain third parties
with the right to use Group A Frequencies through the useful life of AMOS-4. Perets Declaration,
¶ 7. The AMOS-4 annual sales sum to $18 million. Furthermore, the AMOS-4 backlog
(contractual obligation to third parties) for future service sums to over $70 million. Perets
Declaration, ¶ 7.
9. In addition to the commercial uses that generate the significant revenue above,
certain government agencies use Group A Frequencies, including the State of Israel. Perets
Declaration, ¶ 8. Spacecom is unable to provide additional information regarding the government
use of Group A Frequencies due to the confidential and national interests involved. Perets
Declaration, ¶ 8. However, it suffices to state that there are significant non-monetary values
attached to the continued use of Group A Frequencies by such government agencies. Perets
Declaration, ¶ 8. As clearly stated by Mr. Schubert in the FCC Letter, “[t]he national on-going
-5- Case 20-32299-KLP Doc 2247 Filed 05/24/21 Entered 05/24/21 17:44:23 Desc Main Document Page 6 of 19
operations of the Israeli government as well as the operation of major international commercial
entities will be severely damaged by the unilateral rejection by Intelsat of the [Spacecom
Agreements].” Perets Declaration, ¶ 8. The FCC Letter also provides that “unilateral rejection of
a valid coordination agreement by Intelsat is an extreme and aggressive action which is not in line
of the ITU spirit…[and] might set a dangerous precedence in the world of coordination and
coordination agreements, which is governed by the ITU, and severally impair the utilization of
satellite spectrum by satellite operators and users, in contradiction to the ITU very basic concept
of rational and efficient use of the spectrum.” Perets Declaration, ¶ 8.
Bankruptcy
10. On May 13, 2020 (the “Petition Date”), the Debtors filed voluntary petitions for
relief under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.
11. On May 15, 2020, this Court entered the Order (I) Directing Joint Administration
of Chapter 11 Cases and (II) Granting Related Relief [ECF No. 89], which consolidated the
Debtors’ chapter 11 cases for procedural purposes only.
12. Both prior to and after the Petition Date, Intelsat and Spacecom have engaged in
discussions over a potential amendment to the Spacecom Agreements. Perets Declaration, ¶ 10.
These discussions involved an adjustment to the use of the frequencies agreed to under the
Coordination Agreement in addition to Intelsat’s continuing obligation to pay the Coordination
Fee. Perets Declaration, ¶ 10.
13. On September 1, 2020, this Court entered the Order (I) Authorizing and Approving
Procedures to Reject or Assume Executory Contracts and Unexpired Leases, (II) Approving the
Form and Manner of the (A) Rejection Notice and (B) Assumption Notice, and (III) Granting
Related Relief [ECF No. 731] (the “Rejection Procedures Order”), which provided for, amongst
-6- Case 20-32299-KLP Doc 2247 Filed 05/24/21 Entered 05/24/21 17:44:23 Desc Main Document Page 7 of 19
other things, the procedures applicable to rejection of certain contracts. Pursuant to the Rejection
Procedures Order, a party objecting to the Debtors’ proposed rejection of a contract must do so no
later than 14 days after the Debtors serve the applicable notice. Rejection Procedures Order, ¶ 2(b)
and (c).
14. On May 10, 2021, the Debtors filed the Rejection Notice seeking to reject the
Spacecom Agreements. While Intelsat has continued its use of the Group B Frequencies after the
Petition Date, the Rejection Notice provides that the effect date of rejection is the Petition Date.
See Perets Declaration, ¶ 9. This Objection is being timely filed and served pursuant to the
Rejection Procedures Order.
ARGUMENT
15. The Debtors attempt at rejecting the Spacecom Agreements should be denied for
several reasons: (a) the Satellite Network Agreement is not an executory contract, (b) Spacecom
and certain third parties will face devastating harm from the rejection of the Spacecom
Agreements, which is not justified under either the public interest standard or the business
judgment standard, and (c) rejection would provide no benefit to the Debtors because Spacecom
would be entitled to continue its exclusive use of Group A Frequencies and Intelsat would still be
required to pay the Coordination Fee.
I. The Satellite Network Agreement Is Not Executory Because the Only Remaining Obligation Is for Intelsat to Pay the Coordination Fee
16. Intelsat may not reject the Satellite Network Agreement because it is not an
executory contract under the Bankruptcy Code.
17. A debtor has the option, subject to court approval, to reject certain executory
contracts. 11 U.S.C. § 365(a); Mission Prod. Holdings v. Tempnology, LLC, 139 S. Ct. 1652
(2019); U.S. Dep’t of Air Force v. Carolina Parachute Corp., 907 F.2d 1469, 1472 (4th Cir. 199).
-7- Case 20-32299-KLP Doc 2247 Filed 05/24/21 Entered 05/24/21 17:44:23 Desc Main Document Page 8 of 19
18. A contract is executory “if performance is due to some extent on both sides.”
Carolina Parachute Corp., 907 F.2d at 1472 (citing Lubrizol Enters. V. Richmond Metal Finishers,
Inc., 756 F.2d 1043, 1045 (4th Cir. 1985). The Fourth Circuit has adopted the following text by
Professor Countryman for determining whether a contract is executory:
obligations of both the bankrupt and the other party to the contract are so far unperformed that the failure of either to complete the performance would constitute a material breach excusing the performance of the other.
Gloria Manufacturing Corp. v. International Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union, 734 F.2d 1020,
1022 (4th Cir. 1984) (quoting Countryman, Executory Contracts in Bankruptcy: Part I, 57 Minn.
L. Rev. 439, 460 (1973)); Meiburger v. Endeka Enters., LLC (In re Tsiaoushis), 383 B.R. 616, 619
(E.D. Va. 2007).
19. In applying the Countryman definition, courts determine whether both parties have
unperformed obligations and, if not, then the agreement is not executory. Meiburger, 383 B.R. at
620. If both parties have unperformed obligations, the court must determine if “non-performance
would constitute a material breach excusing the other party from further performance. If so,
the…agreement is an executory contract.” Id. (citations omitted). However, a “contract is not
executory as to a party simply because the party is obligated to make payments of money to the
other party.” Lubrizol Enters., 756 F.2d at 1047. A “duty to make fixed payments or cancel
specified indebtedness” is not executory. Id.
20. Here, the Satellite Network Agreement is not an executory contract because the
only remaining obligation contained in the Satellite Network Agreement is the fixed payment of
the Coordination Fee. Since the Satellite Network Agreement is not an executory contract, it is
not subject to rejection under section 365(a) of the Bankruptcy Code.
-8- Case 20-32299-KLP Doc 2247 Filed 05/24/21 Entered 05/24/21 17:44:23 Desc Main Document Page 9 of 19
II. The Court Should Deny the Debtor’s Attempt to Reject the Spacecom Agreements Because the Harm to Spacecom and Third Parties Far Outweighs Any Claimed Benefit to the Estate
21. Even if the Spacecom Agreements are executory contracts under the Bankruptcy
Code, the Debtors cannot show that rejection of the Agreements meets either: (1) the strict public
interest standard that applies to reviewing contracts involving matters of public interest, or (2) the
more deferential business judgment rule.
A. Debtors Cannot Satisfy the Strict Public Interest Standard for Rejection of the Spacecom Agreements Due to the Special Government Interests Involved.
22. The rejection of the Spacecom Agreements would have significant impact on third
parties, including the State of Israel and major international entities. The government agencies
relying upon Group A Frequencies would face significant harm by the rejection of the Spacecom
Agreements and the impact on Spacecom’s rights under these agreements.
23. In National Labor Relations Bd. v. Bildisco, the Supreme Court held that the
standard for determining the rejection of collective bargaining agreements should be stricter than
the traditional “business judgment” standard, even though there was nothing in section 365
indicating that there should be a different standard for collective bargaining agreements. 465 U.S.
513, 523-24 (1984).
24. The Court found that because of the special nature of the rights created for workers
by collective bargaining agreements, a bankruptcy court should not reject collective bargaining
agreements unless the debtor can show that the collective bargaining agreement burdens the estate
and that after careful scrutiny, the equities balance in favor of rejecting the contract. Bildisco, 465
U.S. at 525-26. In fashioning this standard, the Court found that the bankruptcy court must balance
the interests of the affected parties (including the debtor, creditors, and employees) and that in
striking the balance, the court should consider both the type and the degree of hardship faced by
-9- Case 20-32299-KLP Doc 2247 Filed 05/24/21 Entered 05/24/21 17:44:23 Desc Main Document Page 10 of 19
each party. Id. at 527. Moreover, the Court stated that the bankruptcy court “must have great
latitude to consider any type of evidence relevant to” the issue of rejection. Id.
25. Similarly, in Mirant Corp., the Fifth Circuit directed the district court to consider
the more rigorous standard used in Bildisco to a debtor’s attempted rejection of contracts relating
to electricity rates. 378 F.3d 511, 525 (5th Cir. 2004). The Fifth Circuit recognized that the
rejection of the contract would impair the financial ability of the contract counterparty and cast
upon the consumers an excessive burden and thus, believed the more rigorous standard was
applicable due to the public interests involved. Id. Since the business judgment standard does not
account for public interests, it was not appropriate for the review of contracts that involved public
interests. Id.
26. The standard of review espoused by Bildisco and Mirant Corp., has been referred
to as the “public interest standard.” See In Pilgrim’s Pride Corp., 403. B.R. 413, 421 n. 19 (Bankr.
N.D. Tex. 2009). It applies to “executory contracts that are so significant in terms of public policy
that a court, in determining whether a chapter 11 debtor should be permitted to reject such a
contract pursuant to section 355(a)…must take that policy into account.” Id.
27. Here, there are a number of public policy concerns related to the rejection of the
Spacecom Agreements. The FCC Letter highlights the potential damage to Israeli government as
well as the potential for creating “dangerous precedence” that would be in contradiction to the
common practices of coordination which are governed by the ITU. The ITU is the principal
international organization involved in establishing technical rules and regulations for the proper
and efficient use of satellites for communication purposes. A rejection of the Spacecom
Agreements, that terminates Spacecom’s use of Group A Frequencies, would undermine the
-10- Case 20-32299-KLP Doc 2247 Filed 05/24/21 Entered 05/24/21 17:44:23 Desc Main Document Page 11 of 19
regulations and constructs created by the ITU for the long-term efficient operation of the world’s
international telecommunication network.
28. The international interests associated with the Spacecom Agreements, including
those of the State of Israel and the ITU, involve significant public interests and national concerns
in multiple territories. The Debtors are well aware of the public interests involved and potential
impact of rejecting the Spacecom Agreements. Perets Declaration, ¶ 8.
29. Given the significant public interests in the efficient and stable use of satellites, as
regulated by the ITU, and the specific government interests expressed by the State of Israel, this
court should apply the public interest standard set forth in Bildisco and Mirant Corp. to determine
whether to reject the Agreements. By applying the public interest standard, it is clear that the
Debtors cannot meet their burden. Any benefit obtained by the Debtors is outweighed by the fact
it jeopardizes the ability of satellite operators to rely on the ITU’s common practices of similar
coordination agreements and also the potentially devastating harm imposed on governments,
namely the State of Israel.
B. Under the Business Judgment Standard, Rejection is Not Appropriate as Any Benefit to Intelsat is Outweighed by the Potential Harm Caused by Rejecting the Agreement
30. Even if this Court applies the business judgment standard, the Debtors have not met
their burden of proving that rejection is warranted.
31. A debtor’s attempt to reject a contract is not rubber-stamped by bankruptcy courts;
rather, a debtor must show, at a minimum, that rejection of the executory contract meets the
business judgment standard. See Quality Inns Int’l, Inc. v. L.B.H. Assocs., 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS
27338 at *19-20 (4th Cir. July 26, 1990). Under the business judgment rule, “courts should defer
to – should not interfere with – decisions of corporate directors upon matters entrusted to their
-11- Case 20-32299-KLP Doc 2247 Filed 05/24/21 Entered 05/24/21 17:44:23 Desc Main Document Page 12 of 19
business judgment except upon a finding of bad faith or gross abuse of their “business discretion”.
Lubrizol Enters., at 1047. As regards the rejection of executory contracts, a bankruptcy court
reviews to determine “whether the decision of the debtor that rejection will be advantageous is so
manifestly unreasonable that it could not be based on sound business judgment, but only on bad
faith, or whim or caprice.” Lubrizol Enters., 756 F.2d at 1047. Thus, a court must determine
whether rejection of the contract is advantageous for the debtor before allowing rejection. In re
Sandman Assocs., 251 B.R. 473, 481 (W.D. Va. 2000) (“if the decision to reject is ‘manifestly
unreasonable,’ it should not be approved”).
32. Rejection of contracts should also be disallowed under the business judgment
standard where the estate cannot show that doing so will benefit the general unsecured creditors
of the estate, as opposed to the debtor itself (or its equity holders). See Dunes Hotel Assoc. v. Hyatt
Corp. (In re Dunes Hotel Assoc.), 194 B.R. 967 (Bankr. D.S.C. 1995). In Dunes, the court found
that one of the critical inquiries under the business judgment standard set forth in Lubrizol is
whether the proposed rejection will actually benefit the estate, i.e., the unsecured creditors, or just
the debtor itself. Id. at 988 (“the proper test under Lubrizol is whether the benefit of rejection is
to the estate rather than the individual debtor.”). This includes consideration of whether rejection
would result in disproportionate harm to the non-debtor party to the contract. Id. (finding that
rejecting of hotel lease would only benefit the debtor and not the estate, due, in part, to the
significant claims that would result for breach of the rejected contract); see also In re Midwest
Polychem, Ltd., 61 B.R. 559, 562 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1986) (recognizing that judicial approval of
contract rejection is not a “rubber stamp,” balancing equities when assessing business judgment,
and disallowing rejection that would not necessarily have benefited the debtor’s unsecured
creditors and could have “mortally wounded” the counterparty).
-12- Case 20-32299-KLP Doc 2247 Filed 05/24/21 Entered 05/24/21 17:44:23 Desc Main Document Page 13 of 19
33. The rejection of the Spacecom Agreements will cause significant harm to
Spacecom and third parties if it terminates Spacecom’s use of Group A Frequencies. Conversely,
there is little to no benefit to the estate. As addressed below, the rejection of the Spacecom
Agreements should not terminate Spacecom’s exclusive right to use Group A Frequencies.
However, to the extent Intelsat intends the rejection of the Spacecom Agreements to terminate
those exclusive rights, Spacecom would be irreparably harmed. Aside from the potential harm to
the government interests discussed above, if the Spacecom Agreements are rejected and the rights
to exclusive use of frequencies terminated, it is estimated that Spacecom could face significant
damages due to revenue losses from the Third Party Agreements and potential damages owed to
those third parties. This would be devastating to Spacecom’s operations.
34. In contrast, Intelsat has not shown any significant benefit to the estate. Even if
Intelsat could avoid paying the Coordination Fee, which is disputed, it has not shown that doing
so would benefit the general unsecured creditors in this case or otherwise benefit the estate.
Moreover, if Intelsat intends the rejection to terminate Spacecom’s use of Group A Frequencies,
then Intelsat would also lose the exclusive use of Group B Frequencies. As Intelsat has been using
those frequencies before and after the Petition Date and even to date, it is likely that Intelsat would
face significant financial losses if it did not have the exclusive right to Group B Frequencies. Perets
Declaration, ¶ 12.
III. Rejection of the Spacecom Agreements Would Not Terminate the Exclusive Right of Spacecom to Use Group A Frequencies or the Obligation of Intelsat to Pay the Coordination Fee
35. Even if the Court allows Intelsat to reject the Spacecom Agreements, the rights
provided to Spacecom would survive, including the exclusive right to use Group A Frequencies
and receive the annual Coordination Fee.
-13- Case 20-32299-KLP Doc 2247 Filed 05/24/21 Entered 05/24/21 17:44:23 Desc Main Document Page 14 of 19
A. Even if the Spacecom Agreements Are Rejected, Spacecom Will Retain the Exclusive Right to Group A Frequencies
36. Section 365(g) of the Bankruptcy Code, states that rejection “‘constitutes a breach
of [an executory] contract,’ deemed to occur ‘immediately before the date of the filing of the
petition.’” Mission Prod. Holdings, 139 S. Ct. at 1661. While “breach” is not defined by the
Bankruptcy Code, “[i]t means in the [Bankruptcy] Code what it means in contract law outside
bankruptcy.” Id. (citing Field v. Mans, 516 U.S. 59, 69 (1995)).
37. Significantly, a debtor’s rejection of a contract “does not terminate the contract.”
Mission Prod. Holdings, 139 S. Ct. at 1662. A debtor cannot rescind rights conveyed pursuant to
a rejected contract. Mission Prod. Holdings, 139 S. Ct. at 1662-1663, 1666. As the Supreme
Court clearly stated:
Whatever “limitations on the debtor’s property apply outside of bankruptcy apply inside of bankruptcy as well. A debtor’s property does not shrink by happenstance of bankruptcy, but it does not expand, either. So if the not-yet debtor was subject to a counterparty’s contractual right (say, to retain a copier or use a trademark), so too is the trustee or debtor once the bankruptcy petition has been filed. The rejection-as-breach rule (but not the rejection-as-rescission rule) ensures that result. By insisting that the same counterparty rights survive rejection as survive breach, the rule prevents a debtor in bankruptcy from recapturing interests it had given up.”
Id. at 1663 (quoting D. Baird, Elements of Bankruptcy 97 (6th ed. 2014). Thus, after rejection, a
counter-party may continue to exercise whatever rights were granted by the rejected contract. Id.
38. Under the Spacecom Agreements, Intelsat gave up any right to use Group A
Frequencies and Spacecom obtained the exclusive right to Group A Frequencies. As set forth in
Mission Prod. Holdings, Intelsat’s rejection of the Spacecom Agreements would not allow Intelsat
to recapture any interests in Group A Frequencies that were given up. Thus, Spacecom will
-14- Case 20-32299-KLP Doc 2247 Filed 05/24/21 Entered 05/24/21 17:44:23 Desc Main Document Page 15 of 19
maintain the exclusive right to Group A Frequencies, regardless of whether the Spacecom
Agreements are rejected.
B. Even if the Spacecom Agreements Are Rejected, Intelsat Will Be Obligated to Continue to Pay the Coordination Fee
39. To the extent that Intelsat intends to continue use of Group B Frequencies, Intelsat’s
obligation to pay the Coordination Fee would continue. Moreover, even if Intelsat does not intend
to use Group B Frequencies, Spacecom is entitled to an administrative expense claim for Intelsat’s
use of Group B Frequencies since the Petition Date and until Intelsat ceases use of Group B
Frequencies.
40. Section 503(b)(1)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that:
After notice and a hearing, there shall be allowed, administrative expenses, other than claims allowed under section 502(f) of this title, including — (1)(A) the actual, necessary costs and expenses of preserving the estate ...
11 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(A).
41. Under Section 503(b)(1)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code, “[a]n expense is
administrative only if it arises out of a transaction between the creditor and the bankrupt’s trustee
or debtor in possession, and only to the extent that the consideration supporting the claimant’s
right to payment was both supplied to and beneficial to the debtor-in-possession in the operation
of the business.” In re Bethlehem Steel Corp., 479 F.3d 167, 172 (2d Cir. 2007) (citing Trustees
of Amalgamated Ins. Fund v. McFarlin’s, 789 F.2d 98, 101 (2d Cir. 1986)).
42. It is well established that "if a debtor in possession elects to continue to receive
benefits from the other party to an executory contract pending a decision to reject or assume a
contract, the debtor in possession is obligated to pay for the reasonable value of those services."
See NLRB v. Bildisco & Bildisco, 465 U.S. at 531. Fundamentally, "[t]ransactions in the ordinary
-15- Case 20-32299-KLP Doc 2247 Filed 05/24/21 Entered 05/24/21 17:44:23 Desc Main Document Page 16 of 19
course of business of the debtor in possession create expenses of administration." In re Crystal
Apparel, Inc., 220 B.R. 816, 830 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1998). Simply put: a debtor-in-possession
must pay administrative expenses if it induces the counter-contracting party to perform and
receives a benefit from that performance. In re Globe Metallurgical, Inc., 312 B.R. 34, 40 (Bankr.
S.D.N.Y. 2004).
43. Here, Intelsat continued to use Group B Frequencies after the Petition Date and
through the date of filing this Objection. While Intelsat seeks to set the effective date of rejection
as the Petition Date, this does not reflect reality or the appropriate date of rejection. The correct
date for rejection is the date that rejection is authorized by the court, which does not relate back to
the Petition Date. See Gloria Mfg. Corp., 734 F.2d at 1022 (finding the bankruptcy court correctly
reviewed the appropriateness of rejection based on the current status of the contract and not the
date of the filing of the petition); See also In re Roomstore, Inc., 473 B.R. 107, 114 (Bankr. E.D.
Va. 2012). Thus, if this Court allows rejection of the Spacecom Agreements, the effective date of
rejection should be the date that this Court makes such a determination.
44. Spacecom is entitled to the Coordination Fee as an administrative expense claim
for the ongoing benefit provided to the bankruptcy estate. Spacecom’s right to the Coordination
Fee will only be terminated if the Court allows the rejection of the Spacecom Agreements and
Intelsat ceases exclusive use of Group B Frequencies.
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
45. Pursuant to Rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence (as incorporated by Rule
9017 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure), Spacecom respectfully request that this Court
take judicial notice of the pleadings filed in this case and the facts set forth in this Court’s Orders.
-16- Case 20-32299-KLP Doc 2247 Filed 05/24/21 Entered 05/24/21 17:44:23 Desc Main Document Page 17 of 19
RESERVATION OF RIGHTS
46. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Spacecom expressly reserves all (and does not
hereby waive any) of its (a) rights, claims, counterclaims, defenses, interests, actions and remedies
related to (i) assumption or rejection of any executory contract or unexpired lease to which it is a
counterpart, (ii) any claim or proof of claim that has been filed or may be filed in the future, (iii)
any administrative expense claim as may be asserted hereinafter, including without limitation the
(A) right to a judicial determination of the amount(s) due and owing with regard to any claim, (B)
the right to resolution of all issues implicated by Spacecom’s claims and/or contracts between
Spacecom and the Debtors, (C) the right to amend, modify or supplement this Objection in
response to, or as a result of, any submission by any party-in-interest, (D) the right to adopt any
other pleadings filed by any other party related to Spacecom’s claims or this Objection, and (E)
the right to discovery as permitted for contested matters pursuant to Rule 9014 of the Federal Rules
of Bankruptcy Procedures (collectively, the “Reservation of Rights”).
CONCLUSION
47. WHEREFORE, Spacecom respectfully requests that the Court enter an order
denying Intelsat’s attempted rejection of the Spacecom Agreements, without prejudice to
Spacecom’s right to request payment from the Debtors upon further application to this Court,
approving the Reservation of Rights, and granting such additional relief as this Court deems just
and proper.
Dated: May 24, 2021 WATT, TIEDER, HOFFAR & FITZGERALD L.L.P.
/s/ Marguerite Lee DeVoll Jennifer L. Kneeland, Esq. (VSB 71187) Marguerite Lee DeVoll, Esq. (VSB 93474) 1765 Greensboro Station Place, Suite 1000 McLean, VA 22102 Phone: (703) 749-1000
-17- Case 20-32299-KLP Doc 2247 Filed 05/24/21 Entered 05/24/21 17:44:23 Desc Main Document Page 18 of 19
Fax: (703) 893-8029 [email protected] [email protected]
-and-
WHITE AND WILLIAMS LLP Heidi J. Sorvino, Esq. (pro hac vice pending) James C. Vandermark, Esq. (pro hac vice pending) 7 Times Square, Suite 2900 New York, NY 10036 (212) 244-9500 [email protected] [email protected]
Counsel for Space-Communication Ltd.
-18- Case 20-32299-KLP Doc 2247 Filed 05/24/21 Entered 05/24/21 17:44:23 Desc Main Document Page 19 of 19
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Marguerite Lee DeVoll, Esq., hereby certify that on May 24, 2021, I caused a true and
correct copy of the foregoing pleading to be served on all parties that have requested notice in
these Chapter 11 cases through the Court’s CM/ECF system and via e-mail the following:
Anthony R. Grossi Jeremy S. Williams Ameneh M. Bordi Brian H. Richardson Kirkland & Ellis LLP Kutak Rock LLP 601 Lexington Avenue 901 East Byrd Street, Suite 1000 New York, New York 10222 Richmond, Virginia 23219 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
Co-Counsel to the Debtors and Co-Counsel to the Debtors and Debtors in Debtors in Possession Possession
Dennis F. Dunne Kenneth N. Whitehurst III Matthew L. Brod B. Webb King Milbank LLP Shannon F. Pecoraro 55 Hudson Yards Kathryn P. Montgomery New York, New York 10001 Office of the U.S. Trustee [email protected] 701 East Broad Street [email protected] Suite 4304 Richmond, Virginia 22319 Counsel for the Creditors’ Committee [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
/s/ Marguerite Lee DeVoll Marguerite Lee DeVoll
-19- Case 20-32299-KLP Doc 2247-1 Filed 05/24/21 Entered 05/24/21 17:44:23 Desc Declaration of Ariel Perets Page 1 of 7
WATT, TIEDER, HOFFAR & WHITE AND WILLIAMS LLP FITZGERALD, L.L.P. Heidi J. Sorvino, Esq. Jennifer Larkin Kneeland, Esq. James C. Vandermark, Esq. Marguerite Lee DeVoll, Esq. 7 Times Square, Suite 2900 1765 Greensboro Station Place New York, NY 10036 Suite 1000 (212) 244-9500 McLean, Virginia 22102 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA RICHMOND DIVISION
In re: Chapter 11
INTELSAT, S.A. et al.,1 Case No. 20-32299 (KLP) Debtor. (Jointly Administered)
DECLARATION OF ARIEL PERETS IN SUPPORT OF THE OBJECTION AND RESERVATION OF RIGHTS OF SPACE-COMMUNICATION LTD. WITH RESPECT TO NOTICE OF REJECTION OF CERTAIN EXECUTORY CONTRACTS AND/OR UNEXPIRED LEASES
I, Ariel Perets, under penalty of perjury and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, hereby submit
this declaration in support of the objection (the “Objection”)2 filed by Space-Communication
Ltd. (“Spacecom”) in response to the Notice of Rejection of Certain Executory Contracts and/or
Unexpired Leases [ECF No. 2160] (the “Rejection Notice”) filed by the debtors in the above
captioned chapter 11 proceedings (the “Debtors”) seeking to reject certain agreements between
Spacecom and Intelsat Satellite LLC (“Intelsat”) and state as follows:
1 Due to the large number of Debtors in these chapter 11 cases, for which joint administration has been granted, a complete list of the Debtor entities and the last four digits of their federal tax identification numbers is not provided herein. A complete list may be obtained on the website of the Debtors’ claims and noticing agent at https://cases.stretto.com/intelsat. 2 Capitalized terms used herein but not defined shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the Objection.
- 1 - 27174979v.3 Case 20-32299-KLP Doc 2247-1 Filed 05/24/21 Entered 05/24/21 17:44:23 Desc Declaration of Ariel Perets Page 2 of 7
1. I am a Director, Spectrum Development & Regulatory Affairs of Spacecom,
which is a counter-party to certain agreements with Intelsat. Unless otherwise indicated below, I
make this declaration based on my personal knowledge and my review of Spacecom’s business
records as described in paragraph 2 below.
2. In my capacity with Spacecom, I am one of Spacecom’s employees responsible
for managing coordination contracts, including the Spacecom Agreements (as defined below),
which are the subject of the Rejection Notice and Objection. I have access to certain of
Spacecom’s records, including Spacecom’s records relating to the Spacecom Agreements. As
stated in more detail below, Spacecom entered into the Spacecom Agreements on or about June
6, 2013. Following the date upon which Spacecom entered into the Spacecom Agreements,
Spacecom made and maintained computerized records indicating the sums advanced, and
payments made, on account of the Spacecom Agreements, in and communications between
employees of Spacecom and Intelsat, in the course of its regularly conducted business activities.
Those records were made at or near the time of the occurrence of the events which they reflect,
by or from information transmitted by a person with knowledge. It is the regular practice of
Spacecom to make and maintain such records in the ordinary course of a regularly conducted
business activity
3. Spacecom is a global fixed satellite operator and satellite service provider,
offering tailored end-to-end communication solutions to the media and broadband industries.
Spacecom’s partners include, a variety of leading broadcasters, satellite service providers,
government agencies, and other communications businesses throughout Europe, the Middle East,
Asia and Africa.
- 2 - 27174979v.3 Case 20-32299-KLP Doc 2247-1 Filed 05/24/21 Entered 05/24/21 17:44:23 Desc Declaration of Ariel Perets Page 3 of 7
4. On August 31, 2013, Spacecom launched a new satellite known as AMOS-4,
which established an orbital position at 65ºE and began its commercial operation in such position
during December 2013. This enabled Spacecom to provide a full range of satellite services in
Asia, the Middle Ease, and Africa, including extensive broadcast and broadband services into
both the urban and rural areas of these regions. It is expected the AMOS-4 will have a useful life
expectancy of approximately fifteen (15) years.
5. Spacecom and Intelsat entered into that certain Coordination Agreement dated
June 6, 2013 (the “Coordination Agreement”) to establish mutually acceptable conditions for
the simultaneous operations of Spacecom networks at the orbital location of 65ºE and Intelsat
networks at the orbital locations of 62ºE, 64ºE, 66ºE, and 68.5ºE. A true and correct copy of the
Coordination Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit A. The Coordination Agreement, inter
alia, effectively provides each party with the exclusive use of certain frequencies in certain
geographical areas, in which the other party originally had rights, as follows:
#Band Frequency Range Associated Party with Use Party with Use Rights Geographical Rights Before Under the Area Coordination Coordination Agreement Agreement 1 10.95-11.075 H-pol South East Asia Intelsat Spacecom 2 12.6635-12.75 V-pol Russian beam Intelsat Spacecom 3 13.75-13.8835 H/V- Middle East/ Spacecom Intelsat pol Europe beam, Russian beam 4 13.8835-14.0 V-pol South African Spacecom Intelsat region 5 14.0-14.125 H/V-pol South East Asia Intelsat Spacecom
6. Spacecom and Intelsat also entered into a Satellite Network Agreement also dated
June 6, 2013 (the “Satellite Network Agreement” or “SNA” and with the Coordination
Agreement, collectively, the “Spacecom Agreements”) to supplement the Coordination
Agreement with certain additional commercial terms that provided for Intelsat’s obligation to
- 3 - 27174979v.3 Case 20-32299-KLP Doc 2247-1 Filed 05/24/21 Entered 05/24/21 17:44:23 Desc Declaration of Ariel Perets Page 4 of 7
pay Spacecom a coordination fee of US$650,000 per calendar year (the “Coordination Fee”). A
true and correct copy of the Satellite Network Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit B. The
payment of the Coordination Fee is the only obligation remaining under the Satellite Network
Agreement, which continues through the later to occur of (i) the 15th anniversary of the start of
the commercial operations of AMOS-4 (i.e. the end of 2028) or (ii) the cessation of station-kept
operations of AMOS-4 at the nominal orbital location of 65ºE.
7. Based on Spacecom’s exclusive rights to use certain frequencies at certain
geographical areas as set forth in the Spacecom Agreements (i.e. 10.95-11.075 H-pol, 12.6635-
12.75 V-pol, and 14.0-14.125 H/V-pol (collectively, “Group A Frequencies”)), Spacecom
entered into subsequent agreements with third parties (the “Third Party Agreements”). The
Third Party Agreements provided certain third parties with the right to use Group A Frequencies
through the useful life of AMOS-4. The AMOS-4 annual sales sum to $18 million.
Furthermore, the AMOS-4 backlog (contractual obligation to third parties) for future service
sums to over $70 million.
8. In addition to the commercial uses that generate the significant revenue above,
certain government agencies use Group A Frequencies, including the State of Israel. Spacecom
is unable to provide additional information regarding the government use of Group A
Frequencies due to the confidential and national interests involved. However, it suffices to state
that there are significant non-monetary values attached to the continued use of Group A
Frequencies by such government agencies. As clearly stated by Mr. Schubert in the letter dated
May 23, 2021, sent by Mr. Nati Schubert, on behalf of the State of Israel’s Ministry of
Communications, to Jessica Rosenworcel, Acting Chairwoman of the Federal Communications
Commission (the “FCC Letter”), “[t]he national on-going operations of the Israeli government
- 4 - 27174979v.3 Case 20-32299-KLP Doc 2247-1 Filed 05/24/21 Entered 05/24/21 17:44:23 Desc Declaration of Ariel Perets Page 5 of 7
as well as the operation of major international commercial entities will be severely damaged by
the unilateral rejection by Intelsat of the [Spacecom Agreements].” A true and correct copy of
the FCC Letter is attached hereto as Exhibit C. The FCC Letter also provides that “unilateral
rejection of a valid coordination agreement by Intelsat is an extreme and aggressive action which
is not in line of the ITU spirit…[and] might set a dangerous precedence in the world of
coordination and coordination agreements, which is governed by the ITU, and severally impair
the utilization of satellite spectrum by satellite operators and users, in contradiction to the ITU
very basic concept of rational and efficient use of the spectrum.” The Debtors are well aware of
the public interests involved and potential impact of rejecting the Spacecom Agreements
9. Similarly, Intelsat also received the exclusive use of certain frequencies pursuant
to the Coordination Agreement (i.e. 13.75-13.8835 H/V-pol, and 13.8835-14.0 V-pol,
collectively, “Group B Frequencies”).
10. Both prior to and after the Petition Date, Intelsat and Spacecom have engaged in
discussions over a potential amendment to the Spacecom Agreements. These discussions
involved an adjustment to the use of the frequencies agreed to under the Coordination Agreement
in addition to Intelsat’s continuing obligation to pay the Coordination Fee.
11. If the Spacecom Agreements are rejected and the rights to exclusive use of
frequencies terminated, it is estimated that Spacecom could face significant damages due to
revenue losses from the third-party agreements and potential damages owed to those third
parties. This does not include damages related to the government interests that are dependent on
the continued use of Group A Frequencies.
12. Even if Intelsat could avoid paying the Coordination Fee as a result of rejecting
the Spacecom Agreements, which is disputed, it would also likely incur damages from losing the
- 5 - 27174979v.3 Case 20-32299-KLP Doc 2247-1 Filed 05/24/21 Entered 05/24/21 17:44:23 Desc Declaration of Ariel Perets Page 6 of 7
exclusive right to Group B Frequencies. As Intelsat has been using those frequencies before and
after the Petition Date and even to date, it is likely that Intelsat would face significant financial
losses if it did not have the exclusive right to Group B Frequencies.
13. For the forgoing reasons and as more fully set forth in the Objection, Spacecom is
respectfully requesting that the Court enter an order denying Intelsat’s attempted rejection of
the Spacecom Agreements, without prejudice to Spacecom’s right to request payment from
the Debtors upon further application to this Court, approving the Reservation of Rights, and
granting such additional relief as this Court deems just and proper.
[REMAINDER OF PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK]
- 6 - 27174979v.3 Case 20-32299-KLP Doc 2247-1 Filed 05/24/21 Entered 05/24/21 17:44:23 Desc Declaration of Ariel Perets Page 7 of 7 Case 20-32299-KLP Doc 2247-2 Filed 05/24/21 Entered 05/24/21 17:44:23 Desc Exhibit A to Declaration of Ariel Perets Page 1 of 22
EXHIBIT A
(Coordination Agreement) Case 20-32299-KLP Doc 2247-2 Filed 05/24/21 Entered 05/24/21 17:44:23 Desc Exhibit A to Declaration of Ariel Perets Page 2 of 22 Case 20-32299-KLP Doc 2247-2 Filed 05/24/21 Entered 05/24/21 17:44:23 Desc Exhibit A to Declaration of Ariel Perets Page 3 of 22 Case 20-32299-KLP Doc 2247-2 Filed 05/24/21 Entered 05/24/21 17:44:23 Desc Exhibit A to Declaration of Ariel Perets Page 4 of 22 Case 20-32299-KLP Doc 2247-2 Filed 05/24/21 Entered 05/24/21 17:44:23 Desc Exhibit A to Declaration of Ariel Perets Page 5 of 22 Case 20-32299-KLP Doc 2247-2 Filed 05/24/21 Entered 05/24/21 17:44:23 Desc Exhibit A to Declaration of Ariel Perets Page 6 of 22 Case 20-32299-KLP Doc 2247-2 Filed 05/24/21 Entered 05/24/21 17:44:23 Desc Exhibit A to Declaration of Ariel Perets Page 7 of 22 Case 20-32299-KLP Doc 2247-2 Filed 05/24/21 Entered 05/24/21 17:44:23 Desc Exhibit A to Declaration of Ariel Perets Page 8 of 22 Case 20-32299-KLP Doc 2247-2 Filed 05/24/21 Entered 05/24/21 17:44:23 Desc Exhibit A to Declaration of Ariel Perets Page 9 of 22 Case 20-32299-KLP Doc 2247-2 Filed 05/24/21 Entered 05/24/21 17:44:23 Desc Exhibit A to Declaration of Ariel Perets Page 10 of 22 Case 20-32299-KLP Doc 2247-2 Filed 05/24/21 Entered 05/24/21 17:44:23 Desc Exhibit A to Declaration of Ariel Perets Page 11 of 22 Case 20-32299-KLP Doc 2247-2 Filed 05/24/21 Entered 05/24/21 17:44:23 Desc Exhibit A to Declaration of Ariel Perets Page 12 of 22 Case 20-32299-KLP Doc 2247-2 Filed 05/24/21 Entered 05/24/21 17:44:23 Desc Exhibit A to Declaration of Ariel Perets Page 13 of 22 Case 20-32299-KLP Doc 2247-2 Filed 05/24/21 Entered 05/24/21 17:44:23 Desc Exhibit A to Declaration of Ariel Perets Page 14 of 22 Case 20-32299-KLP Doc 2247-2 Filed 05/24/21 Entered 05/24/21 17:44:23 Desc Exhibit A to Declaration of Ariel Perets Page 15 of 22 Case 20-32299-KLP Doc 2247-2 Filed 05/24/21 Entered 05/24/21 17:44:23 Desc Exhibit A to Declaration of Ariel Perets Page 16 of 22 Case 20-32299-KLP Doc 2247-2 Filed 05/24/21 Entered 05/24/21 17:44:23 Desc Exhibit A to Declaration of Ariel Perets Page 17 of 22 Case 20-32299-KLP Doc 2247-2 Filed 05/24/21 Entered 05/24/21 17:44:23 Desc Exhibit A to Declaration of Ariel Perets Page 18 of 22 Case 20-32299-KLP Doc 2247-2 Filed 05/24/21 Entered 05/24/21 17:44:23 Desc Exhibit A to Declaration of Ariel Perets Page 19 of 22 Case 20-32299-KLP Doc 2247-2 Filed 05/24/21 Entered 05/24/21 17:44:23 Desc Exhibit A to Declaration of Ariel Perets Page 20 of 22 Case 20-32299-KLP Doc 2247-2 Filed 05/24/21 Entered 05/24/21 17:44:23 Desc Exhibit A to Declaration of Ariel Perets Page 21 of 22 Case 20-32299-KLP Doc 2247-2 Filed 05/24/21 Entered 05/24/21 17:44:23 Desc Exhibit A to Declaration of Ariel Perets Page 22 of 22 Case 20-32299-KLP Doc 2247-3 Filed 05/24/21 Entered 05/24/21 17:44:23 Desc Exhibit B to Declaration of Ariel Perets Page 1 of 5
EXHIBIT B
(Satellite Network Agreement) Case 20-32299-KLP Doc 2247-3 Filed 05/24/21 Entered 05/24/21 17:44:23 Desc Exhibit B to Declaration of Ariel Perets Page 2 of 5 Case 20-32299-KLP Doc 2247-3 Filed 05/24/21 Entered 05/24/21 17:44:23 Desc Exhibit B to Declaration of Ariel Perets Page 3 of 5 Case 20-32299-KLP Doc 2247-3 Filed 05/24/21 Entered 05/24/21 17:44:23 Desc Exhibit B to Declaration of Ariel Perets Page 4 of 5 Case 20-32299-KLP Doc 2247-3 Filed 05/24/21 Entered 05/24/21 17:44:23 Desc Exhibit B to Declaration of Ariel Perets Page 5 of 5 Case 20-32299-KLP Doc 2247-4 Filed 05/24/21 Entered 05/24/21 17:44:23 Desc Exhibit C to Declaration of Ariel Perets Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT C
(FCC Letter) Case 20-32299-KLP Doc 2247-4 Filed 05/24/21 Entered 05/24/21 17:44:23 Desc Exhibit C to Declaration of Ariel Perets Page 2 of 3
Engineering Administration Spectrum Management
2 3rd Mai 2021 NS (299) 3089
To: Mrs. Jessica Rosenworcel Acting Chairwoman, The Federal Communications Commission United States of America via E-mail: [email protected]
CC : Mr. Mario MANIEWICZ, Director, ITU/BR via E-mail: [email protected] Mr. Alexandre VALLET, Chief, Space Services Department (SSD), ITU/BR via E-mail: [email protected] Mr. Ariel PERETS, Director, Spectrum Development & Regulatory Affairs, Spacecom via E-mail: ariel.perets@amos-spacecom.com Mr. Hazem MOAKKIT, VP, Spectrum Strategy, Intelsat via E-mail: [email protected] FCC: via E-mail: [email protected]
Re: Request for assistance to retain a coordination agreement signed by Intelsat
Dear Mrs. Jessica Rosenworcel,
The Administration of the State of Israel would like to bring to the attention of the FCC the following :
1. As part of its Chapter 11 process, Intelsat S.A., a US satellite operator, submitted on May 10, 2021 to the United State Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia Richmond Division (case No. 20-32299 (KLP)), a notice of rejection of a coordination agreement which was signed on June 6, 2013 between Space- Communication Ltd (hereinafter referred to as "Spacecom"), an Israeli satellite operator, and Intelsat US LLC (hereinafter referred to as “2013 Agreement”). Any relevant Intelsat entity shall hereinafter be referred to as "Intelsat." 2. The 2013 Agreement applies to Israeli satellite networks, registered with the ITU and operated by Spacecom at the orbital position 65°E, and US satellite networks, registered with the ITU and operated by Intelsat in the orbital arc 62°E-68.5°E in the Ku FSS Unplanned and Ku FSS Planned frequency bands. The 2013 Agreement does not set an expiration date and does not confer any termination right upon any of the parties. Therefore, neither Intelsat nor Spacecom have any contractual right to reject the 2013 Agreement. 3. It is a well-known practice in the satellite industry while operating under the regulatory umbrella of the ITU, to sign long-term coordination agreements in order
______9 Ahad Ha-Am St. Tel-Aviv 61290 Tel: +972-3-519-8242 Fax: +972-3-510-7576
Page 1 of 2
Case 20-32299-KLP Doc 2247-4 Filed 05/24/21 Entered 05/24/21 17:44:23 Desc Exhibit C to Declaration of Ariel Perets Page 3 of 3
Engineering Administration Spectrum Management
to give the contracting parties the required certainty for their long-term satellite operations. Such certainty is essential for the operation of third parties' users and clients utilizing the affected satellites of the contracting parties . 4. In the 2013 Agreement, Intelsat and Spacecom agreed on certain technical conditions regarding the operation of their satellites within the 62°E-68.5°E orbital arc . 5. Since December 2013, the AMOS-4 satellite, an Israeli satellite operated by Spacecom, has been deployed and operated at the 65°E orbital position in accordance with the technical conditions set forth in 2013 Agreement . 6. In reliance upon the agreed technical conditions of the 2013 Agreement, which should have been in force for an indefinite period, Spacecom has entered into long- term contracts with third parties, both governmental and commercial entities, for operation in the relevant frequency bands in accordance with the agreed conditions of the 2013 Agreement . 7. The national on-going operations of the Israeli government as well as the operation of major international commercial entities will be severely damaged by the unilateral rejection by Intelsat of the 2013 Agreement . 8. The unilateral rejection of a valid coordination agreement by Intelsat is an extreme and aggressive action which is not in line of the ITU spirit, as well as an abusive conduct taking advantage of Chapter 11 process. Furthermore, such unilateral rejection of a valid coordination agreement, especially by a leading and prominent global satellite operator like Intelsat, might set a dangerous precedence in the world of coordination and coordination agreements, which is governed by the ITU, and severally impair the utilization of satellite spectrum by satellite operators and users, in contradiction to the ITU very basic concept of rational and efficient use of the spectrum.
There, the Administration of the State of Israel kindly asks the assistance of the FCC in retaining the 2013 Agreement in full force and effect and protecting the ongoing operation of the AMOS-4 satellite, which is an important national asset for the Government of the State of Israel.
Best regards,
Nati Schubert Deputy Director Engineering Administration, Spectrum Management Ministry of Communications, State of Israel
______9 Ahad Ha-Am St. Tel-Aviv 61290 Tel: +972-3-519-8242 Fax: +972-3-510-7576
Page 2 of 2