Sirius XM Radio (SIRI)

Legal Proceedings

FCC Merger Order. On July 25, 2008, the FCC adopted an order approving the Merger. The order became effective immediately upon adoption. This order was published in the Federal Register on September 8, 2008. On September 4, 2008, Mt. Wilson FM Broadcasters, Inc. filed a Petition for Reconsideration of the FCC’s merger order. This Petition for Reconsideration remains pending.

Copyright Royalty Board Proceeding. In January 2008, the Copyright Royalty Board, or CRB, of the Library of Congress issued its decision regarding the royalty rate payable by XM and SIRIUS under the statutory license covering the performance of sound recordings over their satellite digital audio radio services for the six-year period starting January 1, 2007 and ending December 31, 2012. Under the terms of the CRB’s decision, we paid a royalty of 6.0% of gross revenues, subject to certain exclusions, for 2007 and 2008, we will pay 6.5% for 2009, 7.0% for 2010, 7.5% for 2011 and 8.0% for 2012. SoundExchange has appealed the decision of the CRB to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Oral arguments were heard in March 2009. The parties are awaiting the Court’s decision in this matter.

U.S. Electronics Arbitration. In May 2006, U.S. Electronics Inc., a former licensed distributor and manufacturer of SIRIUS radios, commenced an arbitration proceeding against SIRIUS. U.S. Electronics alleged that SIRIUS breached its contract; failed to pay monies owed under the contract; tortiously interfered with U.S. Electronics’ relationships with retailers and manufacturers; and otherwise acted in bad faith. U.S. Electronics sought up to $133 million in damages. In August 2008, following a 20-day arbitration hearing, a panel of three arbitrators unanimously issued a 149-page Final Award dismissing with prejudice all of U.S. Electronics’ claims, including its claims for lost profits. U.S. Electronics has filed suit in the New York State Court seeking to vacate the decision of the arbitrators.

25

SIRIUS XM RADIO INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - Continued

(Dollar amounts in thousands, unless otherwise stated)

Atlantic Recording Corporation, BMG Music, Capital Records, Inc., Elektra Entertainment Group Inc., Interscope Records, Motown Record Company, L.P., Sony BMG Music Entertainment, UMG Recordings, Inc., Virgin Records, Inc. and Warner Bros. Records Inc. v. XM Satellite Radio Inc. In May 2006, the plaintiffs filed this action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint seeks monetary damages and equitable relief, and alleges that XM radios that include advanced recording functionality infringe upon plaintiffs’ copyrighted sound recordings. XM filed a motion to dismiss this matter, and that motion was denied in January 2007. XM has resolved the lawsuit with respect to Universal Music Group, Warner Music Group, Sony BMG Music Entertainment and EMI Group, and each of these parties has withdrawn as a party to the lawsuit, and this lawsuit has been dismissed with respect to such parties.

Music publishing companies and certain other record companies also have filed lawsuits, purportedly on a class basis, with similar allegations. We believe these allegations are without merit and that our products comply with applicable copyright law, including the Audio Home Recording Act. We intend to vigorously defend this matter. There can be no assurance regarding the ultimate outcome of these matters, or the significance, if any, to our business, consolidated results of operations or financial position.

Matthew Enderlin v. XM Satellite Radio Holdings Inc. and XM Satellite Radio Inc. In January 2006, the plaintiff filed this action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas on behalf of a purported nationwide class of all XM subscribers. The complaint alleges that XM engaged in deceptive trade practices under Arkansas and other state laws by representing that its music channels are commercial-free. The court stayed the litigation and directed the parties to arbitration. XM instituted arbitration with the American Arbitration Association pursuant to the compulsory arbitration clause in its customer service agreement. The plaintiff has filed a counterclaim in the arbitration on behalf of the class that he seeks to represent. We believe this matter is without merit and intend to vigorously defend the ongoing arbitration. There can be no assurance regarding the ultimate outcome of this matter, or the significance, if any, to our business, consolidated results of operations or financial position.

Other Matters. In the ordinary course of business, we are a defendant in various lawsuits and arbitration proceedings, including actions filed by former employees, parties to contracts or leases and owners of patents, trademarks, copyrights or other intellectual property. None of these actions are, in our opinion, likely to have a material adverse effect on our cash flows, financial position or results of operations.

ITEM 3.    LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

FCC Merger Order.    On July 25, 2008, the FCC adopted an order approving the Merger. The order became effective immediately upon adoption. This order was published in the Federal Register on September 8, 2008. On September 4, 2008, Mt. Wilson FM Broadcasters, Inc. filed a Petition for Reconsideration of the FCC’s merger order. This Petition for Reconsideration remains pending.

Appellate Review of FCC Merger and Consent Decree Orders.    Two different parties, U.S. Electronics and Michael Hartleib, sought appellate review of the FCC’s decision regarding the Merger. Each party also challenged the FCC’s decision to enter into the consent decrees resolving the investigations by the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau regarding certain non-compliant terrestrial repeaters and FM modulators contained in certain satellite radios. These matters were both filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, and have been consolidated by the court. Subsequent to filing its initial request for appellate review, U.S. Electronics moved to both amend its original filing and submit an additional notice of appeal in order to comply with the statutory requirements for review of agency decisions. The FCC moved to dismiss both the Hartleib and the U.S. Electronics requests for review on the grounds that neither party has standing to challenge the merger order or the consent decrees, and further argued that the agency’s decision to enter into a consent decree is not reviewable by the court in these circumstances. Separately, the court issued a show cause order on its own motion that requires U.S. Electronics to demonstrate why its additional notice of appeal should not be dismissed as untimely. In January 2009, the court dismissed the appeals of both U.S. Electronics and Michael Hartleib.

Copyright Royalty Board Proceeding.    In January 2008, the Copyright Royalty Board, or CRB, of the Library of Congress issued its decision regarding the royalty rate payable by XM and SIRIUS under the statutory license covering the performance of sound recordings over their satellite digital audio radio services for the six-year period starting January 1, 2007 and ending December 31, 2012. Under the terms of the CRB’s decision, we paid a royalty of 6.0% of gross revenues, subject to certain exclusions, for 2007 and 2008, we will pay 6.5% for 2009, 7.0% for 2010, 7.5% for 2011 and 8.0% for 2012. SoundExchange has appealed the decision of the CRB to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Final briefs in this matter were submitted to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in February 2009 and oral argument is scheduled for March 2009.

27

Table of Contents

U.S. Electronics Arbitration.    In May 2006, U.S. Electronics Inc., a former licensed distributor and manufacturer of SIRIUS radios, commenced an arbitration proceeding against SIRIUS. U.S. Electronics alleged that SIRIUS breached its contract; failed to pay monies owed under the contract; tortiously interfered with U.S. Electronics’ relationships with retailers and manufacturers; and otherwise acted in bad faith. U.S. Electronics sought up to $133 million in damages. In August 2008, following a 20-day arbitration hearing, a panel of three arbitrators unanimously issued a 149-page Final Award dismissing with prejudice all of U.S. Electronics’ claims, including its claims for lost profits. U.S. Electronics has filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York seeking to vacate the decision of the arbitrators.

Atlantic Recording Corporation, BMG Music, Capital Records, Inc., Elektra Entertainment Group Inc., Interscope Records, Motown Record Company, L.P., Sony BMG Music Entertainment, UMG Recordings, Inc., Virgin Records, Inc. and Warner Bros. Records Inc. v. XM Satellite Radio Inc.    In May 2006, the plaintiffs filed this action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint seeks monetary damages and equitable relief, and alleges that XM radios that include advanced recording functionality infringe upon plaintiffs’ copyrighted sound recordings. XM filed a motion to dismiss this matter, and that motion was denied in January 2007. XM has resolved the lawsuit with respect to Universal Music Group, Warner Music Group, Sony BMG Music Entertainment and EMI Group, and each of these parties has withdrawn as a party to the lawsuit and this lawsuit has been dismissed with respect to such parties.

Music publishing companies and certain other record companies also have filed lawsuits, purportedly on a class basis, with similar allegations. We believe these allegations are without merit and that our products comply with applicable copyright law, including the Audio Home Recording Act. We intend to vigorously defend this matter. There can be no assurance regarding the ultimate outcome of these matters, or the significance, if any, to our business, consolidated results of operations or financial position.

Matthew Enderlin v. XM Satellite Radio Holdings Inc. and XM Satellite Radio Inc.    In January 2006, the plaintiff filed this action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas on behalf of a purported nationwide class of all XM subscribers. The complaint alleges that XM engaged in a deceptive trade practices under Arkansas and other state laws by representing that its music channels are commercial-free. The court stayed the litigation and directed the parties to arbitration. XM instituted arbitration with the American Arbitration Association pursuant to the compulsory arbitration clause in its customer service agreement. The plaintiff has filed a counterclaim in the arbitration on behalf of the class that he seeks to represent. We believe this matter is without merit and intend to vigorously defend the ongoing arbitration. There can be no assurance regarding the ultimate outcome of this matter, or the significance, if any, to our business, consolidated results of operations or financial position.

Other Matters.    In the ordinary course of business, we are a defendant in various lawsuits and arbitration proceedings, including actions filed by former employees, parties to contracts or leases and owners of patents, trademarks, copyrights or other intellectual property. None of these actions are, in our opinion, likely to have a material adverse effect on our cash flows, financial position or results of operations.

28

Table of Contents

Legal Proceedings

FCC Merger Order. On July 25, 2008, the FCC adopted an order approving the Merger. The order became effective immediately upon adoption. This order was published in the Federal Register on September 8, 2008. On September 4, 2008, Mt. Wilson FM Broadcasters, Inc. filed a Petition for Reconsideration of the FCC’s merger order. This Petition for Reconsideration remains pending.

Appellate Review of FCC Merger and Consent Decree Orders. Two different parties, U.S. Electronics and Michael Hartleib, sought appellate review of the FCC’s decision regarding the Merger. Each party also challenged the FCC’s decision to enter into the consent decrees resolving the investigations by the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau regarding certain non-compliant terrestrial repeaters and FM modulators contained in certain satellite radios. These matters were both filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, and have been consolidated by the court. Subsequent to filing its initial request for appellate review, U.S. Electronics moved to both amend its original filing and submit an additional notice of appeal in order to comply with the statutory requirements for review of agency decisions. The FCC moved to dismiss both the Hartleib and the U.S. Electronics requests for review on the grounds that neither party has standing to challenge the merger order or the consent decrees, and further argued that the agency’s decision to enter into a consent decree is not reviewable by the court in these circumstances. Separately, the court issued a show cause order on its own motion that requires U.S. Electronics to demonstrate why its additional notice of appeal should not be dismissed as untimely. In January 2009, the court dismissed the appeals of both U.S. Electronics and Michael Hartleib.

Copyright Royalty Board Proceeding. In January 2008, the Copyright Royalty Board, or CRB, of the Library of Congress issued its decision regarding the royalty rate payable by XM and SIRIUS under the statutory license covering the performance of sound recordings over their satellite digital audio radio services for the six-year period starting January 1,

F-42

Table of Contents

SIRIUS XM RADIO INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)

(Dollar amounts in thousands, unless otherwise stated)

2007 and ending December 31, 2012. Under the terms of the CRB’s decision, we paid a royalty of 6.0% of gross revenues, subject to certain exclusions, for 2007 and 2008, we will pay 6.5% for 2009, 7.0% for 2010, 7.5% for 2011 and 8.0% for 2012. SoundExchange has appealed the decision of the CRB to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Final briefs in this matter were submitted to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in February 2009 and oral argument is scheduled for March 2009.

U.S. Electronics Arbitration. In May 2006, U.S. Electronics Inc., a former licensed distributor and manufacturer of SIRIUS radios, commenced an arbitration proceeding against SIRIUS. U.S. Electronics alleged that SIRIUS breached its contract; failed to pay monies owed under the contract; tortiously interfered with U.S. Electronics’ relationships with retailers and manufacturers; and otherwise acted in bad faith. U.S. Electronics sought up to $133 million in damages. In August 2008, following a 20-day arbitration hearing, a panel of three arbitrators unanimously issued a 149-page Final Award dismissing with prejudice all of U.S. Electronics’ claims, including its claims for lost profits. U.S. Electronics has filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York seeking to vacate the decision of the arbitrators.

Atlantic Recording Corporation, BMG Music, Capital Records, Inc., Elektra Entertainment Group Inc., Interscope Records, Motown Record Company, L.P., Sony BMG Music Entertainment, UMG Recordings, Inc., Virgin Records, Inc. and Warner Bros. Records Inc. v. XM Satellite Radio Inc. In May 2006, the plaintiffs filed this action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint seeks monetary damages and equitable relief, and alleges that XM radios that include advanced recording functionality infringe upon plaintiffs’ copyrighted sound recordings. XM filed a motion to dismiss this matter, and that motion was denied in January 2007. XM has resolved the lawsuit with respect to Universal Music Group, Warner Music Group, Sony BMG Music Entertainment and EMI Group, and each of these parties has withdrawn as a party to the lawsuit and this lawsuit has been dismissed with respect to such parties.

Music publishing companies and certain other record companies also have filed lawsuits, purportedly on a class basis, with similar allegations. We believe these allegations are without merit and that our products comply with applicable copyright law, including the Audio Home Recording Act. We intend to vigorously defend this matter. There can be no assurance regarding the ultimate outcome of these matters, or the significance, if any, to our business, consolidated results of operations or financial position.

Matthew Enderlin v. XM Satellite Radio Holdings Inc. and XM Satellite Radio Inc. In January 2006, the plaintiff filed this action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas on behalf of a purported nationwide class of all XM subscribers. The complaint alleges that XM engaged in a deceptive trade practices under Arkansas and other state laws by representing that its music channels are commercial-free. The court stayed the litigation and directed the parties to arbitration. XM instituted arbitration with the American Arbitration Association pursuant to the compulsory arbitration clause in its customer service agreement. The plaintiff has filed a counterclaim in the arbitration on behalf of the class that he seeks to represent. We believe this matter is without merit and intend to vigorously defend the ongoing arbitration. There can be no assurance regarding the ultimate outcome of this matter, or the significance, if any, to our business, consolidated results of operations or financial position.

Other Matters. In the ordinary course of business, we are a defendant in various lawsuits and arbitration proceedings, including actions filed by former employees, parties to contracts or leases and owners of patents, trademarks, copyrights or other intellectual property. None of these actions are, in our opinion, likely to have a material adverse effect on our cash flows, financial position or results of operations.

F-43

Table of Contents

SIRIUS XM RADIO INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)

(Dollar amounts in thousands, unless otherwise stated)

Legal Proceedings

FCC Matters. In August 2008, we entered into two Consent Decrees to settle with the Enforcement Bureau of the Federal Communications Commission outstanding enforcement matters pending against SIRIUS and XM. In 2006, the FCC commenced investigations regarding the compliance of certain radios that include FM transmitters with the Commission’s rules, and the compliance of certain terrestrial repeaters with the special temporary authority granted by the Commission. The Consent Decrees terminated these inquiries.

As part of the Consent Decrees, we agreed, among other things, to:

34

Table of Contents

SIRIUS XM RADIO INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO UNAUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)

(Dollar amounts in thousands, unless otherwise stated)

We have taken all of these actions, and are in compliance with the terms of the Consent Decrees.

FCC Merger Order. On July 25, 2008, the FCC adopted an order approving the Merger. The order became effective immediately upon adoption. This order was published in the Federal Register on September 8, 2008. On September 4, 2008, Mt. Wilson FM Broadcasters, Inc. filed a Petition for Reconsideration of the FCC’s merger order. This Petition for Reconsideration remains pending.

Appellate Review of FCC Merger and Consent Decree Orders. Two different parties, U.S. Electronics and Michael Hartleib, have sought appellate review of the FCC’s decision regarding the Merger. Each party also challenged the FCC’s decision to enter into the consent decrees mentioned above. These matters were both filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, and have been consolidated by the court. We have moved to intervene, and that motion has been granted. Subsequent to filing its initial request for appellate review, U.S. Electronics moved to both amend its original filing and submit an additional notice of appeal in order to comply with the statutory requirements for review of agency decisions. The FCC has moved to dismiss both the Hartleib and the U.S. Electronics requests for review on the grounds that neither party has standing to challenge the merger order or the consent decrees, and has further argued that the agency’s decision to enter into a consent decree is not reviewable by the court in these circumstances. Separately, the court issued a show cause order on its own motion that requires U.S. Electronics to demonstrate why its additional notice of appeal should not be dismissed as untimely.

Copyright Royalty Board Proceeding. In January 2008, the Copyright Royalty Board, or CRB, of the Library of Congress issued its decision regarding the royalty rate payable by us under the statutory license covering the performance of sound recordings over our satellite digital audio radio services for the six-year period starting January 1, 2007 and ending December 31, 2012. Under the terms of the CRB’s decision, we will pay a royalty of 6.0% of gross revenues, subject to certain exclusions, for 2007 and 2008, 6.5% for 2009, 7.0% for 2010, 7.5% for 2011 and 8.0% for 2012. SoundExchange has appealed the decision of the CRB to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Final briefs in this matter are scheduled to be submitted to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by the end of February 2009.

U.S. Electronics Arbitration. In May 2006, U.S. Electronics Inc., a former licensed distributor and manufacturer of SIRIUS radios, commenced an arbitration proceeding against SIRIUS. U.S. Electronics alleged that SIRIUS breached its contract; failed to pay monies owed under the contract; tortiously interfered with U.S. Electronics’ relationships with retailers and manufacturers; and otherwise acted in bad faith. U.S. Electronics sought up to $133,000 in damages. In August 2008, following a 20-day arbitration hearing, a panel of three arbitrators unanimously issued a 149-page Final Award dismissing with prejudice all of U.S. Electronics’ claims, including its claims for lost profits.

Atlantic Recording Corporation, BMG Music, Capital Records, Inc., Elektra Entertainment Group Inc., Interscope Records, Motown Record Company, L.P., Sony BMG Music Entertainment, UMG Recordings, Inc., Virgin Records, Inc and Warner Bros. Records Inc. v. XM Satellite Radio Inc. In May 2006, the plaintiffs filed this action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint seeks monetary damages and equitable relief, and alleges that XM radios that include advanced recording functionality infringe upon plaintiffs’ copyrighted sound recordings. XM filed a motion to dismiss this matter, and that motion was denied in January 2007. XM has resolved the lawsuit with respect to Universal Music Group, Warner Music Group, Sony BMG Music Entertainment and EMI Group, and each of these parties have withdrawn as a party to the lawsuit and this lawsuit has been dismissed.

Music publishing companies and certain other record companies also have filed lawsuits, purportedly on a class basis, with similar allegations. XM believes these allegations are without merit and that these products comply with applicable copyright law, including the Audio Home Recording Act, and intends to vigorously defend this matter. There can be no assurance regarding the ultimate outcome of these matters, or the significance, if any, to our business, consolidated results of operations or financial position.

Matthew Enderlin v. XM Satellite Radio Holdings Inc. and XM Satellite Radio Inc. In January 2006, the plaintiff filed this action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas on behalf of a purported nationwide class of all XM subscribers. The complaint alleges that XM engaged in a deceptive trade practices under Arkansas and other state laws by representing that its music

35

Table of Contents

SIRIUS XM RADIO INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO UNAUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)

(Dollar amounts in thousands, unless otherwise stated)

channels are commercial-free. The court stayed the litigation and directed the parties to arbitration. XM instituted arbitration with the American Arbitration Association pursuant to the compulsory arbitration clause in its customer service agreement. The plaintiff has filed a counterclaim in the arbitration on behalf of the class that he seeks to represent. XM believes the matter is without merit and intends to vigorously defend the ongoing arbitration. There can be no assurance regarding the ultimate outcome of this matter, or the significance, if any, to our business, consolidated results of operations or financial position.

Other Matters. In the ordinary course of business, we are a defendant in various lawsuits and arbitration proceedings, including actions filed by former employees, parties to contracts or leases and owners of patents, trademarks, copyrights or other intellectual property. None of these actions are, in our opinion, likely to have a material adverse effect on our business, consolidated results of operations or financial results.

          FCC Inquiry. In April 2006, we learned that XM Radio and two manufacturers of SIRIUS radios had received inquiries from the FCC as to whether the FM transmitters in their products complied with the FCC’s emissions and frequency rules. We promptly began an internal review of the compliance of the FM transmitters in a number of our radios. In June 2006, we learned that a third manufacturer of SIRIUS radios had received an inquiry from the FCC as to whether the FM transmitters in its products complied with the FCC’s emissions and frequency rules. In June 2006, we received a letter from the FCC making similar inquiries. In July 2006, we responded to the letter from the FCC in respect of the preliminary results of our review. In August 2006, we received a follow-up letter of inquiry from the FCC and responded to the FCC’s further inquiry. We continue to cooperate with the FCC’s inquiry.

          During our internal review, we determined that certain of our radios with FM transmitters were not compliant with FCC rules. We have taken a series of actions to correct the problem.

          In connection with our internal review, we discovered that certain SIRIUS personnel requested manufacturers to produce SIRIUS radios that were not consistent with the FCC’s rules. As a result of this review, we are taking significant steps to ensure that this situation does not happen again, including the adoption of a compliance plan, approved by our board of directors, to ensure that in the future our products comply with all applicable FCC rules.

          The FCC’s laboratory has tested a number of our products and found them to be compliant with the FCC’s rules. We believe SIRIUS radios that are currently in production comply with applicable FCC’s rules. No health or safety issues are involved with these SIRIUS radios and radios which are factory-installed in new vehicles are not affected.

          We have retained an engineering compliance officer to report to our Vice President of Internal Audit, who reports to our Audit Committee.

          In October 2006, we ceased operating 11 of our terrestrial repeaters which we discovered had been operating at variance to the specifications and applied to the FCC for new authority to resume operating these repeaters.

          Copyright Royalty Board Proceeding. We are a party to a proceeding before the Copyright Royalty Board of the Library of Congress to establish the royalty rates and terms for the sound recordings we use on our satellite radio service for the period from 2007 through 2012. A trial in this matter was held by the Copyright Royalty Board throughout the summer and concluded in October 2007.

           As part of this proceeding, we have filed a rate proposal requesting the Copyright Royalty Board to establish a royalty rate for calendar year 2007 of $1.60 for each feature performance we make of a copyrighted sound recording that is not otherwise licensed. We have also proposed that this royalty rate be adjusted each subsequent year by a percentage equal to the percentage change in aggregate satellite radio subscribers during the preceding year. SoundExchange, a collection and distribution organization representing record labels and performing artists, has proposed a royalty rate consisting of the greater of a specified percentage of revenue or a per-subscriber fee. The SoundExchange proposed fees would increase as our number of subscribers increase, in seven steps that start at the greater of 8% of total revenues or $0.85 per subscriber per month, if we have fewer than 9 million subscribers, and end at the greater of 23% of total revenue or $3.00 per subscriber per month, if we have 19 million or more subscribers. SoundExchange has also proposed, as an alternative that it describes as less-preferred, a monthly per-broadcast, per-subscriber fee structure, which it claims is calculated to reach similar fee levels if we continue with our current level of music performances.

          The Copyright Royalty Board must set a rate that is calculated to achieve four statutory objectives:

36

Item 1. Legal Proceedings

          FCC Inquiry. In April 2006, we learned that XM Radio and two manufacturers of SIRIUS radios had received inquiries from the FCC as to whether the FM transmitters in their products complied with the FCC’s emissions and frequency rules. We promptly began an internal review of the compliance of the FM transmitters in a number of our radios. In June 2006, we learned that a third manufacturer of SIRIUS radios had received an inquiry from the FCC as to whether the FM transmitters in its products complied with the FCC’s emissions and frequency rules. In June 2006, we received a letter from the FCC making similar inquiries. In July 2006, we responded to the letter from the FCC in respect of the preliminary results of our review. In August 2006, we received a follow-up letter of inquiry from the FCC and responded to the FCC’s further inquiry. We continue to cooperate with the FCC’s inquiry.

          During our internal review, we determined that certain of our radios with FM transmitters were not compliant with FCC rules. We have taken a series of actions to correct the problem.

          In connection with our internal review, we discovered that certain SIRIUS personnel requested manufacturers to produce SIRIUS radios that were not consistent with the FCC’s rules. As a result of this review, we are taking significant steps to ensure that this situation does not happen again, including the adoption of a compliance plan, approved by our board of directors, to ensure that in the future our products comply with all applicable FCC rules.

          The FCC’s laboratory has tested a number of our products and found them to be compliant with the FCC’s rules. We believe our radios that are currently in production comply with applicable FCC’s rules. No health or safety issues are involved with these SIRIUS radios and radios which are factory-installed in new vehicles are not affected.

          We have retained an engineering compliance officer to report to our Vice President of Internal Audit, who reports to our Audit Committee.

          In October 2006, we ceased operating 11 of our terrestrial repeaters which we discovered had been operating at variance to the specifications and applied to the FCC for new authority to resume operating these repeaters.

          Copyright Royalty Board Proceeding. We are a party to a proceeding before the Copyright Royalty Board of the Library of Congress to establish the royalty rates and terms for the sound recordings we use on our satellite radio service for the period for 2007 through 2012. In June 2007, the hearing before the Copyright Royalty Board commenced, with both us and XM and SoundExchange, the organization that collects and distributes royalties for digital music services on behalf of artists and music labels, presenting evidence in support of their direct cases. In July 2007, we, XM and SoundExchange filed our rebuttal cases in this proceeding; and in August 2007, the Copyright Royalty Board will convene a hearing to permit the parties to present rebuttal evidence.

           As part of this proceeding, we originally proposed a royalty rate of 0.89% of our satellite subscription revenue. We have filed an amended rate proposal requesting the Copyright Royalty Board to establish a royalty rate for calendar year 2007 of $1.20 for each performance we make of a copyrighted sound recording. We have also proposed that this royalty rate be adjusted each subsequent year by a percentage equal to the percentage change in aggregate satellite radio subscribers during the preceding year. SoundExchange has proposed a royalty rate consisting of the greater of a specified percentage of revenue or a per-subscriber fee. The SoundExchange proposed fees would increase as our number of subscribers increase, in seven steps that start at the greater of 8% of total revenues or $0.85 per subscriber per month, if we have fewer than 9 million subscribers, and end at the greater of 23% of total revenue or $3.00 per subscriber per month, if we have more than 19 million subscribers. SoundExchange has also proposed, as an alternative that it describes as less-preferred, a per-broadcast fee structure, which it claims is calculated to reach similar fee levels if we continue with our current level of music performances.

          The Copyright Royalty Board must set a rate that is calculated to achieve four statutory objectives:

40

Item 1. Legal Proceedings

          FCC Inquiry. In April 2006, we learned that XM Radio and two manufacturers of SIRIUS radios had received inquiries from the Federal Communications Commission as to whether the FM transmitters in their products complied with the FCC’s emissions and frequency rules. We promptly began an internal review of the compliance of the FM transmitters in a number of our radios. In June 2006, we learned that a third manufacturer of SIRIUS radios had received an inquiry from the Federal Communications Commission as to whether the FM transmitters in its products complied with the FCC’s emissions and frequency rules. In June 2006, we received a letter from the FCC making similar inquiries. In July 2006, we responded to the letter from the FCC in respect of the preliminary results of our review. In August 2006, we received a follow-up letter of inquiry from the FCC and responded to the FCC’s further inquiry. We continue to cooperate with the FCC’s inquiry.

          During our internal review, we determined that certain of our radios with FM transmitters were not compliant with FCC rules. We have taken a series of actions to correct the problem.

          In connection with our internal review, we discovered that certain SIRIUS personnel requested manufacturers to produce SIRIUS radios that were not consistent with the FCC’s rules. As a result of this review, we are taking significant steps to ensure that this situation does not happen again, including the adoption of a compliance plan, approved by our board of directors, to ensure that in the future our products comply with all applicable FCC rules.

          The FCC’s laboratory has tested a number of our products and found them to be compliant with the FCC’s rules. We believe our radios that are currently in production comply with applicable FCC’s rules. No health or safety issues are involved with these SIRIUS radios and radios which are factory-installed in new vehicles are not affected.

          We have retained the services of an engineering compliance officer to report to our Vice President of Internal Audit, who reports to our Audit Committee.

          In October 2006, we ceased operating 11 of our terrestrial repeaters which we discovered had been operating at variance to the specifications and applied to the FCC for new authority to resume operating these repeaters.

          Copyright Royalty Board Proceeding. We are a party to a proceeding before the Copyright Royalty Board of the Library of Congress to establish the royalty rate and terms for the sound recordings we use on our satellite radio service for the period for 2007 through 2012. In October 2006, we and XM Radio filed our direct case in this proceeding with the Copyright Royalty Board and proposed a royalty rate of 0.88% of our satellite radio subscription revenue. SoundExchange, the organization that collects and distributes royalties from various digital music services on behalf of artists and music labels, simultaneously submitted its direct case in this proceeding and proposed an increasing royalty rate, beginning at 10% of our gross revenues in the first year and culminating at 23% of our gross revenues in the sixth year. This submission of direct cases is the beginning of a twelve to eighteen month process which, absent an agreement among the parties, will result in a determination by the Copyright Royalty Board of an applicable royalty rate. Discovery in this matter is ongoing.

          The Copyright Royalty Board must set a rate that is calculated to achieve four statutory objectives:

• to maximize the availability of creative works to the public;

• to afford the copyright owner a fair return for his creative work and the copyright user a fair income under existing economic conditions;

• to reflect the relative roles of the copyright owner and the copyright user in the product made available to the public with respect to relative creative contribution, technological contribution, capital investment, cost, risk and contribution to the opening of new markets for creative expression and media for their communication; and

35

     Legal Proceedings

          FCC Matters. In April 2006, we learned that two manufacturers of SIRIUS radios and XM Radio had received inquiries from the Federal Communications Commission as to whether the FM transmitters in their products complied with the FCC’s emissions and frequency rules. We promptly began an internal review of the compliance of the FM transmitters in a number of our radios. In June 2006, we learned that a third manufacturer of SIRIUS radios had received an inquiry from the Federal Communications Commission as to whether the FM

F-28

          Legal Proceedings

          FCC Inquiry. In April 2006, we learned that two manufacturers of SIRIUS radios and our principal competitor had received inquiries from the Federal Communications Commission as to whether the FM transmitters in their products complied with the FCC’s emissions and frequency rules. We promptly began an internal review of the compliance of the FM transmitters in a number of our radios. On June 20, we received a letter directly from the FCC making similar inquiries. On July 12, we responded to the letter from the FCC in respect of the preliminary results of our review. On August 7, we received a follow-up letter of inquiry from the FCC. We continue to cooperate with the FCC’s inquiry.

          During our internal review, we determined that certain of our radios with FM transmitters were not compliant with FCC rules. We have taken a series of actions to correct the problem.

16

          Legal Proceedings

          In April 2006, we learned that two manufacturers of SIRIUS radios and our principal competitor had received inquiries from the Federal Communications Commission as to whether the FM transmitters in their products complied with the FCC’s emissions and frequency rules. We promptly began an internal review of the compliance of the FM transmitters in a number of our radios. On June 20, we received a letter directly from the FCC making similar inquiries. On July 12, we responded to the letter from the FCC in respect of the preliminary results of our review. On August 7, we received a follow-up letter of inquiry from the FCC.

          During our internal review, we determined that certain of our radios with FM transmitters were not compliant with FCC rules. We have taken a series of actions to evaluate, mitigate and correct the problem. We directed manufacturers of SIRIUS radios with FM transmitters to suspend manufacture and shipment to retailers of non-compliant devices and to make the necessary changes in production to bring the radios into compliance.

           In connection with our internal review, we discovered that certain SIRIUS personnel requested manufacturers to produce SIRIUS radios that were not consistent with the FCC’s rules. As a result of this review, we are taking significant steps to ensure that this situation does not happen again, including the adoption of a comprehensive compliance plan, approved by our board of directors, to ensure that in the future our products comply with all applicable FCC rules.

          The FCC is continuing its review of our products as well as products of other companies containing FM transmitters. The FCC’s laboratory has tested a number of our products and found them to be compliant with the FCC’s rules. Based upon this testing, the FCC has permitted a grant of authority for the Starmate Replay to remain effective, and we expect the FCC to permit new equipment authorizations for other products shortly, including the Sportster Replay, Sirius One and U.S. Electronic’s Visor. We believe our radios that are currently in production

15

      In September 2001, a purported class action lawsuit, entitled Sternbeck v. Sirius Satellite Radio, Inc., 2:01-CV-295, was filed against us and certain of our current and former executive officers in the United States District Court for the District of Vermont. Subsequently, additional purported class action lawsuits were filed. These actions were consolidated in a single purported class action, entitled In re: Sirius Satellite Radio Securities Litigation, No. 01-CV-10863, pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. This action was brought on behalf of all persons who acquired our common stock on the open market between February 16, 2000 and April 2, 2001. The complaint alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint alleged, among other things, that the defendants issued materially false and misleading statements and press releases concerning when our service would be commercially available, which caused the market price of our common stock to be artificially inflated.

      In January 2006, we and certain of our current and former executive officers who are also defendants agreed in principle to settle this action for $8 million in cash. Our insurer will fund the entire amount of the settlement payment. We do not anticipate incurring any additional significant expenses in connection with this action and we will not seek recovery of any unreimbursed defense costs previously incurred and paid by us. This agreement in principle is subject to

F-32

SIRIUS SATELLITE RADIO INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)
(Dollar amounts in thousands, unless otherwise stated)

completion of a definitive settlement agreement and approval by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

      On February 28, 2006, CBS Radio Inc. commenced a lawsuit in New York State Supreme Court against Howard Stern, Stern's production company, Stern's agent and us. The suit alleges, among other things, that Stern breached his former agreement with CBS Radio by reason of certain statements he made during the course of his show broadcast by CBS Radio. The complaint further alleges that we are liable for unjust enrichment, unfair competition, aiding and abetting fraud and tortiously interfering with the agreement between CBS Radio and Stern. The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount. We do not believe that the allegations regarding us in the complaint have merit, and we intend to defend this suit vigorously.

      In the ordinary course of business, we are a defendant in various lawsuits and arbitration proceedings, including actions filed by former employees, parties to contracts or leases and owners of patents, trademarks, copyrights or other intellectual property. None of these actions are, in our opinion, likely to have a material adverse effect on our business or financial results.

      In September 2001, a purported class action lawsuit, entitled Sternbeck v. Sirius Satellite Radio, Inc., 2:01-CV-295, was filed against us and certain of our current and former executive officers in the United States District Court for the District of Vermont. Subsequently, additional purported class action lawsuits were filed. These actions have been consolidated in a single purported class action, entitled In re: Sirius Satellite Radio Securities Litigation, No. 01-CV-10863, pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. This action has been brought on behalf of all persons who acquired our common stock on the open market between February 16, 2000 and April 2, 2001. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants issued materially false and misleading statements and press releases concerning when our service would be commercially available, which caused the market price of our common stock to be artificially inflated. The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of money damages. We believe that the allegations in the complaint have no merit and we will vigorously defend against this action.

       In June 2002, we filed a motion with the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York requesting the Court to dismiss the complaint in this action with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. In January 2004, the Court denied our motion to dismiss this action.

      In the ordinary course of business, we are a defendant in various lawsuits and arbitration proceedings, including actions filed by former employees, parties to contracts or leases and owners of patents, trademarks or other intellectual property. None of these actions are, in our opinion, likely to have a material adverse effect on our business or financial results.

23