Company: SGBAF
Filing Date: 2025-04-23
Form Type: DRS/A
Source: 0000950123-25-003652
Chunk: 480

Company: SES S.A.
Filing Date: 2025-04-23
Form: DRS/A
Chunk 480
---
 Plan objection and as part of the settlement SES agreed to: (1) eliminate any punitive damage claims; (2) limit their breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims to three Debtor entities; and (3) limit damages under their “constructive trust” theory to a maximum of $200.0 million, even if SES won. A trial before the Bankruptcy Court was held in February of 2022, and on September 30, 2022, the Bankruptcy Court ruled in the Debtors’ favor on all relevant issues, awarding SES nothing. The Debtors had accrued an estimate of this liability in accordance with ASC 450, Contingenciesas of December 31, 2021 for which we recognized a benefit during the three months ended September 30, 2022. SES filed a Notice of Appeal on October 14, 2022. The appeal was briefed and argued before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (“District Court”). F-165

Confidential Treatment Requested by SES

Pursuant to 17 C.F.R. Section 200.83

On September 8, 2020, SES also filed a series of proofs of claim in the amount of
approximately $11.6 million for costs it contended were associated with the Agreement (the “Cost Claims”). In January 2023, the parties settled the Cost Claims and Intelsat’s motion to receive expense reimbursements related to
the trial of the ARP claim. Intelsat and SES stipulated that (1) the Cost Claims are withdrawn with prejudice and will receive no recovery; and (2) Intelsat will be paid $100,000 following the final judgement (and exhaustion of all
appeals) if the Bankruptcy Court’s decision rejecting SES’s ARP claim is affirmed.

On June 22, 2023, the District Court
issued its decision on appeal. The District Court agreed with the Bankruptcy Court that no unjust enrichment claim was available to SES as a matter of law. The District Court further rejected SES’ claim on appeal that the Bankruptcy Court judge
did not exercise independent judgement. However, the District Court remanded the case for further consideration by the Bankruptcy Court. The District Court believed the Agreement was ambiguous and found that the Bankruptcy Court had not sufficiently
explained its analysis of certain extrinsic evidence introduced by SES that SES believed supported its interpretation of the Agreement. In September of 2023, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order reopening