Company: SGBAF
Filing Date: 2025-04-29
Form Type: F-4
Source: 0001193125-25-103898
Chunk: 459

Company: SES S.A.
Filing Date: 2025-04-29
Form: F-4
Chunk 459
---
, which provides for ARPs subject to the satisfaction of certain deadlines and other conditions set forth therein. The proof of claim also alleged breach of fiduciary duties and unjust enrichment and sought monetary and punitive damages. Intelsat filed an objection to the proof of claim and has vigorously litigated our position. SES also filed an objection to the Debtors’ Plan in connection with the confirmation hearing. Intelsat settled SES’s 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

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 Intelsat and SES stipulated that (1) the Cost Claims are withdrawn with prejudice and will receive no recovery; and (2) Intelsat will be paid $100,000 following the final judgement (and exhaustion of all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