{"id":755977,"date":"2026-04-29T15:31:42","date_gmt":"2026-04-29T13:31:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/jurisprudences\/inmarsat-plc-re\/"},"modified":"2026-04-29T15:31:42","modified_gmt":"2026-04-29T13:31:42","slug":"inmarsat-plc-re","status":"publish","type":"kji_decision","link":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/inmarsat-plc-re\/","title":{"rendered":"Inmarsat Plc, Re"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

1. Yesterday, I sanctioned a\u00a0scheme of arrangement proposed in relation to the affairs of Inmarsat plc. These are my reasons for doing so. 2. Inmarsat Plc is a\u00a0globally recognised provider of mobile satellite services through a fleet of 13 satellites. It was formed in 1979 as a\u00a0treaty-based organisation, with an initial objective of providing maritime communications. Both its structure and its activities have since changed. 3. Since 2005, it has been a\u00a0listed English Plc. There are some 463,058,610 shares in issue. There are also some convertible bonds which contain favourable conversion terms. There also exist share employee share plans and long-term incentive plans under which shares are due to be issued. None of the detail of this matters and I\u00a0can simply approach the matter on the footing that there is a\u00a0single class of shareholders. 4. The activities of the company now focus on the provision of \u201cdata on the move\u201d to governments and to other financially secure institutions under long-term contracts. As part of this business, Inmarsat is entitled to certain radio spectrum rights. One growth area is the commercial airline cabin connectivity market which Inmarsat is seeking to exploit. 5. One group of such long-term contracts related to the licensing of part of the L-Band low to mid-range radio spectrum to a\u00a0business which, ignoring its various incarnations and restructurings, can conveniently be called \u201cLigado\u201d. Ligado is a\u00a0US satellite communications business which is seeking to develop a terrestrial mobile data network. In December\u00a02007, Inmarsat granted Ligado a\u00a0series of options to use some of the Inmarsat radio frequencies in North\u00a0America in return for scheduled payments. The bargain was contained in what is called \u201cthe Cooperation Agreement\u201d. 6. The options relate to frequencies at present allocated to mobile satellite services and they lie close to parts of the spectrum which are used for global positioning systems (\u201cGPS\u201d). Ligado does not want to use the option licence frequencies for mobile satellite services; it wants to use them as a\u00a0basis for its intended\u00a0terrestrial communications network, possibly 5G. For this, it needs the permission of the US Federal\u00a0Communications\u00a0Commission (\u201cFCC\u201d), to \u201crepurpose\u201d the spectrum. A\u00a0licence modification, such as that needed by Ligado, is not straightforward. Since at least 2010, the repurposing of the Ligado spectrum has been opposed by the US GPS community. The FCC requires that dispute to be resolved. In that regard, it will rely, in part, on the advice of the National Telecommunications Information Administration (\u201cNTIA\u201d) as to whether the issues are properly resolved; and it will also require approval by the Interdepartment Radio Advisory Committee (\u201cIRAC\u201d), which represents 19 US federal agencies relating principally to defence and to transport but intimately connected with GPS. 7. The modification of the Ligado spectrum is opposed not only by the GPS community but also by a\u00a0competitor of Inmarsat called \u201cIridium Communications\u201d. It has filed ten opposition filings relating to alleged interference with its networks. The proposed modification is also opposed by The Coalition of Geospatial Organisations. This has largely been the position for the past 4\u00a0years. 8. It is important for the purpose of this case to understand the relevance of this issue. A modification of the Ligado licence will not create any value for Inmarsat. What it will do is to reduce the commercial risks currently attaching to payments due from Ligado under the Cooperation Agreement. The inability to build the network has put Ligado's funding position under pressure and it has already been through a Chapter\u00a011 restructuring. As part of that, it negotiated with Inmarsat a\u00a0pause in the payments due under the Cooperation Agreement. There are thus substantial deferred payments, and a\u00a0programme to recommence payments and to pay off the arrears. This is the \u201ccommercial contingency\u201d to which I\u00a0refer. 9. In summary, payments due from Ligado were, in 2012, suspended until March\u00a02014 to facilitate the restructuring. There was then a\u00a0further amendment to the Cooperation Agreement, permitting further deferments. But in 2016, 2017 and 2018, Ligado did make aggregate payments in respect of current liabilities and deferred payments of about US$108\u00a0million\u00a0in 2016, US$111\u00a0million\u00a0in 2017 and US$118\u00a0million\u00a0in 2018. However, further deferred payments of US$35\u00a0million\u00a0remain outstanding. What was agreed was that there would be a\u00a0full payment deferral in 2019 and that quarterly payments would resume (i) in the quarter in which the FCC approved the Ligado licence modification or (ii) in any event, on 31\u00a0March\u00a02020. This revenue stream is estimated at $US136\u00a0million\u00a0per annum, growing thereafter at 3\u00a0per\u00a0cent, compounded over the next 89\u00a0years. Accordingly, the Cooperation Agreement, and the liabilities of Ligado under it, represent an important income stream for Inmarsat, but one which is attended by considerable risks. 10. The twin demands of (i) unreliable receipts under the Cooperation Agreement with Ligado (which I\u00a0should note, has associated costs which must be borne by Inmarsat, notwithstanding the non-receipt of funds from Ligado); and (ii) investment in developing cabin connectivity, led in 2017, to a\u00a0dividend cut by Inmarsat. As the Inmarsat Chairman explained in his 2017 report: "During 2017, particularly in the second half of the year, two elements started to become clearer. Firstly, the board's conviction around our opportunity to build our position in the emerging and substantial inflight connectivity segment continued to grow and, secondly, the continued lack of visibility and uncertainty around the future cash contribution from Ligado Networks. With these factors in mind, particularly their potential impact on our short to medium-term cash flow profile, the board took the decision to reduce the level of annual full year dividend payments." 11. That also had an impact on the share price. The Chairman also referred to that in his statement, saying: "In the light of this year's share price performance, we have also stood back and assessed our plans and performance. We have met extensively with shareholders and listened. It is clear from this feedback that there is growing concern about the impact of our medium to long-term investments and the short-term financial performance of the business and the implications for our strength downstream. It is important to emphasise that our business remains on a\u00a0solid footing financially and the board remains supportive of the investment path we are on. However, we will continue to assess various paths to enhance our progress over the short-term, as well as the long-term, to address the concerns which have been raised." The share price reflected what the market knew about and anticipated concerning the benefit of the Co-operation Agreement to Inmarsat and the prospective advantages to Inmarsat of a repurposing of its L-band spectrum on the application of Ligado. 12. So much for Inmarsat and its prospects and vulnerabilities in the spring of 2018. It is now convenient to introduce the predator seeking to take advantage of those vulnerabilities. Connect\u00a0Bidco\u00a0Limited (\u201cBidco\u201d) is a\u00a0consortium of four equal partners. Two are private equity funds, Apax Partners LLP or funds advised by them, and Warburg\u00a0Pincus International LLC or funds advised by them. Two consortium members are Canadian pension funds: The Canadian Pension Plan Investment Board and the Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan Board. 13. On 25\u00a0March\u00a02019 the Inmarsat and the Bidco boards jointly announced, in accordance with the rule 2.7 of the Takeover Code, the terms of a\u00a0recommended cash offer by Bidco for Inmarsat. The total offer price was US$7.21\u00a0per share. This comprised $7.09\u00a0cash consideration and the payment of a\u00a0previously announced final dividend of 12 cents per share, payable on 30\u00a0May\u00a02016. The offer price represented a\u00a046\u00a0per\u00a0cent premium to the undisturbed share price; and it represented a\u00a035\u00a0per\u00a0cent premium over the volume weighted average price of Inmarsat shares for the three months preceding the announcement. 14. The offer came with the unanimous recommendation of the Inmarsat board, advised by JP\u00a0Morgan Securities Plc, PJT\u00a0Partners UK Limited and Credit\u00a0Suisse International. It was proposed that the takeover should be implemented by way of a\u00a0scheme of arrangement under part\u00a026 of the Companies\u00a0Act 2006 and would be followed by de-listing and a\u00a0reregistration of Inmarsat. On 18\u00a0April\u00a02019, Inmarsat circulated an explanatory statement in relation to the scheme and a\u00a0chairman's letter. 15. The Chairman's letter told the shareholders that the Inmarsat board remained confident in the long-term prospects of the business. It said that in particular, the board believed that Inmarsat's existing strategy, including its seeking a\u00a0strong position in the growing market for commercial airline connectivity\u2019s, should continue to generate attractive returns on investments. But it then added: "However, the investments are expected to generate these returns over a\u00a0moderately lengthy period and to involve negative cash flows in their early years, including expenditures on next generation satellite networks and increases in operating expenses. Furthermore, while Inmarsat has a\u00a0number of potential growth opportunities, it is also the case that it has a\u00a0number of challenges, such as the impact of additional capacity and technologies which are driving disruption in some of Inmarsat's end markets, as has been seen recently in the maritime segment. The Inmarsat board believes that these features of Inmarsat's investment case have, in particular, led to an undisturbed share price that does not fully reflect the long-term value of Inmarsat." 16. Accordingly, the Chairman recommended acceptance of the offer (which placed a\u00a0value of some \u00a32.6\u00a0billion\u00a0on the entire issued and to be issued ordinary share capital). The issue facing the shareholders, their present position in the market when compared with their prospects and the costs of achieving those prospects, was thus fairly placed before those who had to consider the proposal. 17. The Explanatory Statement contained a\u00a0paragraph relating to Inmarsat's current trading and prospects. It drew attention to the fact that on 7\u00a0March\u00a02019, Inmarsat had announced its unaudited financial results for the year ending 31\u00a0December\u00a02018 and to the fact that the key highlights included the information that 2018 group revenue, \u201cexcluding Ligado\u201d had increased by some \u00a371.6\u00a0million\u00a0or 5.7\u00a0per\u00a0cent and its group EBITDA (again \u201cexcluding Ligado\u201d) had increased by \u00a327\u00a0million\u00a0or 4.4\u00a0per\u00a0cent. The paragraph went on to say that on 27\u00a0March 2019 Inmarsat had published its 2018 Annual Report which included financial statements for the year ended 31\u00a0December\u00a02018 and that the financial information relating to Inmarsat was incorporated by reference in the Explanatory Statement. 18. The material that was incorporated by reference contained a\u00a0crisp summary of the Cooperation Agreement and of the deferred payments due from Ligado. It pointed out that the deferment of payments due from Ligado had certain accounting consequences which were carefully explained on page\u00a0121 of the 2018 accounts. It pointed out that the Ligado impact was largely related to balance sheet items. 19. Although not incorporated by reference, the published 2018 Annual Accounts and Report had made further disclosures about the Ligado contracts. It pointed out that in 2018, there had been an increase in the payments received under the Cooperation Agreement and it drew attention to the fact that payments not made in 2019 (which might amount to \u00a3132.3\u00a0million\u00a0in aggregate) together with prior deferred payments would become due for payment by Ligado (with interest from their original date of payment) by no later than 30\u00a0June\u00a02021. 20. As to the commercial risk, the Business Overview noted: "Ligado continues in its efforts to obtain its licence from the Federal\u00a0Communications\u00a0Commission, with the timing and consequent impact on Inmarsat of any such decision remaining uncertain." 21. That was the material available to the shareholders for consideration at the scheme meeting. 22. The scheme meeting was held on 10\u00a0May. The turnout at the court meeting was 27.3\u00a0per\u00a0cent in number and 62.61\u00a0per\u00a0cent in value of the shareholder population. 484 of the 628 scheme shareholders who participated in the court meeting, holding some 229\u00a0million scheme shares, voted in favour of the scheme. 144 scheme shareholders, holding just over 61\u00a0million scheme shares, voted against the scheme. The majority was, therefore, 77.07\u00a0per\u00a0cent in number of the participating shareholders, representing 78.95\u00a0per\u00a0cent in value of the shares. 23. Amongst those who voted in favour of the scheme was Kite\u00a0Lake\u00a0Capital\u00a0Management UK LLP (\u201cKite Lake\u201d). This was a\u00a0fund which originally held derivatives but by the record date for the scheme meeting, had converted those derivative interests into 2.6\u00a0million shares or about 0.55\u00a0per\u00a0cent of the relevant shareholding. Another who voted in favour was Rubric\u00a0Capital\u00a0Management LP (\u201cRubric\u201d). They, likewise, held contracts for difference but because of doubts about whether the scheme might be approved, converted those contracts for difference into shares. 24. One of the parties that voted against the scheme was Oaktree\u00a0Value\u00a0Opportunities\u00a0Fund LLP (\u201cOaktree\u201d). It had begun purchasing shares in Inmarsat in September\u00a02018 based on a\u00a0belief that the L-band spectrum would acquire value as demand for 5G increased. But Oaktree voted against the scheme because it thought that notwithstanding the premium at which the offer was pitched, it nonetheless undervalued the company. Oaktree thought that the offer did not properly value the payment flows due under the Co-operation Agreement. It thought that notwithstanding the premium, little or no value could have been ascribed to those payment flows and that in any event, shareholders should have the opportunity to decide for themselves the level of risk which they wished to take in respect of those payment flows. Oaktree also thought that Inmarsat should, in the Explanatory Statement, have expressly disclosed an update of its assessment of the Ligado payments due under the Cooperation Agreement and an assessment of the value of the payment flows. 25. Further, Oaktree thought that because Ligado had before the FCC an application to modify the spectrum licence, the deal ought to have been structured to include a\u00a0\u201ccontingent value right\u201d. The majority of voting shareholders did not share this view and the scheme was approved, 26. From the beginning of October\u00a02019, Kite\u00a0Lake, Rubric and Oaktree became active objectors to the scheme. Inmarsat received indications of support for the objectors\u2019 position from other dissentient shareholders, though some of those held derivative economic interests which did not confer any voting rights. 27. In general, the thrust of the objections was, first, that the Explanatory Statement was not sufficiently clear about the Ligado contract, so that the integrity of the vote at the scheme meeting was suspect. Secondly, that because of the possibility of the FCC permitting a\u00a0modification to the Ligado spectrum, a\u00a0contingent valuation right should have been negotiated. Thirdly, that there had, in any event, been a\u00a0material change in circumstances since the May scheme meeting. In October here had been a\u00a0press story that the FCC would approve the Ligado modification shortly and so the parties objecting thought that there ought to be an extension to the timetable of the takeover and an adjournment of the sanction hearing. There was, lastly, a\u00a0general allegation that the board had failed to negotiate hard enough, possibly because of their prospective interests in the business under new ownership. 28. Of course, all of these objections were predicated on a\u00a0degree of flexibility on the part of Bidco; that Bidco could be persuaded to add some sort of contingent value right over and above the significant premiums that it was paying or that Bidco could be persuaded to postpone the timetable, in order to see if the FCC modification came through and, if so, whether that might lead to a renegotiation of the price. But the possibility of flexibility on the part of Bidco came to an abrupt end at 8.30\u00a0am on 2\u00a0December 2019, when Bidco announced to the market that it would not increase its offer and that it would not agree to any extension. 29. The scheme contained a\u00a0longstop date of 10\u00a0December 2019r. There was in correspondence with the objectors some indication of a\u00a0dispute as to the true construction of the longstop date and whether it was 10\u00a0December 2019 or 21\u00a0March 2020. But that dispute has now fallen by the wayside. Everyone now accepts that the longstop date for the scheme is 10\u00a0December 2019; and, accordingly, the decision facing the Court on the sanction hearing would be whether to sanction the scheme or whether, in refusing sanction, to cause the scheme to collapse, the result being that Bidco could not put in a\u00a0fresh offer for the company for the period of restriction laid down in the Takeover Code. 30. This is the sanction hearing to which I\u00a0have made reference. The role of the Court at the sanction hearing is well settled. A\u00a0further summary of familiar principles by me would benefit no\u00a0one. The relevant questions will be apparent from my detailed findings and holdings which follow. But I\u00a0should, in the context of this previously contested scheme of arrangement, draw attention to four matters, familiar though they are. 31. The first is that the fundamental question at the sanction hearing is one of fairness. The Court considers the fairness of the scheme, binding as it does, dissentient and absent shareholders. The test is generally put in this way: that the Court must be satisfied that the arrangement is such as an intelligent and honest man, a\u00a0member of the class concerned, acting in respect of his interest as such, might reasonably approve. 32. Secondly, the reference to the scheme being one such as might reasonably be approved, makes clear that the scheme need not be the only fair scheme or even in the Court's view, the best scheme. There are, necessarily, reasonable differences of opinion on these matters, as David Richards J (as he then was) pointed out, in Re Telewest Communications (No.\u00a02) [2004] EWHC 1466 at paragraph\u00a020. 33. Thirdly, when considering the question of fairness, the court, of course, takes account of (but is not bound by) the views expressed at the scheme meeting. Of longstanding is the enunciation of the principle by Lindley LJ in Re English, Scottish and Australian Chartered Bank [1893] 3 Ch 385 at 409, but it bears repetition in the context of this case. Lindley LJ said of the creditors\u2019 scheme before the Court "If the creditors are acting on sufficient information and with time to consider what they are about and are acting honestly, they are, I\u00a0apprehend, much better judges of what is to their commercial advantage than the Court can be. I\u00a0do not say it is conclusive, because there might be some blot in a\u00a0scheme which had passed that had been unobserved and which was pointed out later. While, therefore, I\u00a0protest that we are not to register their decisions, but to see that they have been properly convened and have been properly consulted and have considered the matter from a\u00a0proper point of view, that is with a\u00a0view to the interests of the class to which they belong and are empowered to bind, the Court ought to be slow to differ from them. It should do so without hesitation if there is anything wrong; but it\u00a0ought not to do so, in my judgment, unless there is something brought to the attention of the court to show that there has been some material oversight or miscarriage." 34. The fourth point to emphasise, as is apparent from that passage, that the Court is obliged to undertake independent scrutiny of the scheme. It is not relieved of that obligation by the fact that there is no opposition to the scheme, nor by the fact that objectors have withdrawn their objections and now no longer oppose the scheme. 35. I, therefore, turn to my detailed findings. 36. First, and this has not been a\u00a0matter of any debate, I\u00a0am satisfied that the scheme is indeed an \u201carrangement\u201d within Part\u00a026 of the 2006 Act. 37. Secondly, I\u00a0am satisfied that the statutory provisions have been complied with, by which I\u00a0mean both the direct statutory obligations and the proper compliance with the orders of the Court, as to the convening and conduct of the scheme meeting. 38. I\u00a0should, however, expand upon one element of my satisfaction that the statutory provisions have been complied with. The statutory provisions include in section\u00a0897, a\u00a0requirement that there be circulated a\u00a0\u201cstatement\u201d. According to section\u00a0897(2), the statement must "explain the effect of the compromise or arrangement". I am satisfied that the Explanatory Statement circulated by Inmarsat fulfils that statutory test, as illuminated by subsequent decisions of the Court. As was pointed out in Re Heron\u00a0International [1994] 1 BCLC 667 by Sir Donald Nicholls V-C, an explanation of the \u201ceffect\u201d of the scheme requires an explanation of how the scheme will affect a\u00a0shareholder commercially. The shareholder needs to be given such up-to-date information as can be reasonably provided about the scheme and as to what can be expected as an alternative to the scheme. This is the \u201csufficient information\u201d duty. 39. This is a\u00a0relatively straightforward scheme. But it is nonetheless wise to bear in mind the words of Maugham J in Re Dorman Long, [1934], 1\u00a0Ch 635 at 657. Noting that in many cases, participation at the shareholder meeting itself tended to be limited, Maugham J. said: "It is for that reason that the Court takes the view that it is essential to see that the explanatory circulars sent out by the board of the\u00a0company are perfectly fair and as far as possible, give all the information reasonably necessary to enable recipients to determine how to vote." 40. I\u00a0have considered the arguments advanced by Oaktree, Kite\u00a0Lake and Rubric as to the criticisms that might be levelled at the Explanatory Statement about the way in which it dealt with the Ligado arrangements. None of them was able to identify something in particular that ought to have been explained about the Cooperation Agreement over and above what was made public in the 2018 Annual Report and Accounts. The simple fact of the matter is that the Ligado payments are, as has been consistently reported in Annual Reports since at least 2014, subject to commercial contingencies. Ligado cannot afford to make the payments on a\u00a0regular basis and is dependent for the future upon an ability to modify the Ligado licence by agreement with the FCC and thereafter, to create and fund a\u00a0network through which to conduct its terrestrial business. That was the position at the date of the Explanatory and I\u00a0do not think there was anything that could have been put in the Explanatory Statement which could have illuminated that further. One has to remember what the essential issue facing the shareholders was. Given that all relevant information was in the market, in order realise value from their shareholding, did they want to rely on the present and prospective market estimation of that value or did they want to lock into a\u00a0substantial premium, over and above that market value? That is a straightforward question. It does not require the Explanatory Statement to descend into detail about prospective payment flows from a\u00a0variety of contracts which Inmarsat has with federal agencies, financially secure institutions or Ligado. In my judgment, the Explanatory Statement was clear, fair and sufficient. 41. The next question to be examined is whether the Court meeting was properly convened and conducted, and was attended by a\u00a0fair representation of the shareholder base. In my judgment, each of these requirements is satisfied. 42. Fourthly, I\u00a0must be satisfied that the requisite statutory majorities were achieved at the scheme meetings. I\u00a0have given the figures and I\u00a0am so satisfied. 43. Fifthly, I\u00a0must be satisfied that the business was fairly put before the meeting. As I\u00a0have indicated, I\u00a0consider the Chairman's Letter and the Explanatory Statement, fairly to put before the meeting the essential issue for decision. 44. Sixth, I\u00a0must be satisfied that the requisite majority at the meeting was acting bona fide and that there was no oppression of any minority. There has been no suggestion in this case of any element of oppression or that those who voted in favour of the scheme were doing so for reasons other than a\u00a0desire to realise, immediately, a\u00a0substantial premium over the market value of their holdings. 45. I\u00a0must, seventh, be satisfied that the \u201cfairness\u201d test is passed; that is to say, that an honest and intelligent class member could reasonably approve the proposal that was put before the meeting. Now, here, it is important to understand that even the objectors accept that that test is passed. None of the objectors has ever said that the scheme is not such as might reasonably be approved by an honest and intelligent shareholder. Their point has been that it might be possible to get a better deal. That has been the entire object of the campaign conducted by the objectors. 46. First, they say there should have been a \u201ccontingent valuation right\u201d incorporated. Now, as I\u00a0have pointed out, it is not my task to say that this scheme is the best scheme that is possible. Perhaps the scheme might have been improved by a\u00a0contingent valuation right but I\u00a0am somewhat sceptical as to that. First, I\u00a0do not see why it should be assumed that the present premium levels would have been maintained and a\u00a0contingent valuation right added by way of further consideration. Second, I\u00a0find some difficulty in identifying what the relevant \u201ccontingency\u201d might be. The point is not that an FCC modification of the Ligado option spectrum would enhance value for Inmarsat. What it might do is to reduce the commercial risk at present attending payments due from Ligado. But that is something which is already reflected in the current share price and in the premium which has been negotiated over that current share price. 47. The ability at the sanction hearing to object to an approved scheme is not conferred to see whether some better deal might be negotiated. Commercially, that of course, is the objective of the objectors. But it is not a\u00a0question with which the Court is ultimately concerned at that sanction hearing. The only question with which the Court is concerned is whether the scheme actually presented to it is such as might reasonably be approved by an honest and intelligent shareholder; and as I\u00a0have said, everyone agrees that this scheme satisfies that test. 48. Second, I\u00a0do not think that trying to negotiate an extension to the longstop date to see whether something might emerge out of the present FCC application process is a\u00a0relevant consideration. Again, that is trying to achieve a\u00a0better, and does not address the question whether the approved deal might be reasonably approved by honest and intelligent shareholders. So, I\u00a0am satisfied that the fairness test is passed. 49. The last matter for consideration is whether I\u00a0can properly, at this hearing, rely on the result of a\u00a0scheme meeting in May\u00a02019, in the light of the events which have transpired since the vote. This was part of the objectors\u2019 case. It was in October\u00a02019 that Kite\u00a0Lake, Rubric and Oaktree became active objectors and various other supporters emerged. The context of that was that in October\u00a02019, there was a\u00a0press article which speculated that the Ligado modification application had been progressed and had been passed by the FCC to the NTIA for comment. Now it must be said that this is pure press speculation. On the available material (and of course, the FCC does not conduct its affairs entirely in public) it does not appear that the Ligado modification application is on the agenda for any meeting of the FCC or is in circulation for consideration. 50. But I\u00a0received evidence from three \u201cexperts\u201d two from the objectors and one from Inmarsat, to inform me (i) of their opinions as to the reliability of the press story and (ii) as to what the process and the time frame would be on the assumption that the press story is true. I\u00a0did not find this evidence illuminating. No permission had been granted to adduce expert evidence (though given the tight time\u00a0frame within which the sanction hearing had to be prepared, a prior application for permission might have been difficult). But the important point is that none of this evidence complied with CPR Part\u00a035. I\u00a0have no sense that the opinions expressed are the opinions of independent persons, not in the thrall of the party calling them as a\u00a0witness, but owing a\u00a0duty to the Court. 51. What has emerged since the Court meeting that the Secretary of State for Defense has added to the opposition from the\u00a0GPS community and from Iridium. On 7\u00a0June\u00a02019, the acting Secretary of State for Defense wrote to the FCC to express concerns that there were too many unknowns and the risks to GPS were too great to allow Ligado's proposed repurposing to proceed. The letter also communicated the view of the Space-Based Positioning, Navigation and Timing National Executive Committee, (\u201cPNT\u00a0EXCOM\u201d). PNT\u00a0EXCOM was unambiguous in its recommendation against the approval of the Ligado proposal, based on the risk of significant and unacceptable interference to GPS, a\u00a0critical national security system. The Secretary of State therefore requested the FCC to reject the licence and not to allow the system to be deployed. 52. This was reinforced by a\u00a0letter from the present Secretary of State on 18\u00a0November\u00a02019, warning again that a\u00a0modification to the Ligado spectrum could have a\u00a0significant impact on military operations, both in peace time and war, and reiterating strong opposition to the licence modification. Mr\u00a0Nathan Leamer, a\u00a0witness adduced by the objectors, expresses his opinion that these letters are primarily a\u00a0piece of political rhetoric which is unlikely to sway the FCC one way or another. I\u00a0do not feel able to place reliance on that view. 53. In my judgment there has been no material change since the date of the court meeting such as would cause me to review the decision taken at that meeting. At the date of the court meeting, there was significant opposition to a\u00a0modification to the Ligado spectrum. Since the date of the court meeting, there has been a\u00a0press story which speculates that that opposition might be being in the process of being overcome, but there has been firm and repeated opposition to the modification from the Secretary of State for Defence, which supports the earlier opposition of the federal agencies. In short, as at today's date, the prospect of a\u00a0modification to the Ligado licence remains as uncertain as it was when the scheme was put to the shareholders. 54. In the result, I\u00a0am satisfied that I\u00a0can sanction this scheme. No\u00a0one suggests that there is any blot upon it. The scheme is simple and straightforward. It was properly put to a\u00a0properly convened meeting. There is nothing to suggest that the outcome of that meeting should be subject to revision and in the circumstances, I\u00a0have sanctioned the scheme.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Sources officielles :<\/strong> consulter la page source<\/a><\/p>\n

Open Justice Licence (The National Archives).<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

1. Yesterday, I sanctioned a scheme of arrangement proposed in relation to the affairs of Inmarsat plc. These are my reasons for doing so. 2. Inmarsat Plc is a globally recognised provider of mobile satellite services through a fleet of 13 satellites. It was formed in 1979 as a treaty-based organisation, with an initial objective of providing maritime communications. Both…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","meta":{"_crdt_document":""},"kji_country":[7608],"kji_court":[7618],"kji_chamber":[],"kji_year":[45029],"kji_subject":[7612],"kji_keyword":[45320,45319,13916,11503,9276],"kji_language":[7611],"class_list":["post-755977","kji_decision","type-kji_decision","status-publish","hentry","kji_country-royaume-uni","kji_court-high-court-chancery-division","kji_year-45029","kji_subject-fiscal","kji_keyword-inmarsat","kji_keyword-ligado","kji_keyword-meeting","kji_keyword-payments","kji_keyword-scheme","kji_language-anglais"],"yoast_head":"\nInmarsat Plc, Re - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/inmarsat-plc-re\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"ru_RU\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Inmarsat Plc, Re\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"1. Yesterday, I sanctioned a scheme of arrangement proposed in relation to the affairs of Inmarsat plc. These are my reasons for doing so. 2. Inmarsat Plc is a globally recognised provider of mobile satellite services through a fleet of 13 satellites. It was formed in 1979 as a treaty-based organisation, with an initial objective of providing maritime communications. Both...\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/inmarsat-plc-re\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"\u041f\u0440\u0438\u043c\u0435\u0440\u043d\u043e\u0435 \u0432\u0440\u0435\u043c\u044f \u0434\u043b\u044f \u0447\u0442\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044f\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"26 \u043c\u0438\u043d\u0443\u0442\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/inmarsat-plc-re\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/inmarsat-plc-re\\\/\",\"name\":\"Inmarsat Plc, Re - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-04-29T13:31:42+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/inmarsat-plc-re\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"ru-RU\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/inmarsat-plc-re\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/inmarsat-plc-re\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/avocats-en-droit-penal-a-paris-conseil-et-defense-strategique\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jurisprudences\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":3,\"name\":\"Inmarsat Plc, Re\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/\",\"name\":\"Kohen Avocats\",\"description\":\"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat p\u00e9naliste \u00e0 Paris, intervient exclusivement en droit p\u00e9nal pour la d\u00e9fense des particuliers, notamment en mati\u00e8re d\u2019accusations de viol. Il assure un accompagnement rigoureux d\u00e8s la garde \u00e0 vue jusqu\u2019\u00e0 la Cour d\u2019assises, veillant au strict respect des garanties proc\u00e9durales.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"ru-RU\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Kohen Avocats\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"ru-RU\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/01\\\/Logo-2-1.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/01\\\/Logo-2-1.webp\",\"width\":2114,\"height\":1253,\"caption\":\"Kohen Avocats\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"}}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Inmarsat Plc, Re - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/inmarsat-plc-re\/","og_locale":"ru_RU","og_type":"article","og_title":"Inmarsat Plc, Re","og_description":"1. Yesterday, I sanctioned a scheme of arrangement proposed in relation to the affairs of Inmarsat plc. These are my reasons for doing so. 2. Inmarsat Plc is a globally recognised provider of mobile satellite services through a fleet of 13 satellites. It was formed in 1979 as a treaty-based organisation, with an initial objective of providing maritime communications. Both...","og_url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/inmarsat-plc-re\/","og_site_name":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"\u041f\u0440\u0438\u043c\u0435\u0440\u043d\u043e\u0435 \u0432\u0440\u0435\u043c\u044f \u0434\u043b\u044f \u0447\u0442\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044f":"26 \u043c\u0438\u043d\u0443\u0442"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/inmarsat-plc-re\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/inmarsat-plc-re\/","name":"Inmarsat Plc, Re - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-04-29T13:31:42+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/inmarsat-plc-re\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"ru-RU","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/inmarsat-plc-re\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/inmarsat-plc-re\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/avocats-en-droit-penal-a-paris-conseil-et-defense-strategique\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jurisprudences","item":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"Inmarsat Plc, Re"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#website","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/","name":"Kohen Avocats","description":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat p\u00e9naliste \u00e0 Paris, intervient exclusivement en droit p\u00e9nal pour la d\u00e9fense des particuliers, notamment en mati\u00e8re d\u2019accusations de viol. Il assure un accompagnement rigoureux d\u00e8s la garde \u00e0 vue jusqu\u2019\u00e0 la Cour d\u2019assises, veillant au strict respect des garanties proc\u00e9durales.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"ru-RU"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#organization","name":"Kohen Avocats","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"ru-RU","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Logo-2-1.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Logo-2-1.webp","width":2114,"height":1253,"caption":"Kohen Avocats"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}}]}},"jetpack_likes_enabled":false,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_decision\/755977","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_decision"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/kji_decision"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=755977"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"kji_country","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_country?post=755977"},{"taxonomy":"kji_court","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_court?post=755977"},{"taxonomy":"kji_chamber","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_chamber?post=755977"},{"taxonomy":"kji_year","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_year?post=755977"},{"taxonomy":"kji_subject","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_subject?post=755977"},{"taxonomy":"kji_keyword","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_keyword?post=755977"},{"taxonomy":"kji_language","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_language?post=755977"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}