-----BEGIN PRIVACY-ENHANCED MESSAGE----- Proc-Type: 2001,MIC-CLEAR Originator-Name: webmaster@www.sec.gov Originator-Key-Asymmetric: MFgwCgYEVQgBAQICAf8DSgAwRwJAW2sNKK9AVtBzYZmr6aGjlWyK3XmZv3dTINen TWSM7vrzLADbmYQaionwg5sDW3P6oaM5D3tdezXMm7z1T+B+twIDAQAB MIC-Info: RSA-MD5,RSA, SrnNn5e/ftS6M8MOegu/xYEqQhKQdvDcCHCc1j4yhgWZIiEPMTnZmKK0cyOmF5vB MkekNAqFIL0lfCucZHplLQ== 0000950134-99-002194.txt : 19990331 0000950134-99-002194.hdr.sgml : 19990331 ACCESSION NUMBER: 0000950134-99-002194 CONFORMED SUBMISSION TYPE: 10-K405 PUBLIC DOCUMENT COUNT: 9 CONFORMED PERIOD OF REPORT: 19981231 FILED AS OF DATE: 19990330 FILER: COMPANY DATA: COMPANY CONFORMED NAME: ALLEGIANCE TELECOM INC CENTRAL INDEX KEY: 0001058703 STANDARD INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION: TELEPHONE COMMUNICATIONS (NO RADIO TELEPHONE) [4813] IRS NUMBER: 752721491 STATE OF INCORPORATION: DE FISCAL YEAR END: 1231 FILING VALUES: FORM TYPE: 10-K405 SEC ACT: SEC FILE NUMBER: 000-24509 FILM NUMBER: 99577256 BUSINESS ADDRESS: STREET 1: 1950 STEMMONS FRWY STREET 2: STE 3026 CITY: DALLAS STATE: TX ZIP: 75207 BUSINESS PHONE: 2148537100 MAIL ADDRESS: STREET 1: 1950 STEMMONS FRWY STREET 2: STE 3026 CITY: DALLAS STATE: TX ZIP: 75207 10-K405 1 FORM 10-K FOR FISCAL YEAR END DECEMBER 31, 1998 1 =============================================================================== UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION WASHINGTON, DC 20549 FORM 10-K [X] Annual report pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for the fiscal year ended: December 31, 1998 or [ ] Transition report pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for the transition period from ______________ to ______________. Commission File Number: 0-24509 ALLEGIANCE TELECOM, INC. (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter) Delaware 75-2721491 (State of Incorporation) (IRS Employer Identification No.)
1950 Stemmons Freeway Suite 3026 Dallas, Texas 75207 (214) 261-7100 (Address of Principal Executive Offices) (Zip Code) (Registrant's Telephone Number, Including Area Code) Securities Registered Pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act: None Securities Registered Pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: Common Stock, par value $.01, quoted on the Nasdaq National Market
Indicate by check mark whether Allegiance (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that it was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes [X] No [ ] Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of Allegiance's knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. [X] Based on the closing sales price on the Nasdaq National Market on March 24, 1999 of $26.125, the aggregate market value of our voting stock held by non-affiliates on such date was approximately $400,981,896. Shares of common stock held by each director and executive officer and by each person who owns or may be deemed to own 10% or more of our outstanding common stock have been excluded, since such persons may be deemed to be affiliates. This determination of affiliate status is not necessarily a conclusive determination for other purposes. As of that date, Allegiance Telecom, Inc. had 50,360,886 shares of common stock issued and outstanding. DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE o Portions of Allegiance's annual report to stockholders for fiscal year ended December 31, 1998 are incorporated by reference into Parts II and IV of this report. This annual report shall be deemed "filed" with the SEC only with respect to those portions specifically incorporated by reference in this report. o Portions of Allegiance's definitive proxy statement for the annual meeting of stockholders for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1998, which will be filed with the SEC no later than April 30, 1999, are incorporated by reference into Part III of this report. ================================================================================ 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS TO ALLEGIANCE TELECOM, INC.'S ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDING DECEMBER 31, 1998
PAGE ---- PART I........................................................................................................ 1 Recent Developments ....................................................................................... 1 Item 1. Business ..................................................................................... 1 Item 2. Properties.................................................................................... 22 Item 3. Legal Proceedings............................................................................. 22 Item 4. Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders........................................... 22 Item 4A. Executive Officers of Allegiance.............................................................. 23 PART II....................................................................................................... 25 Item 5. Market for Allegiance's Common Stock and Related Stockholder Matters.......................... 25 Item 6. Selected Financial Data....................................................................... 26 Item 7. Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations................................................................................................. 26 Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk.................................... 26 Item 8. Consolidated Financial Statements and Supplementary Data...................................... 27 Item 9. Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure................................................................................................. 27 PART III...................................................................................................... 27 Item 10. Directors and Executive Officers of Allegiance................................................ 27 Item 11. Executive Compensation........................................................................ 27 Item 12. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management................................ 27 Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions................................................ 27 PART IV....................................................................................................... 28 Item 14. Exhibits, Financial Statement Schedules and Reports on Form 8-K Index to Exhibits............................................................................................. E-1
3 RECENT DEVELOPMENTS On March 19, 1999, we announced that we intend to offer 10,000,000 shares of our common stock in an underwritten primary offering. We also recently retained Goldman Sachs Credit Partners L.P., TD Securities (USA) Inc. and Morgan Stanley Senior Funding, Inc. to arrange a senior secured revolving credit facility maturing December 31, 2005 for a subsidiary of Allegiance Telecom, Inc. These banks have received commitments for this facility aggregating in excess of $200 million from various lenders. These commitments remain subject to various conditions including the negotiation and execution of a definitive credit agreement. Assuming the closing of the common stock offering and of the credit facility, we plan to accelerate deployment of our networks in Detroit and Baltimore into 1999. Based on preliminary information, we estimate that for the three months ended March 31, 1999, we will have consolidated revenues of $9.7 million and earnings before interest, income taxes, depreciation and amortization, management ownership allocation charge and noncash deferred compensation of negative $25 million; and will have made capital expenditures of approximately $60 million. We believe that for the first quarter of 1999, we will have sold 44,500 lines and that 32,000 lines will have been installed. PART I ITEM 1. BUSINESS OVERVIEW Allegiance seeks to be a premier provider of telecommunications services to business, government and other institutional users in 24 of the largest major metropolitan areas across the United States. Allegiance offers an integrated set of telecommunications products and services including local exchange, local access, domestic and international long distance, enhanced voice, data and a full suite of Internet services. Allegiance generally prices these services at a discount of 5% to 15% below the prices charged by the incumbent local exchange carriers. Allegiance was founded in April 1997 by a management team led by Royce J. Holland, the former President, Chief Operating Officer and co-founder of MFS Communications, and Thomas M. Lord, former Managing Director of Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc., where he specialized in the telecommunications, information services and technology industries. Allegiance believes that the Telecommunications Act, by opening the local exchange market to competition, has created an attractive opportunity for new facilities-based competitive local exchange carriers like Allegiance. Most importantly, the Telecommunications Act stated that these carriers, known as CLECs, should be able to lease the various elements of the ILECs' networks, which are necessary for the cost-effective provision of service. This aspect of the Telecommunications Act, which is referred to as "unbundling" the ILEC networks, has enabled Allegiance to deploy digital switches with local and long distance capability and lease fiber optic lines from the ILECs, other CLECs, and other telecommunications companies to connect Allegiance's switch with its transmission equipment located in ILEC central offices. Once traffic volume growth justifies further capital investment, Allegiance may lease dark fiber or construct its own fiber network. Allegiance has developed procedures, together with its back office systems vendors, MetaSolv, DSET, Lucent and Intertech, that it believes will provide it with a significant competitive advantage in terms of reducing costs, processing large order volumes and providing customer service. Back office systems enable a phone company to enter, schedule and track a customer's order from the point of sale to the installation and testing of service. These systems also include or interface with trouble management, inventory, billing, collection and customer service systems. Allegiance is determined to achieve electronic bonding, the on-line and real-time connection of Allegiance's operations support systems with those of the ILECs, with each of the incumbent telecommunications companies in most of its markets by the end of 1999. On January 8, 1999, Allegiance and Bell Atlantic became the first facilities-based CLEC and ILEC to formally engage in electronic bonding after working since April 1998 to develop the necessary software and processes. This will allow Allegiance to create service requests on-line, leading to faster installations of customer orders through a reduction in errors associated with multiple manual inputs. Allegiance expects electronic bonding to improve productivity by decreasing the period between the time of sale and the time a 1 4 customer's line is installed in the Allegiance network. In addition, Allegiance expects that the simplified process will reduce selling, general and administrative costs. Allegiance believes that it will be some time before many other CLECs and telecommunications service companies will be able to implement similar electronic bonding systems. Unlike Allegiance, which is a new company designing its systems specifically for electronic bonding, most of these other carriers have systems that have been in place for years and already support a large number of customers with ongoing service. Updating these systems can therefore disrupt service and be much more costly and time consuming. Allegiance intends to continue network deployment of its initial 24 markets. Allegiance estimates that these 24 markets will include more than 21 million non-residential access lines. According to Allegiance estimates, this represents approximately 44.7% of the total non-residential access lines in the U.S. With a strategy focusing on the central business districts and suburban commercial districts in these areas, Allegiance plans to address a majority of the non-residential access lines in most of its targeted markets. As of December 31, 1998, Allegiance was operational in nine markets: New York City, Dallas, Atlanta, Fort Worth, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Boston and Oakland. As of such date, Allegiance was in the process of deploying networks in eight other markets: Houston, Long Island, Northern New Jersey, Orange County, San Diego, San Jose, Philadelphia and Washington, D.C. As of March 15, 1999, Allegiance was operational in eleven markets: New York City, Dallas, Atlanta, Fort Worth, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Boston, Oakland, Philadelphia and Washington, D.C. As of such date, Allegiance was in the process of deploying networks in six other markets: Houston, Long Island, Northern New Jersey, Orange County, San Diego and San Jose. ALLEGIANCE'S TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES Allegiance tailors its service offerings to meet the specific needs of the business, government, and other institutional customers in its target markets. Management believes that Allegiance's close contact with customers from its direct sales force and customer care personnel will enable it to tailor its service offerings to meet customers' needs and to creatively package its services to provide "one-stop shopping" solutions for those customers. Local Exchange Services. Allegiance offers local telephone services, including local dial tone as well as other features such as: o call forwarding; o call waiting; o dial back; o caller ID; and o voice mail. By offering dial tone service, Allegiance also receives originating and terminating access charges for interexchange calls placed or received by its subscribers. Private Branch Exchange/Shared Tenant Services. In areas where telephone density is high and most telephone customers desire similar services, such as office buildings, apartments, condominiums or campus-type environments, a private branch exchange or services such as Centrex are among the most efficient means of providing telephone services. A private branch exchange, also known as "PBX," is a switching system located within an office building and owned by a customer which allows calls from the outside to be routed directly to the individual instead of through a central number. PBX also allows for calling within an office by way of four digit extensions. Centrex is a service that offers features similar to those of a PBX, except that the switching equipment is located at the telephone carrier's premises and not at the customer's premises. The use of the Centrex service eliminates the need for large capital expenditures on a PBX. Allegiance intends to offer these services in areas where market potential warrants. Integrated Services Digital Network and High Speed Data Services. Allegiance offers high speed data transmission services, such as: 2 5 o wide area network interconnection, which are remote computer communications systems that allow file sharing among geographically distributed workgroups; wide area networks typically use links provided by local telephone companies; and o broadband Internet access, also known as "wideband," which allows large quantities of data to be transmitted simultaneously. These services may be provided via frame relay and dedicated point-to-point connections. In order to provide these services, Allegiance intends to utilize leased high capacity connections, such as multiple DS-1, DS-3, T1 or T3 connections, to medium- and large-sized business, government and other institutional customers. Allegiance may also employ DSL and/or ISDN connections over unbundled copper wire connections to smaller business users whose telecommunications requirements may not justify such high capacity connections or which are located in areas where T1 connections are not available. Interexchange/Long Distance Services. Allegiance offers a full range of: o domestic long distance services, such as: -- interLATA, which are calls that pass one "Local Access and Transport Area" or "LATA" to another, and such calls must be carried across the LATA boundary by a long-distance carrier, -- intraLATA, which is a call that falls within the local service area of a single local telephone company, and o international long distance services. These services include "1+" outbound calling, inbound toll free service, and such complementary services as calling cards, operator assistance, and conference calling. Enhanced Internet Services. Allegiance offers dedicated and dial-up high speed Internet access services via conventional modem connections, ISDN, and T1 and higher speed dedicated connections. In addition, Allegiance expects to offer DSL services beginning in 1999. Dedicated access services are telecommunications lines dedicated or reserved for use by particular customers. Web Site Design and Hosting Services. Allegiance plans to offer Web site design services and Web site hosting on its own computer servers to provide customers with a complete, easy to use key solution that gives them a presence on the World Wide Web. Facilities and Systems Integration Services. Allegiance offers individual customers assistance with the: o design and implementation of complete, easy to use solutions in order to meet their specific needs, including the selection of the customer's premises equipment, interconnection of local area networks and wide area networks, and o implementation of virtual private networks. Virtual private networks simulate private line networks without actually building a private network and offer special services such as abbreviated dialing, where a customer can call between offices in different area codes without having to dial all eleven digits. Wholesale Services to Internet Service Providers. Allegiance believes that with the recent growth in demand for Internet services, numerous Internet service providers are unable to obtain network capacity rapidly enough to meet customer demand and eliminate network congestion problems. Allegiance plans to supplement its core customer product offerings by providing a full array of local services to Internet service providers, including telephone numbers and switched and dedicated access to the Internet. SALES AND CUSTOMER SUPPORT Allegiance offers an integrated package of local exchange, local access, domestic and international long distance, enhanced voice, data, and a full suite of Internet services to small and medium-sized businesses. Unlike large corporate, government, or other institutional users, small and medium-sized businesses often have no in-house telecommunications manager. Based on management's previous experience, Allegiance believes that a direct sales and customer care program focusing on complete, "one-stop shopping" solutions will have a competitive advantage in capturing this type of customer's total telecommunications traffic. 3 6 Although the vast majority of Allegiance's sales force is focused primarily on the small and medium-sized business market, Allegiance also provides services to large business, government, and other institutional users, as well as to Internet service providers, and expects that a significant portion of its initial revenue will come from these areas of its business. Therefore, Allegiance has organized its sales and customer care organizations to serve each of these three markets. Sales and marketing approaches in the telecommunications market are market-segment specific, and Allegiance believes the following are the most effective approaches with respect to its three targeted markets: o Small/medium businesses -- Allegiance uses direct sales. o Large business, government, and other institutional users -- Allegiance uses account teams, established business relationships, applications sales and technical journal articles, and is an exhibitor at trade shows. o Wholesale carriers, primarily Internet service providers -- Allegiance uses direct sales, established business relationships, and competitive pricing. Allegiance organizes account executives into teams of six to eight persons with a team manager and a sales support specialist. These teams utilize telemarketing to "qualify" leads and set up initial appointments. Allegiance closely manages account executives with regard to the number of sales calls per week, with the goal of eventually calling on every prospective business customer in an account executive's sales territory. Allegiance uses commission plans and incentive programs to reward and retain the top performers and encourage strong customer relationships. The sales team managers for each market report to a city sales vice president who in turn reports to a regional vice president. Allegiance's wholesale sales to Internet service providers are performed by account executives reporting to the vice president of national accounts. The vice president of national accounts also has responsibility for large corporate, government, and other institutional accounts, with designated national account managers and sales support personnel assigned to the major accounts. Unlike the small and medium-sized business accounts, the national account program is being built by recruiting national account managers with established business relationships with large corporate accounts, supported by technical applications personnel and customer care specialists. Allegiance has focused its efforts on developing a personalized customer care program. Allegiance's customer service representatives are available seven days a week, 24 hours a day. In addition, Allegiance uses customer care specialists to support its national accounts. INFORMATION SYSTEMS Allegiance is continuing to develop its tailored information systems and procedures for operations support and other back office systems that it believes will provide a significant competitive advantage in terms of cost, processing large order volumes, and customer service. These systems are required to enter, schedule, provision, and track a customer's order from the point of sale to the installation and testing of service and also include or interface with trouble management, inventory, billing, collection and customer service systems. The existing systems currently employed by most ILECs, CLECs and long distance carriers, which were developed prior to the passage of the Telecommunications Act, generally require multiple entries of customer information to accomplish order management, provisioning, switch administration and billing. This process is not only labor intensive, but it creates numerous opportunities for errors in provisioning service and billing, delays in installing orders, service interruptions, poor customer service, increased customer turnover, and significant added expenses due to duplicated efforts and decreased customer satisfaction. Allegiance believes that the practical problems and costs of upgrading existing systems are often prohibitive for companies whose existing systems support a large number of customers with ongoing service. Because Allegiance does not have systems designed prior to the expanded interaction between CLECs and ILECs introduced by the Telecommunications Act, Allegiance's team of engineering and information technology professionals experienced in the CLEC industry is free to develop operations support and other back office systems designed to facilitate a smooth, efficient order management, provisioning, trouble management, billing and collection, and customer care process. See "Risk Factors -- We Are Dependent on Effective Billing, Customer Service and Information Systems and We May Have Difficulties in Developing These Systems." Order Management. Allegiance is licensing MetaSolv's order management software. This product allows the sales team not only to enter customer orders onsite, via computer and/or over the Internet, but also to monitor the status of the order as it progresses through the service initiation process. 4 7 Provisioning Management. The licensed order management software also supports the design and management of the provisioning process, including circuit design and work flow management. The system has been designed to permit programming into the system of a standard schedule of tasks which must be accomplished in order to initiate service to a customer, as well as the standard time intervals during which each such task must be completed. This way, when a standard order is selected in the system, each required task in the service initiation process can be efficiently managed to its assigned time interval. External Interfaces. Several external interfaces are required to initiate service for a customer. While some of these are automated via gateways from the order management software, the most important interfaces, those to the ILEC, have generally been accomplished via fax or e-mail. In an effort to make this process more efficient, Allegiance and Bell Atlantic announced on January 8, 1999, the first implementation of electronic bonding between the operations support system of a facilities-based CLEC and an ILEC. Electronic bonding will allow Allegiance to access data from the ILEC, submit service requests electronically, and more quickly attend to errors in the local service request form because an order is bounced back immediately if the ILEC determines that there is a mistake. As a result, Allegiance expects to be able to eventually reduce the time frame required to switch service to Allegiance from approximately 25 business days to as low as five business days, as compared to three days currently required to switch to a new long distance carrier. Electronic bonding should also enable Allegiance to improve its ability to provide better customer care since Allegiance will more readily be able to pinpoint where any problems may have occurred with a customer's order. Network Element Administration. Allegiance licenses their software for administrating each element of the Allegiance network. Allegiance is currently developing an interface between its order management system and the network element manager to integrate data integrity and eliminate redundant data entry. Customer Billing. Allegiance has selected a billing services provider which credits the collections made to Allegiance's lock-box. Customer information is electronically interfaced with this provider from Allegiance's order management system via a gateway, thereby integrating all repositories of information. We are continuing to develop other enhancements to the gateway. Billing Records. Local and intraLATA billing records are generated by the Lucent Series 5ESS(R)-2000 switches to record customer calling activity. InterLATA billing records are generated by the long distance carrier with whom Allegiance has a resale agreement, to record customer calling activity. These records will be automatically processed by the billing services provider in order to calculate and produce bills in a customer-specified billing format. NETWORK DEPLOYMENT As of March 15, 1999, Allegiance was operational in eleven markets: New York City, Dallas, Atlanta, Fort Worth, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Boston, Oakland, Philadelphia and Washington, D.C. As of such date, Allegiance was in the process of deploying networks in six other markets: Houston, Long Island, Northern New Jersey, Orange County, San Diego, and San Jose. The following table sets forth the initial markets targeted by Allegiance and the current buildout schedule. The order and timing of network deployment may vary and will depend on a number of factors, including recruiting city management, the regulatory environment, Allegiance's results of operations and the existence of specific market opportunities, such as acquisitions. Allegiance may also elect not to deploy networks in each such market. 5 8 MARKET SIZE AND BUILDOUT SCHEDULE
ESTIMATED TOTAL NON-RESIDENTIAL % OF TOTAL INITIAL ACCESS LINES (1) U.S. NON-RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES-BASED MARKET (THOUSANDS) ACCESS LINES (2) SERVICE DATE (3) - --------------------------- -------------------------- ------------------------- ------------------------- New York City........... 3,298(4) 6.7%(4) March 1998 Dallas, TX.............. 867(5) 1.8%(5) April 1998 Atlanta, GA............. 612 1.2% April 1998 Fort Worth, TX.......... --(5) -- (5) July 1998 Chicago, IL............. 1,951 4.0% September 1998 Los Angeles, CA......... 3,430(6) 7.0%(6) October 1998 San Francisco, CA....... 2,148(7) 4.4%(7) November 1998 Boston, MA.............. 649 1.3% December 1998 Oakland, CA............. --(7) -- (7) December 1998 Philadelphia, PA........ 1,754 3.6% February 1999 Washington, D.C......... 871 1.8% March 1999 San Jose, CA............ --(7) -- (7) 1999 Northern New Jersey..... --(4) -- (4) 1999 Houston, TX............. 765 1.6% 1999 Orange County, CA.. --(6) -- (6) 1999 San Diego, CA........... 790 1.6% 1999 Long Island, NY......... --(4) -- (4) 1999 Baltimore, MD........... 639 1.3% 1999 Detroit, MI............. 821 1.7% 1999 Denver, CO.............. 632 1.3% 2000 Seattle, WA............. 779 1.6% 2000 Cleveland, OH........... 654 1.3% 2000 Miami, FL............... 769 1.6% 2000 St. Louis, MO........... 449 0.9% 2000 ------ ---- Total......... 21,878 44.7% ====== ====
- ---------- (1) Data as of December 31, 1996. (2) Based on an estimated 49.0 million U.S. non-residential access lines as of December 31, 1996. (3) Refers to the first month during which Allegiance could offer facilities-based service or the year during which Allegiance expects to be able to offer facilities-based service based on its current business plan. (4) Data for New York City also includes Northern New Jersey and Long Island, NY. (5) Data for Dallas, TX also includes Fort Worth, TX. (6) Data for Los Angeles, CA also includes Orange County, CA. (7) Data for San Francisco, CA also includes San Jose, CA and Oakland, CA. In the majority of its targeted markets, Allegiance will initially deploy switches and collocate transmission equipment in ILEC central offices with heavy concentrations of non-residential access lines. Over time, Allegiance plans to expand its networks throughout the metropolitan areas to address the majority of the business market in each area. In some markets, such as Northern New Jersey, Allegiance will not initially deploy its own switch, but will deploy transmission equipment in major central offices and route traffic to an existing Allegiance switch until traffic growth warrants the addition of a switch to service that market. 6 9 NETWORK ARCHITECTURE An important element of Allegiance's smart build strategy is the installation of Lucent Series 5ESS(R)-2000 digital switches and related equipment at a central location in each market. As of December 31, 1998, Allegiance had deployed seven switches to serve nine markets: New York City, Dallas, Atlanta, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Fort Worth, Oakland and Boston. Initially, Allegiance intends to lease local network trunking facilities from the ILEC and/or one or more CLECs in order to connect Allegiance's switch to major ILEC central offices serving the central business district and outlying areas of business concentrations in each market. The switch will also be connected to ILEC tandem switches and certain interexchange carrier points-of-presence, the equivalent of a local phone company's central office. To access the largest number of customers possible without having to lay fiber to each of their premises, Allegiance will also locate access equipment such as integrated digital loop carriers and related equipment in each of the ILEC central offices in which it is connected. As each customer is signed up, service will be provided by leasing unbundled loops from the ILEC to connect Allegiance's integrated digital loop carriers located in the serving central office to the customer premise equipment. For large business, government, or other institutional customers or for numerous customers located in large buildings, it may be more cost-effective for Allegiance to use leased ILEC or CLEC capacity in the 1.5 to 150 megabit range, or perhaps a wireless local loop leased from one of the emerging wireless CLECs, to connect the customer(s) to the Allegiance network. In this case, Allegiance will locate its integrated digital loop carriers or other equipment in the customer's building. Although Allegiance will initially lease its local network transmission facilities, Allegiance plans to replace leased capacity with its own fiber optic facilities as and when it experiences sufficient traffic volume growth between its switch and specific ILEC central offices or as other factors make these arrangements more attractive. IMPLEMENTATION OF SERVICES To offer services in a market, Allegiance generally must secure certification from the state regulator and typically must file tariffs or price lists for the services that it will offer. The certification process varies from state to state; however, the fundamental requirements are largely the same. State regulators require new entrants to demonstrate that they have secured adequate financial resources to establish and maintain good customer service. New entrants must also show that they possess the knowledge and ability required to establish and operate a telecommunications network. Allegiance has made such demonstrations in Texas, Georgia, California, Illinois, Maryland, New York, New Jersey, Virginia, Massachusetts and Washington, D.C., where Allegiance has obtained certificates to provide local exchange and intrastate toll services. Applications for such authority are pending in Colorado, Michigan, Washington and Pennsylvania, where Allegiance has obtained interim operating authority. Allegiance intends to file similar applications in the near future in Ohio, Missouri and Florida. Before providing local service, a new entrant must negotiate and execute an interconnection agreement with the ILEC. While such agreements can be voluminous and may take months to negotiate, most of the key interconnection issues have now been thoroughly addressed and commissions in most states have ruled on arbitrations between the ILECs and new entrants. However, interconnection rates and conditions may be subject to change as the result of future commission actions or other changes in the regulatory environment. Under a recent United States Supreme Court ruling, new entrants may adopt either all or portions of an interconnection agreement already entered into by the ILEC and another carrier. Such an approach will be selectively adopted by Allegiance to enable it to enter markets quickly while at the same time preserving its right to replace the adopted agreement with a customized interconnection agreement that can be negotiated once service has already been established. For example, Allegiance has adopted the interconnection agreement entered into between Southwestern Bell and WinStar Wireless of Texas, Inc. in Texas and has begun to negotiate enhancements to that agreement for ultimate inclusion in Allegiance's customized agreement with Southwestern Bell. While such interconnection agreements include key terms and prices for interconnection, a significant joint implementation effort must be made with the ILEC in order to establish operationally efficient and reliable traffic interchange arrangements. Such interchange arrangements must include those between the new entrant's network and the facilities of other service providers as well as public service agencies. For example, Allegiance worked closely with Southwestern Bell in order to devise and implement an efficient 911 call routing plan that will meet the 7 10 requirements of each individual 911 service bureau in Southwestern Bell areas that Allegiance will serve using its own switches. Allegiance meets with key personnel from 911 service bureaus to obtain their acceptance and to establish dates for circuit establishment and joint testing. Other examples of traffic interchange and interconnection arrangements utilizing the ILEC's network include connectivity to its out-of-band signaling facilities, interconnectivity to the ILEC's operator services and directory assistance personnel, and access through the ILEC to the networks of wireless companies and interexchange carriers. Allegiance has entered into interconnection agreements with the ILECs in each of the states in which its current eleven geographic markets are located. In Georgia, New York and Texas, however, the original interconnection agreements have expired. Allegiance is operating under the terms of these agreements while negotiating new interconnection agreements. The new agreements will likely have retroactive effective dates. After the initial implementation activities are completed in a market, Allegiance follows an on-going capacity management plan to ensure that adequate quantities of network facilities, such as interconnection trunks are in place, and a contingency plan must be devised to address spikes in demand caused by events such as a larger-than-expected customer sale in a relatively small geographic area. REGULATION Allegiance's telecommunications services business is subject to federal, state and local regulation. Federal Regulation The FCC regulates interstate and international telecommunications services, including the use of local telephone facilities to originate and terminate interstate and international calls. Allegiance provides such services on a common carrier basis. The FCC imposes certain regulations on common carriers such as the ILECs that have some degree of market power. The FCC imposes less regulation on common carriers without market power including, to date, CLECs like Allegiance. The FCC requires common carriers to receive an authorization to construct and operate telecommunications facilities, and to provide or resell telecommunications services, between the United States and international points. Under the Telecommunications Act, any entity, including cable television companies and electric and gas utilities, may enter any telecommunications market, subject to reasonable state regulation of safety, quality and consumer protection. Because implementation of the Telecommunications Act is subject to numerous federal and state policy rulemaking proceedings and judicial review there is still uncertainty as to what impact such legislation will have on Allegiance. The Telecommunications Act is intended to increase competition. The act opens the local services market by requiring ILECs to permit interconnection to their networks and establishing ILEC obligations with respect to: Reciprocal Compensation. Requires all local exchange carriers to complete calls originated by competing local exchange carriers under reciprocal arrangements at prices based on tariffs or negotiated prices. Resale. Requires all ILECs and CLECs to permit resale of their telecommunications services without unreasonable restrictions or conditions. In addition, ILECs are required to offer wholesale versions of all retail services to other telecommunications carriers for resale at discounted rates, based on the costs avoided by the ILEC in the wholesale offering. Interconnection. Requires all ILECs and CLECs to permit their competitors to interconnect with their facilities. Requires all ILECs to permit interconnection at any technically feasible point within their networks, on nondiscriminatory terms, at prices based on cost, which may include a reasonable profit. At the option of the carrier seeking interconnection, collocation of the requesting carrier's equipment in the ILECs' premises must be offered, except where an ILEC can demonstrate space limitations or other technical impediments to collocation. Unbundled Access. Requires all ILECs to provide nondiscriminatory access to unbundled network elements including, network facilities, equipment, features, functions, and capabilities, at any technically feasible point within their networks, on nondiscriminatory terms, at prices based on cost, which may include a reasonable profit. 8 11 Number Portability. Requires all ILECs and CLECs to permit users of telecommunications services to retain existing telephone numbers without impairment of quality, reliability or convenience when switching from one telecommunications carrier to another. Dialing Parity. Requires all ILECs and CLECs to provide "1+" equal access to competing providers of telephone exchange service and toll service, and to provide nondiscriminatory access to telephone numbers, operator services, directory assistance, and directory listing, with no unreasonable dialing delays. Access to Rights-of-Way. Requires all ILECs and CLECs to permit competing carriers access to poles, ducts, conduits and rights-of-way at regulated prices. ILECs are required to negotiate in good faith with carriers requesting any or all of the above arrangements. If the negotiating carriers cannot reach agreement within a prescribed time, either carrier may request binding arbitration of the disputed issues by the state regulatory commission. Where an agreement has not been reached, ILECs remain subject to interconnection obligations established by the FCC and state telecommunication regulatory commissions. In August 1996, the FCC released a decision establishing rules implementing the ILEC interconnection obligations described above. On July 18, 1997, the Eighth Circuit vacated certain portions of this decision and narrowly interpreted the FCC's power to prescribe and enforce rules implementing the Telecommunications Act. On January 25, 1999, the United States Supreme Court reversed the Eighth Circuit decision and reaffirmed the FCC's broad authority to issue rules implementing the Telecommunications Act, although it did vacate a rule determining which network elements the incumbent local exchange carriers must provide to competitors on an unbundled basis. Allegiance, however, leases only the basic unbundled network elements from the ILEC and therefore does not expect reconsideration of the unbundling rules to have an adverse effect on its smart build strategy. Nevertheless, the FCC likely will conduct additional rulemaking proceedings to conform to the Supreme Court's interpretation of the law, and these proceedings may result in further judicial review. While these court proceedings were pending, Allegiance entered into interconnection agreements with a number of ILECs through negotiations or, in some cases, adoption of another CLEC's approved agreement. These agreements remain in effect, although in some cases one or both parties may be entitled to demand renegotiation of particular provisions based on intervening changes in the law. However, it is uncertain whether Allegiance will be able to obtain renewal of these agreements on favorable terms when they expire. The Telecommunications Act codifies the ILECs' equal access and nondiscrimination obligations and preempts inconsistent state regulation. The Telecommunications Act also contains special provisions that replace prior antitrust restrictions that prohibited the regional Bell operating companies from providing long distance services and engaging in telecommunications equipment manufacturing. The Telecommunications Act permitted the regional Bell operating companies to enter the out-of-region long distance market immediately upon its enactment. Further, provisions of the Telecommunications Act permit a regional Bell operating company to enter the long distance market in its in-region states if it satisfies several procedural and substantive requirements, including: o obtaining FCC approval upon a showing that the regional Bell operating company has entered into interconnection agreements or, under some circumstances, has offered to enter into such agreements in those states in which it seeks long distance relief; o the interconnection agreements satisfy a 14-point "checklist" of competitive requirements; and o the FCC is satisfied that the regional Bell operating company's entry into long distance markets is in the public interest. To date, several petitions by regional Bell operating companies for such entry have been denied by the FCC, and none have been granted. However, it is likely that additional petitions will be filed in 1999 and it is possible that regional Bell operating companies may receive approval to offer long distance services in one or more states. This may have an unfavorable effect on Allegiance's business. Allegiance is legally able to offer its customers both long distance and local exchange services, which the regional Bell operating companies currently may not do. This ability to offer "one-stop shopping" gives Allegiance a marketing advantage that it would no longer enjoy. See "-- Competition." 9 12 On May 8, 1997, the FCC released an order establishing a significantly expanded federal universal service subsidy regime. For example, the FCC established new subsidies for telecommunications and information services provided to qualifying schools and libraries with an annual cap of $2.25 billion and for services provided to rural health care providers with an annual cap of $400 million. The FCC also expanded the federal subsidies for local exchange telephone services provided to low-income consumers. Providers of interstate telecommunications service, such as Allegiance must pay for a portion of these programs. Allegiance's share of these federal subsidy funds will be based on its share of certain defined telecommunications end user revenues. Currently, the FCC is assessing such payments on the basis of a provider's revenue for the previous year. The FCC announced that it intends, effective July 1, 1999, to revise its rules for subsidizing service provided to consumers in high cost areas, which may result in further substantial increases in the overall cost of the subsidy program. Several parties have appealed the May 8th order. Such appeals have been consolidated and transferred to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit where they are currently pending. For the first half of 1999, Allegiance expects to incur a contribution liability equal to approximately 1.5% of its 1998 operating revenues. With respect to subsequent periods, however, Allegiance is currently unable to quantify the amount of subsidy payments that it will be required to make or the effect that these required payments will have on its financial condition. Under authority granted by the FCC, Allegiance will resell the international telecommunications services of other common carriers between the United States and international points. In connection with such authority, Allegiance's subsidiary, Allegiance Telecom International, Inc., has filed tariffs with the FCC stating the rates, terms and conditions for its international services. With respect to its domestic service offerings, various subsidiaries of Allegiance have filed tariffs with the FCC stating the rates, terms and conditions for their interstate services. Allegiance's tariffs are generally not subject to pre-effective review by the FCC, and can be amended on one day's notice. Allegiance's interstate services are provided in competition with interexchange carriers and, with respect to access services, the ILECs. With limited exceptions, the current policy of the FCC for most interstate access services dictates that ILECs charge all customers the same price for the same service. Thus, the ILECs generally cannot lower prices to those customers likely to contract for their services without also lowering charges for the same service to all customers in the same geographic area, including those whose telecommunications requirements would not justify the use of such lower prices. The FCC may, however, alleviate this constraint on the ILECs and permit them to offer special rate packages to very large customers, as it has done in a few cases, or permit other forms of rate flexibility. The FCC has adopted some proposals that significantly lessen the regulation of ILECs that are subject to competition in their service areas and provide such ILECs with additional flexibility in pricing their interstate switched and special access on a central office specific basis; and, as discussed in the following paragraph, is considering expanding such flexibility. In two orders released on December 24, 1996, and May 16, 1997, the FCC made major changes in the interstate access charge structure. In the December 24th order, the FCC removed restrictions on ILECs' ability to lower access prices and relaxed the regulation of new switched access services in those markets where there are other providers of access services. If this increased pricing flexibility is not effectively monitored by federal regulators, it could have a material adverse effect on Allegiance's ability to compete in providing interstate access services. The May 16th order substantially increased the costs that ILECs subject to the FCC's price cap rules recover through monthly, non-traffic sensitive access charges and substantially decreased the costs that these carriers recover through traffic sensitive access charges. In the May 16th order, the FCC also announced its plan to bring interstate access rate levels more in line with cost. The plan will include rules that may grant these carriers increased pricing flexibility upon demonstrations of increased competition or potential competition in relevant markets. The manner in which the FCC implements this approach to lowering access charge levels could have a material effect on Allegiance's ability to compete in providing interstate access services. Several parties appealed the May 16th order. On August 19, 1998, the May 16th order was affirmed by the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. The FCC is now considering public comments on pricing flexibility proposals submitted by two regional Bell operating companies and on changing the productivity factor (currently 6.5%), which is applied annually to reduce ILECs' price cap indices. ILECs around the country have been contesting whether the obligation to pay reciprocal compensation to competitive local exchange carriers should apply to local telephone calls from an ILEC's customers to Internet service providers served by competitive local exchange carriers. The ILECs claim that this traffic is interstate in nature and therefore should be exempt from compensation arrangements applicable to local, intrastate calls. Competitive local exchange carriers have contended that the interconnection agreements provide no exception for 10 13 local calls to Internet service providers and reciprocal compensation is therefore applicable. Currently, over 25 state commissions and several federal and state courts have ruled that reciprocal compensation arrangements do apply to calls to Internet service providers, and no jurisdiction has ruled to the contrary. Certain of these rulings are subject to appeal. Additional disputes over the appropriate treatment of Internet service provider traffic are pending in other states. On February 26, 1999, the FCC released a Declaratory Ruling determining that Internet service provider traffic is interstate for jurisdictional purposes, but that its current rules neither require nor prohibit the payment of reciprocal compensation for such calls. In the absence of a federal rule, the FCC determined that state commissions have authority to interpret and enforce the reciprocal compensation provisions of existing interconnection agreements, and to determine the appropriate treatment of Internet service provider traffic in arbitrating new agreements. The FCC also requested comment on alternative federal rules to govern compensation for such calls in the future. In response to the FCC ruling, some regional Bell operating companies have asked state commissions to reopen previous decisions requiring the payment of reciprocal compensation on Internet service provider calls. Allegiance anticipates that Internet service providers will be among its target customers, and adverse decisions in state proceedings could limit its ability to service this group of customers profitably. Allegiance limits the switch capacity used for Internet service provider lines to 20%. In addition, given the uncertainty as to whether reciprocal compensation should be payable in connection with calls to Internet service providers, Allegiance recognizes such revenue only when realization of it is certain, which in most cases will be upon receipt of cash. State Regulation The Telecommunications Act is intended to increase competition in the telecommunications industry, especially in the local exchange market. With respect to local services, ILECs are required to allow interconnection to their networks and to provide unbundled access to network facilities, as well as a number of other procompetitive measures. Because the implementation of the Telecommunications Act is subject to numerous state rulemaking proceedings on these issues, it is currently difficult to predict how quickly full competition for local services, including local dial tone, will be introduced. State regulatory agencies have regulatory jurisdiction when Allegiance facilities and services are used to provide intrastate services. A portion of Allegiance's current traffic may be classified as intrastate and therefore subject to state regulation. Allegiance expects that it will offer more intrastate services, including intrastate switched services, as its business and product lines expand and state regulations are modified to allow increased local services competition. To provide intrastate services, Allegiance generally must obtain a certificate of public convenience and necessity from the state regulatory agency and comply with state requirements for telecommunications utilities, including state tariffing requirements. State agencies, like the FCC, require Allegiance to file periodic reports, pay various fees and assessments, and comply with rules governing quality of service, consumer protection, and similar issues. Although the specific requirements vary from state to state, they tend to be more detailed than the FCC's regulation because of the strong public interest in the quality of basic local exchange service. Allegiance intends to comply with all applicable state regulations, and as a general matter does not expect that these requirements of industry-wide applicability will have a material adverse effect on its business. However, no assurance can be given that the imposition of new regulatory burdens in a particular state will not affect the profitability of Allegiance's services in that state. Local Regulation Allegiance's networks are subject to numerous local regulations such as building codes and licensing. Such regulations vary on a city by city and county by county basis. If Allegiance decides in the future to install its own fiber optic transmission facilities, it will need to obtain rights-of-way over private and publicly owned land. There can be no assurance that such rights-of-way will be available to Allegiance on economically reasonable or advantageous terms. COMPETITION The telecommunications industry is highly competitive. Allegiance believes that the principal competitive factors affecting its business will be pricing levels and clear pricing policies, customer service, accurate billing and, to a 11 14 lesser extent, variety of services. The ability of Allegiance to compete effectively will depend upon its continued ability to maintain high quality, market-driven services at prices generally equal to or below those charged by its competitors. To maintain its competitive posture, Allegiance believes that it must be in a position to reduce its prices in order to meet reductions in rates, if any, by others. Any such reductions could adversely affect Allegiance. Many of Allegiance's current and potential competitors have financial, personnel and other resources, including brand name recognition, substantially greater than those of Allegiance, as well as other competitive advantages over Allegiance. Local Exchange Carriers. In each of the markets targeted by Allegiance, Allegiance will compete principally with the ILEC serving that area, such as Ameritech, BellSouth, Southwestern Bell, Bell Atlantic or US WEST. Allegiance believes the regional Bell operating companies' primary agenda is to be able to offer long distance service in their service territories. The independent telephone companies have already achieved this goal with good early returns. Many experts expect the regional Bell operating companies to be successful in entering the long distance market in a few states sometime in 1999. Allegiance believes the regional Bell operating companies expect to offset share losses in their local markets by capturing a significant percentage of the in-region long distance market, especially in the residential segments where the regional Bell operating companies' strong regional brand names and extensive advertising campaigns may be very successful. See "-- Regulation." As a recent entrant in the integrated telecommunications services industry, Allegiance has not achieved and does not expect to achieve a significant market share for any of its services. In particular, the ILECs have long-standing relationships with their customers, have financial, technical and marketing resources substantially greater than those of Allegiance, have the potential to subsidize competitive services with revenues from a variety of businesses and currently benefit from certain existing regulations that favor the ILECs over Allegiance in certain respects. While recent regulatory initiatives, which allow CLECs such as Allegiance to interconnect with ILEC facilities, provide increased business opportunities for Allegiance, such interconnection opportunities have been and likely will continue to be accompanied by increased pricing flexibility for and relaxation of regulatory oversight of the ILECs. ILECs have long-standing relationships with regulatory authorities at the federal and state levels. While recent FCC administrative decisions and initiatives provide increased business opportunities to telecommunications providers such as Allegiance, they also provide the ILECs with increased pricing flexibility for their private line and special access and switched access services. In addition, with respect to competitive access services as opposed to switched access services, the FCC recently proposed a rule that would provide for increased ILEC pricing flexibility and deregulation for such access services either automatically or after certain competitive levels are reached. If the ILECs are allowed by regulators to offer discounts to large customers through contract tariffs, engage in aggressive volume and term discount pricing practices for their customers, and/or seek to charge competitors excessive fees for interconnection to their networks, the income of competitors to the ILECs, including Allegiance, could be materially adversely affected. If future regulatory decisions afford the ILECs increased access services pricing flexibility or other regulatory relief, such decisions could also have a material adverse effect on competitors to the ILEC, including Allegiance. Competitive Access Carriers/Competitive Local Exchange Carriers/Interexchange Carriers/ Other Market Entrants. Allegiance also faces, and expects to continue to face, competition from other current and potential market entrants, including long distance carriers seeking to enter, reenter or expand entry into the local exchange market such as AT&T, MCI WorldCom, and Sprint, and from other CLECs, resellers of local exchange services, competitive access providers, cable television companies, electric utilities, microwave carriers, wireless telephone system operators and private networks built by large end users. In addition, a continuing trend toward consolidation of telecommunications companies and the formation of strategic alliances within the telecommunications industry, as well as the development of new technologies, could give rise to significant new competitors to Allegiance. For example, WorldCom acquired MFS Communications in December 1996, acquired another CLEC, Brooks Fiber Properties, Inc. in 1997, and recently merged with MCI. AT&T recently acquired Teleport Communications Group Inc., a CLEC, and TeleCommunications, Inc., a cable, telecommunications and high-speed Internet services provider. Ameritech Corporation has agreed to merge with SBC Communications; and Bell Atlantic has agreed to merge with GTE Corporation. These types of consolidations and strategic alliances could put Allegiance at a competitive disadvantage. The Telecommunications Act includes provisions which impose certain regulatory requirements on all local exchange carriers, including competitors such as Allegiance, while granting the FCC expanded authority to reduce the level of regulation applicable to any or all telecommunications carriers, including ILECs. The manner in which 12 15 these provisions of the Telecommunications Act are implemented and enforced could have a material adverse effect on Allegiance's ability to successfully compete against ILECs and other telecommunications service providers. Allegiance also competes with equipment vendors and installers, and telecommunications management companies with respect to certain portions of its business. The changes in the Telecommunications Act radically altered the market opportunity for traditional competitive access providers and CLECs. Due to the fact that most existing competitive access providers/ CLECs initially entered the market providing dedicated access in the pre-1996 era, these companies had to build a fiber infrastructure before offering services. Switches were added by most competitive access providers/CLECs in the last year to take advantage of the opening of the local market. With the Telecommunications Act requiring unbundling of the local exchange carrier networks, competitive access providers/CLECs will now be able to more rapidly enter the market by installing switches and leasing trunk and loop capacity until traffic volume justifies building facilities. New CLECs will not have to replicate existing facilities and can be more opportunistic in designing and implementing networks. A number of CLECs have entered or announced their intention to enter into one or more of the same markets as Allegiance. Allegiance believes that not all CLECs however, are pursuing the same target customers as Allegiance. Demographically, business customers are divided into three categories: small, medium and large. Targeted cities are divided into three groups by population: Tier 1, Tier 2 and Tier 3. As would be expected, each CLEC may focus on different combinations of primary and secondary target customers. Allegiance has chosen to focus primarily on small and medium-sized business customers in large "Tier 1" markets. To help distinguish itself from other competitors who have adopted a similar strategy, Allegiance uses a direct sales approach to offer potential customers "one-stop shopping" services through a single point of contact. In addition, Allegiance is actively pursuing collocations throughout all of its target markets which, in combination with its smart build strategy, is expected to allow Allegiance to access its markets and provide a greater array of services more quickly than if it were able to use a traditional build approach. Allegiance believes the major interexchange carriers, such as AT&T, MCI WorldCom and Sprint, have a two pronged strategy: o keep the regional Bell operating companies out of in-region long distance as long as possible, and o develop facilities-based and unbundled local service, an approach already being pursued by MCI WorldCom with the acquisition of MFS Communications, and more recently by AT&T with its acquisitions of Teleport Communications and TeleCommunications, Inc. Competition for Provision of Long Distance Services. The long distance telecommunications industry has numerous entities competing for the same customers and a high average turnover rate, as customers frequently change long distance providers in response to the offering of lower rates or promotional incentives by competitors. Prices in the long distance market have declined significantly in recent years and are expected to continue to decline. Allegiance expects to increasingly face competition from companies offering long distance data and voice services over the Internet. Such companies could enjoy a significant cost advantage because they do not currently pay carrier access charges or universal service fees. Data/Internet Service Providers. The Internet services market is highly competitive, and Allegiance expects that competition will continue to intensify. Allegiance's competitors in this market will include Internet service providers, other telecommunications companies, online services providers and Internet software providers. Many of these competitors have greater financial, technological and marketing resources than those available to Allegiance. Competition from International Telecommunications Providers. Under the recent World Trade Organization agreement on basic telecommunications services, the United States and 72 other members of the World Trade Organization committed themselves to opening their respective telecommunications markets and/or foreign ownership and/or to adopting regulatory measures to protect competitors against anticompetitive behavior by dominant telecommunications companies, effective in some cases as early as January 1998. Although Allegiance believes that this agreement could provide Allegiance with significant opportunities to compete in markets that were not previously accessible and to provide more reliable services at lower costs than Allegiance could have provided prior to implementation of this agreement, it could also provide similar opportunities to Allegiance's competitors and facilitate entry by foreign carriers into the U.S. market. There can be no assurance that the pro-competitive effects of 13 16 the World Trade Organization agreement will not have a material adverse effect on Allegiance's business, financial condition and results of operations or that members of the World Trade Organization will implement the terms of this agreement. EMPLOYEES As of December 31, 1998, Allegiance had approximately 649 full-time employees. Allegiance believes that its future success will depend on its continued ability to attract and retain highly skilled and qualified employees. None of Allegiance's employees are currently represented by a collective bargaining agreement. Allegiance believes that it enjoys good relationships with its employees. RISK FACTORS OUR FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS MAY MATERIALLY DIFFER FROM ACTUAL EVENTS OR RESULTS This report, including the discussion under Item 7, "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations," contains "forward-looking statements," which you generally can identify by our use of forward-looking words such as "believes," "expects," "may," "will," "should" or "anticipates" or the negative or other variations of such terms or comparable terminology, or by discussion of strategy that involve risks and uncertainties. We often use these types of statements when discussing our plans and strategies, our anticipation of revenues from designated markets, and statements regarding the development of our businesses, the markets for our services and products, our anticipated capital expenditures, operations support systems, changes in regulatory requirements and other statements contained in this report regarding matters that are not historical facts. We caution you that these forward-looking statements are only predictions and estimates regarding future events and circumstances. We cannot assure you that we will achieve the future results reflected in these statements. The risks we face that could cause us not to achieve these results include, but are not limited to our ability to do the following in a timely manner, at reasonable costs and on satisfactory terms and conditions: o successfully market our services to current and new customers; o connect with and develop cooperative working relationships with incumbent local exchange carriers; o develop efficient operations support systems and other back office systems; o successfully and efficiently transfer new customers to our networks and access new geographic markets; o identify, finance and complete suitable acquisitions; o borrow under our senior credit facility; o install new switching facilities and other network equipment; and o obtain leased fiber optic line capacity, rights-of-way, building access rights and any required governmental authorizations, franchises and permits. Regulatory, legislative and judicial developments could also cause actual results to differ materially from the future results reflected in such forward-looking statements. You should consider all of our subsequent written and oral forward-looking statements only in light of such cautionary statements. You should not place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements and you should understand that they speak only as of the dates we make them. Important factors that could cause our actual results to be materially different from the forward-looking statements are disclosed in this "Risk Factors" section and throughout this report. OUR LIMITED HISTORY OF OPERATIONS MAY NOT BE A RELIABLE BASIS FOR EVALUATING OUR PROSPECTS Because of our short operating history, you have limited operating and financial data which you can use to evaluate our performance. From our inception on April 22, 1997 through December 16, 1997, we were in the development stage of operations. IF WE DO NOT EFFECTIVELY MANAGE RAPID EXPANSION OF OUR BUSINESS, OUR FINANCIAL CONDITION WILL SUFFER We are in the early stages of our operations and have only recently begun to deploy networks in our first 17 target markets. If we are successful in the implementation of our business plan, we will be rapidly expanding our operations and providing bundled telecommunications services on a widespread basis. This rapid expansion may 14 17 place a significant strain on our management, financial and other resources. If we fail to manage our growth effectively, we may not be able to expand our customer base and service offerings as we have planned. OUR SUCCESS DEPENDS ON OUR KEY PERSONNEL AND WE MAY NOT BE ABLE TO REPLACE KEY EXECUTIVES WHO LEAVE We are managed by a small number of key executive officers, most notably Royce J. Holland, our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. The loss of services of one or more of these key individuals, particularly Mr. Holland, could materially and adversely affect our business and our prospects. Most of our executive officers do not have employment agreements, and we do not maintain key person life insurance for any of our executive officers. The competition for qualified personnel in the telecommunications industry is intense. For this reason, we cannot assure you that we will be able to hire or retain necessary personnel in the future. WE ARE DEPENDENT ON EFFECTIVE BILLING, CUSTOMER SERVICE AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND WE MAY HAVE DIFFICULTIES IN DEVELOPING THESE SYSTEMS Sophisticated back office information and processing systems are vital to our growth and our ability to monitor costs, bill customers, initiate, implement and track customer orders and achieve operating efficiencies. We cannot assure you that these systems will be successfully implemented on a timely basis or at all or will perform as expected because: o our vendors may fail to deliver proposed products and services in a timely and effective manner and at acceptable costs; o we may fail to adequately identify all of our information and processing needs; o our processing or information systems may fail or be inadequate; o we may be unable to effectively integrate such products or services; o we may fail to upgrade systems as necessary; and o third party vendors may cancel or fail to renew license agreements that relate to these systems. WE MAY BE ADVERSELY IMPACTED BY YEAR 2000 ISSUES, MANY OF WHICH ARE BEYOND OUR CONTROL The "year 2000" issue generally describes the various problems that may result from the improper processing of dates and date-sensitive transactions by computers and other equipment as a result of computer hardware and software using two digits to identify the year in a date. The failure to process dates could result in network and system failures or miscalculations causing disruptions in operations including, among other things, a temporary inability to process transactions, send invoices or engage in other routine business activities. A failure of our customers or vendors, including other telecommunications operators, to cause their software and systems to be year 2000 compliant could have a material adverse effect on us and on our ability to meet our obligations. Until the year 2000 occurs, we will not know for sure that all systems will then function adequately. In addition, we are dependent upon third-party suppliers, including other telecommunications operators, for the delivery of interconnection and other services and on third-party customers for the purchase of our services. In many cases, our services and operations require electronic interfacing with the systems and networks of third-party telecommunication operators such as the incumbent local exchange carriers. WE FACE POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST CAUSED BY FUND INVESTOR CONTROL WHICH COULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO HOLDERS OF OUR SECURITIES You should be aware that the investment funds that provided our initial equity hold a majority of our board seats and a significant amount of our common stock and that as a result, our direction and future operations may be controlled by these funds. For a discussion of the voting agreement among our original fund and management investors regarding the election of nominees to the board of directors, see the discussion under Item 13, "Certain Relationships and Related Transactions" of this report. In addition, decisions concerning our operations or financial structure may present conflicts of interest between these investors and our management and other holders of our securities, including our notes. In addition to their investments in us, these investors or their affiliates currently have significant investments in other telecommunications companies and may in the future invest in other entities engaged in the telecommunications business or in related businesses, including entities that compete with us. Conflicts may also arise in the negotiation or enforcement of arrangements entered into by us and entities in which these investors have an interest. 15 18 UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES WE MAY NEED ADDITIONAL CAPITAL TO EXPAND OUR BUSINESS AND INCREASE REVENUE We may need additional capital to fund capital expenditures, working capital, debt service and cash flow deficits during the period in which we are expanding and developing our business and deploying our networks, services and systems. We estimate, based on our current business plan, that approximately $750 to $850 million of capital will be necessary to fund the deployment and operation of our networks in all of our initial 24 markets to the point at which operating cash flow from a market will be sufficient to fund such market's operating and capital expenditures. This amount includes capital expenditures, working capital and cash flow deficits, but excludes debt service. We have raised approximately $554 million of capital to date. The actual amount and timing of our future capital requirements may differ materially from our estimates as a result of financial, business and other factors many of which are beyond our control, as well as prevailing economic conditions. We believe that the proceeds from our anticipated common stock offering and borrowings expected to be available under a senior credit facility, together with our cash on hand, will be sufficient to pre-fund market deployment in all 24 targeted markets. However, we have not yet entered into the credit facility and if established, we will only be able to borrow under the credit facility if we are in compliance with certain financial covenants. In the event we cannot borrow under the credit facility we may need to access alternative sources of capital. If we are unable to do so we may not be able to expand as we expect, which may have an adverse effect on us. OUR SUBSTANTIAL INDEBTEDNESS COULD MAKE US UNABLE TO SERVICE INDEBTEDNESS AND MEET OUR OTHER REQUIREMENTS AND COULD ADVERSELY AFFECT OUR FINANCIAL HEALTH We have a significant amount of debt outstanding and plan to access additional debt financing to fund our business plan. On December 31, 1998, we had $471.7 million of outstanding indebtedness and $110.4 million of stockholders' equity. We anticipate incurring additional indebtedness in the future, including a senior secured revolving credit facility that we expect to close in April 1999. See the discussion of this credit facility in the section titled "Recent Developments." This level of debt could: o impair our ability to obtain additional financing for working capital, capital expenditures, acquisitions or general corporate purposes; o require us to dedicate a substantial portion of our cash flow from operations to the payment of principal and interest on our indebtedness, thereby reducing the funds available for the growth of our networks; o place us at a competitive disadvantage with those of our competitors who do not have as much debt as we do; o impair our ability to adjust rapidly to changing market conditions; and o make us more vulnerable if there is a downturn in general economic conditions or in our business. The successful implementation of our business plan is essential for us to meet our working capital, capital expenditure and debt service requirements. Allegiance's earnings for the year ended December 31, 1998 were insufficient to cover fixed charges by approximately $249.3 million. We cannot assure you that we will be able to meet our working capital, capital expenditure and debt service requirements. LIMITATIONS IMPOSED BY RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS COULD LIMIT HOW WE CONDUCT BUSINESS AND A DEFAULT UNDER OUR INDENTURES AND FINANCING AGREEMENTS COULD SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACT OUR ABILITY TO REPAY OUR INDEBTEDNESS Our indentures and the agreements entered into in connection with our initial equity funding contain covenants that restrict our ability to: o incur additional indebtedness; o pay dividends and make other distributions; o prepay subordinated indebtedness; o make investments and other restricted payments; o enter into sale and leaseback transactions; 16 19 o create liens; o sell assets; and o engage in certain transactions with affiliates. Our future financing arrangements, including the senior secured revolving credit facility discussed in the section titled "Recent Developments" will most likely contain similar or more restrictive covenants, as well as other covenants that will require us to maintain specified financial ratios and satisfy financial tests. As a result of these restrictions, we are limited in how we conduct business and we may be unable to raise additional debt or equity financing to operate during general economic or business downturns, to compete effectively or to take advantage of new business opportunities. This may affect our ability to generate revenues and make profits. Without sufficient revenues and cash, we may not be able to pay interest and principal on our indebtedness. Our failure to comply with the covenants and restrictions contained in our indentures and other financing agreements could lead to a default under the terms of these agreements. If such a default occurs, the other parties to such agreements could declare all amounts borrowed and all amounts due under other instruments that contain provisions for cross-acceleration or cross-default due and payable. In addition, lenders under our future financing arrangements could terminate their commitments to lend to us. If that occurs, we cannot assure you that we would be able to make payments on our indebtedness, meet our working capital and capital expenditure requirements, or that we would be able to find additional alternative financing. Even if we could obtain additional alternative financing, we cannot assure you that it would be on terms that are favorable or acceptable to us. WE MAY NOT HAVE THE FUNDS NECESSARY TO FINANCE THE CHANGE OF CONTROL OFFER WHICH MAY BE REQUIRED BY OUR INDENTURES Our indentures provide that upon a change of control, each note holder will have the right to require us to purchase all or a portion of such holder's notes. We would be required to purchase the notes at a purchase price of 101% of the accreted value of the 11 3/4% notes and 101% of the principal amount of the 12 7/8% notes, plus any accrued and unpaid interest to the date of repurchase. It is possible that we will not have sufficient funds at that time to repurchase our notes. IF WE DO NOT INTERCONNECT WITH OUR PRIMARY COMPETITORS, THE INCUMBENT LOCAL EXCHANGE CARRIERS, OUR BUSINESS WILL BE ADVERSELY AFFECTED Many new carriers, including Allegiance, have experienced difficulties in working with the incumbent local exchange carriers with respect to initiating, interconnecting, and implementing the systems used by these new carriers to order and receive unbundled network elements and wholesale services and locating the new carriers' equipment in the offices of the incumbent local exchange carriers. As a new carrier, we must coordinate with incumbent local exchange carriers so that we can provide local service to customers on a timely and competitive basis. The Telecommunications Act created incentives for regional Bell operating companies to cooperate with new carriers and permit access to their facilities by denying such companies the ability to provide in-region long distance services until they have satisfied statutory conditions designed to open their local markets to competition. The regional Bell operating companies in our markets are not yet permitted by the FCC to offer long distance services. These companies may not be accommodating to us once they are permitted to offer long distance service. If we cannot obtain the cooperation of a regional Bell operating company in a region, whether or not it has been authorized to offer long distance service, our ability to offer local services in such region on a timely and cost-effective basis will be adversely affected. IF WE DO NOT OBTAIN PEERING ARRANGEMENTS WITH INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS, THE PROFITABILITY OF OUR INTERNET ACCESS SERVICES WILL SUFFER The profitability of our Internet access services, and related services such as Web site hosting, may be adversely affected if we are unable to obtain "peering" arrangements with Internet service providers. In the past, major Internet service providers routinely exchanged traffic with other Internet service providers that met technical criteria on a "peering" basis, meaning that each Internet service provider accepted traffic routed to Internet addresses on their system from their "peers" on a reciprocal basis, without payment of compensation. However, since 1997 UUNET Technologies, Inc., the largest Internet service provider, has been greatly restricting the use of peering arrangements with other providers and has been imposing charges for accepting traffic from providers other than its "peers." Other major Internet service providers have adopted similar policies. We do not currently have any peering arrangements 17 20 and cannot assure you that we will be able to negotiate "peer" status with any of the major nationwide Internet service providers in the future, or that we will be able to terminate traffic on Internet service providers' networks at favorable prices. OUR OFFERING OF LONG DISTANCE SERVICES IS AFFECTED BY OUR ABILITY TO ESTABLISH EFFECTIVE RESALE AGREEMENTS As part of our "one-stop shopping" offering of bundled telecommunications services to our customers, we offer long distance services. We have relied and will continue to rely on other carriers to provide transmission and termination services for all of our long distance traffic. We will continue to enter into resale agreements with long distance carriers to provide us with transmission services. Such agreements typically provide for the resale of long distance services on a per-minute basis and may contain minimum volume commitments. Negotiation of these agreements involves estimates of future supply and demand for transmission capacity as well as estimates of the calling pattern and traffic levels of our future customers. If we fail to meet our minimum volume commitments, we may be obligated to pay underutilization charges and if we underestimate our need for transmission capacity, we may be required to obtain capacity through more expensive means. OUR PRINCIPAL COMPETITORS FOR LOCAL SERVICES, THE INCUMBENT LOCAL EXCHANGE CARRIERS, AND POTENTIAL ADDITIONAL COMPETITORS, HAVE ADVANTAGES THAT MAY ADVERSELY AFFECT OUR ABILITY TO COMPETE WITH THEM The telecommunications industry is highly competitive. Many of our current and potential competitors in the local market have financial, technical, marketing, personnel and other resources, including brand name recognition, substantially greater than ours, as well as other competitive advantages over us. In each of the markets targeted by us, we will compete principally with the incumbent local exchange carrier serving that area and they enjoy advantages that may adversely affect our ability to compete with them. Incumbent local exchange carriers are established providers of local telephone services to all or virtually all telephone subscribers within their respective service areas. Incumbent local exchange carriers also have long-standing relationships with federal and state regulatory authorities. FCC and state administrative decisions and initiatives provide the incumbent local exchange carriers with pricing flexibility for their: o private lines, which are private, dedicated telecommunications connections between customers; o special access services, which are dedicated lines from a customer to a long distance company provided by the local phone company; and o switched access services, which refers to the call connection provided by the local phone company's switch between a customer's phone and the long distance company's switch. In addition, with respect to competitive access services, such as special access services as opposed to switched access services, the FCC is considering allowing incumbent local exchange carriers increased pricing flexibility and deregulation for such access services either automatically or after certain competitive levels are reached. If the incumbent local exchange carriers are allowed by regulators to offer discounts to large customers through contract tariffs, engage in aggressive volume and term discount pricing practices for their customers, and/or seek to charge competitors excessive fees for interconnection to their networks, competitors such as us could be materially adversely affected. If future regulatory decisions afford the incumbent local exchange carriers increased pricing flexibility or other regulatory relief, such decisions could also have a material adverse effect on competitors such as us. We also face, and expect to continue to face, competition in the local market from other current and potential market entrants, including long distance carriers seeking to enter, reenter or expand entry into the local exchange marketplace such as AT&T, MCI WorldCom and Sprint, and from other competitive local exchange carriers, resellers, competitive access providers, cable television companies, electric utilities, microwave carriers, wireless telephone system operators and private networks built by large end users. In addition, the development of new technologies could give rise to significant new competitors in the local market. SIGNIFICANT COMPETITION IN PROVIDING LONG DISTANCE AND INTERNET SERVICES COULD REDUCE THE DEMAND FOR AND PROFITABILITY OF OUR SERVICES We also face significant competition in providing long distance and Internet services. Many of these competitors have greater financial, technological, marketing, personnel and other resources than those available to us. 18 21 The long distance telecommunications market has numerous entities competing for the same customers and a high average turnover rate, as customers frequently change long distance providers in response to the offering of lower rates or promotional incentives. Prices in the long distance market have declined significantly in recent years and are expected to continue to decline. We face competition from large carriers such as AT&T, MCI WorldCom and Sprint and many smaller long distance carriers. Other competitors are likely to include regional Bell operating companies providing long distance services outside of their local service area and, with the removal of regulatory barriers, long distance services within such local service areas, other competitive local exchange carriers, microwave and satellite carriers and private networks owned by large end users. We may also increasingly face competition from companies offering local and long distance data and voice services over the Internet. Such companies could enjoy a significant cost advantage because they do not currently pay many of the charges or fees that we have to pay. In addition, in June 1998, Sprint announced its intention to offer voice, data and video services over its nationwide asynchronous transfer mode network, which Sprint anticipates will significantly reduce its cost to provide such services. Sprint plans to bill its customers based upon the amount of traffic carried, irrespective of the time required to send the traffic or the traffic's destination. The Internet services market is highly competitive and we expect that competition will continue to intensify. Our competitors in this market include Internet service providers, other telecommunications companies, online services providers and Internet software providers. OUR NEED TO COMPLY WITH EXTENSIVE GOVERNMENT REGULATION CAN INCREASE OUR COSTS AND SLOW OUR GROWTH Our networks and the provision of telecommunications services are subject to significant regulation at the federal, state and local levels. Delays in receiving required regulatory approvals or the enactment of new adverse regulation or regulatory requirements may slow our growth and have a material adverse effect upon us. The FCC exercises jurisdiction over us with respect to interstate and international services. We must obtain, and have obtained through our subsidiary, Allegiance Telecom International, Inc., prior FCC authorization for installation and operation of international facilities and the provision, including by resale, of international long distance services. Additionally, we file publicly available documents detailing our services, equipment and pricing, also known as "tariffs," with the FCC for both international and domestic long-distance services. State regulatory commissions exercise jurisdiction over us because we provide intrastate services. We are required to obtain regulatory authorization and/or file tariffs at state agencies in most of the states in which we operate. If and when we seek to build our own network segments, local authorities regulate our access to municipal rights-of-way. Constructing a network is also subject to numerous local regulations such as building codes and licensing. Such regulations vary on a city by city and county by county basis. Regulators at both the federal and state level require us to pay various fees and assessments, file periodic reports, and comply with various rules regarding the contents of our bills, protection of subscriber privacy, and similar matters on an on-going basis. We cannot assure you that the FCC or state commissions will grant required authority or refrain from taking action against us if we are found to have provided services without obtaining the necessary authorizations, or to have violated other requirements of their rules and orders. Regulators or others could challenge our compliance with applicable rules and orders. Such challenges could cause us to incur substantial legal and administrative expenses. DEREGULATION OF THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY INVOLVES UNCERTAINTIES, AND THE RESOLUTION OF THESE UNCERTAINTIES COULD ADVERSELY AFFECT OUR BUSINESS The Telecommunications Act provides for a significant deregulation of the domestic telecommunications industry, including the local exchange, long distance and cable television industries. The Telecommunications Act remains subject to judicial review and additional FCC rulemaking, and thus it is difficult to predict what effect the legislation will have on us and our operations. There are currently many regulatory actions underway and being contemplated by federal and state authorities regarding interconnection pricing and other issues that could result in significant changes to the business conditions in the telecommunications industry. We cannot assure you that these changes will not have a material adverse effect upon us. 19 22 THE REGULATION OF INTERCONNECTION WITH INCUMBENT LOCAL EXCHANGE CARRIERS INVOLVES UNCERTAINTIES, AND THE RESOLUTION OF THESE UNCERTAINTIES COULD ADVERSELY AFFECT OUR BUSINESS Although the incumbent local exchange carriers are required under the Telecommunications Act to unbundle and make available elements of their network and permit us to purchase only the origination and termination services that we need, thereby decreasing our operating expenses, such unbundling may not be done as quickly as we require and may be priced higher than we expect. This is important because we rely on the facilities of these other carriers to connect to our high capacity digital switches so that we can provide services to our customers. Our ability to obtain these interconnection agreements on favorable terms, and the time and expense involved in negotiating them, can be adversely affected by legal developments. A recent Supreme Court decision vacated a FCC rule determining which network elements the incumbent local exchange carriers must provide to competitors on an unbundled basis. We expect that the FCC will conduct a rulemaking to adopt new standards for unbundling of network elements in conformance with this decision. The implementation of these and other FCC rules may lead to further litigation. This may complicate our interconnection negotiations, and may adversely affect our existing agreements and operations. WE COULD LOSE REVENUE IF CALLS TO INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS ARE TREATED AS LONG DISTANCE INTERSTATE CALLS We believe that other local exchange carriers should have to compensate us when their customers place calls to Internet service providers who are our customers. Most incumbent local exchange carriers disagree. Internet service providers are among our target customers, and decisions providing that other carriers do not have to compensate us for these calls could limit our ability to service this group of customers profitably. For all other local calls, it is clear that the telecommunications company whose customer calls a customer of a second telecommunications company must compensate the second company. This is known as reciprocal compensation. This rule does not apply to long distance interstate calls and the FCC in its Declaratory Ruling of February 26, 1999, determined that Internet service provider traffic is interstate for jurisdictional purposes, but that its current rules neither require nor prohibit the payment of reciprocal compensation for such calls. In the absence of a federal rule, the FCC determined that state commissions have authority to interpret and enforce the reciprocal compensation provisions of existing interconnection agreements, and to determine the appropriate treatment of Internet service provider traffic in arbitrating new agreements. THE REGULATION OF ACCESS CHARGES INVOLVES UNCERTAINTIES, AND THE RESOLUTION OF THESE UNCERTAINTIES COULD ADVERSELY AFFECT OUR BUSINESS To the extent we provide long-distance, often referred to as "interexchange," telecommunications service, we are required to pay access charges to other local exchange carriers when we use the facilities of those companies to originate or terminate interexchange calls. As a competitive local exchange carrier, we also provide access services to other long distance service providers. The interstate access charges of incumbent local exchange carriers are subject to extensive regulation by the FCC, while those of competitive local exchange carriers are subject to a lesser degree of FCC regulation, but remain subject to the requirement that all charges be just, reasonable, and not unreasonably discriminatory. Disputes have arisen regarding the regulation of access charges and these may be resolved adversely to us. The FCC has made major changes in the interstate access charge structure. The manner in which the FCC implements and monitors these increased pricing flexibility changes could have a material adverse effect on our ability to compete in providing interstate access services. Some interexchange carriers, including AT&T, have also asked the FCC to take regulatory action to prevent competitive local exchange carriers from charging allegedly "excessive" access charges. Although no complaints have been filed against us, we do provide access service to interexchange carriers and we could be subject in the future to allegations that our charges for this service are unjust and unreasonable. In that event, we would have to provide the FCC with an explanation of how we set our rates and justify them as reasonable. We can give no assurance that the FCC will accept our rates as reasonable. If our rates are reduced by regulatory order, this could have a material adverse effect on our profitability. 20 23 IF WE DO NOT CONTINUALLY ADAPT TO TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE, WE COULD LOSE CUSTOMERS AND MARKET SHARE The telecommunications industry is subject to rapid and significant changes in technology, and we rely on outside vendors for the development of and access to new technology. The effect of technological changes on our business cannot be predicted. We believe our future success will depend, in part, on our ability to anticipate or adapt to such changes and to offer, on a timely basis, services that meet customer demands. We cannot assure you that we will obtain access to new technology on a timely basis or on satisfactory terms. Any failure by us to obtain new technology could cause us to lose customers and market share. WE HAVE APPLIED FOR, BUT NOT YET RECEIVED, ASSURANCE FROM THE SEC REGARDING OUR STATUS UNDER THE INVESTMENT COMPANY ACT AND IF WE ARE SUBJECT TO THE INVESTMENT COMPANY ACT, IT COULD ADVERSELY AFFECT OUR FINANCING ACTIVITIES AND FINANCIAL RESULTS Allegiance currently has substantial short-term investments, pending the deployment of our capital in the pursuit of building our business. This may result in Allegiance being deemed as an "investment company" under the Investment Company Act of 1940. This statute requires the registration of, and imposes various substantive restrictions on, certain companies that are, or hold themselves out as being, engaged primarily, or propose to engage primarily in, the business of investing, reinvesting or trading in securities, or that fail certain statistical tests regarding composition of assets and sources of income even though they do not intend to be primarily engaged in the businesses of investing, reinvesting, owning, holding or trading securities. Allegiance is primarily engaged in a business other than investing, reinvesting, owning, holding or trading securities and, therefore, is not an investment company within the meaning of this statute. While we believe this means we are not an investment company within the meaning of that law, we have been able to also rely on a safe harbor in that law for certain transient or temporary investment companies. However, this exemption is only available to companies for a one-year period and that one-year period terminated in January 1999. We have applied to the SEC for a one-year exemptive order declaring that Allegiance is not an investment company and not required to register under this statute. We have not yet received such an order, and it is possible that we will not ultimately be successful in receiving such an order. We believe that if we are granted the exemption, under our current business plan we will have deployed a sufficient amount of capital by the end of the one-year period such that we would not then be deemed to be an investment company. If we were required to register as an investment company under the Investment Company Act, we would become subject to substantial regulation with respect to our capital structure, management, operations, transactions with affiliated persons and other matters. To avoid having to register as an investment company, we may have to invest a portion of our liquid assets in cash and demand deposits instead of short-term securities. The extent to which we will have to do so will depend on the composition and value of our total assets at that time. Having to register as an investment company or having to invest a material portion of our liquid assets in cash and demand deposits to avoid such registration, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. FUTURE SALES OF OUR STOCK BY EXISTING STOCKHOLDERS MAY ADVERSELY AFFECT OUR STOCK PRICE We currently have 50,360,866 shares of common stock outstanding. While certain of these shares are "restricted securities" under the federal securities laws, such shares are or will be eligible for sale subject to restrictions as to timing, manner, volume, notice and the availability of current public information regarding Allegiance. Sales of substantial amounts of stock in the public market, or the perception that sales could occur, could depress the prevailing market price for our stock. Sales may also make it more difficult for us to sell equity securities or equity-related securities in the future at a time and price that we deem appropriate. ANTI-TAKEOVER PROVISIONS IN ALLEGIANCE'S CHARTER AND BYLAWS COULD LIMIT OUR SHARE PRICE AND DELAY A CHANGE OF MANAGEMENT Our certificate of incorporation and by-laws contain provisions that could make it more difficult or even prevent a third party from acquiring Allegiance without the approval of our incumbent board of directors. 21 24 ITEM 2. PROPERTIES Allegiance owns or leases, in its operating territories, telephone property which includes: o owning switches o leasing high capacity digital lines that interconnect Allegiance's network with ILEC networks; o leasing high capacity digital lines that connect Allegiance's switching equipment to Allegiance transmission equipment located in ILEC central offices; o leasing local loop lines which connect Allegiance's customers to Allegiance's network; and o leasing space in ILEC central offices for collocating Allegiance transmission equipment. Allegiance is headquartered in Dallas, Texas and leases offices and space in a number of locations, primarily for sales offices and network equipment installations. The table below lists Allegiance's current leased facilities:
LEASE APPROXIMATE LOCATION EXPIRATION SQUARE FOOTAGE --------- ---------- -------------- Dallas, TX............ February 2008 76,000 Atlanta, GA........... February 2003 7,400 Atlanta, GA........... November 2001 7,300 Boston, MA............ September 2003 12,000 Boston, MA............ September 2008 18,000 Chicago, IL........... March 2009 11,000 Chicago, IL........... July 2008 14,000 Fort Worth, TX........ June 2003 3,900 Houston, TX........... December 2005 11,700 Houston, TX........... November 2008 18,000 Los Angeles, CA....... June 2008 11,700 Los Angeles, CA....... June 2008 14,585 Newport, CA........... April 2006 7,800 New York, NY.......... August 2006 8,700 New York, NY.......... March 2008 19,500 New York, NY.......... June 2008 12,400 Oakland, CA........... December 2006 2,000 Philadelphia, PA...... April 2002 8,900 Philadelphia, PA...... October 2008 18,000 San Diego, CA......... March 2008 14,000 San Francisco, CA..... April 2002 8,100 San Francisco, CA..... June 2008 16,000 San Jose, CA.......... February 2004 4,500 Washington, DC........ November 2008 15,000 Washington, DC........ November 2006 8,200 Westchester, IL....... January 2001 10,700 Westchester, IL....... April 2001 5,700
Allegiance believes that its leased facilities are adequate to meet its current needs in the markets in which it has begun to deploy networks, and that additional facilities are available to meet its development and expansion needs in existing and projected target markets for the foreseeable future. ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS Allegiance is not party to any legal proceeding that Allegiance believes would, individually or in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect on Allegiance's financial condition or results of operations. ITEM 4. SUBMISSION OF MATTERS TO A VOTE OF SECURITY HOLDERS Allegiance did not submit any matter to a vote of its stockholders during the fourth quarter of 1998. 22 25 ITEM 4A. EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF ALLEGIANCE The following sets forth certain information regarding Allegiance's executive officers. Allegiance's executive officers are elected annually by the board of directors at its first meeting held after each annual meeting of stockholders or as soon thereafter as convenient.
NAME AGE POSITION(S) ----------------------------- ------ ------------------------------------------------------- Royce J. Holland 50 Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer C. Daniel Yost 50 President and Chief Operating Officer and Director Thomas M. Lord 42 Executive Vice President of Corporate Development, Chief Financial Officer, and Director John J. Callahan 49 Senior Vice President of Sales and Marketing and Director Dana A. Crowne 38 Senior Vice President and Chief Engineer Stephen N. Holland 47 Senior Vice President and Chief Information Officer Patricia E. Koide 50 Senior Vice President of Human Resources, Real Estate, Training, Facilities and Administration Gregg A. Long 45 Senior Vice President of Development and Regulatory Mark B. Tresnowski 39 Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary Anthony J. Parella 39 National Vice President of Field Sales
Royce J. Holland, Allegiance's Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, has more than 25 years of experience in the telecommunications, independent power and engineering/construction industries. Prior to founding Allegiance in April 1997, Mr. Holland was one of several co-founders of MFS Communications, where he served as President and Chief Operating Officer from April 1990 until September 1996 and as Vice Chairman from September 1996 to February 1997. In January 1993, Mr. Holland was appointed by President George Bush to the National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee. Mr. Holland was recently named Chairman of the Association for Local Telecommunications Services, the industry trade organization for the competitive telephone sector. Mr. Holland also presently serves on the board of directors of CSG Systems, a publicly held billing services company. Mr. Holland's brother, Stephen N. Holland, is employed as Allegiance's Senior Vice President and Chief Information Officer. C. Daniel Yost, who joined Allegiance as President and Chief Operating Officer in February 1998, was elected to Allegiance's board of directors in March 1998. Mr. Yost has more than 26 years of experience in the telecommunications industry. From July 1997 until he joined Allegiance, Mr. Yost was the President and Chief Operating Officer for U.S. Operations of Netcom On-Line Communications Services, Inc., a leading Internet service provider. Mr. Yost served as the President, Southwest Region of AT&T Wireless Services, Inc. from June 1994 to July 1997. Prior to that, from July 1991 to June 1994, Mr. Yost was the President, Southwest Region of McCaw Cellular Communications/LIN Broadcasting. Thomas M. Lord, a co-founder and director of Allegiance and its Executive Vice President of Corporate Development and Chief Financial Officer, is responsible for overseeing Allegiance's mergers and acquisitions, corporate finance and investor relations functions. Mr. Lord is an 18-year veteran in investment banking, securities research and portfolio management, including serving as a managing director of Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. from January 1986 to December 1996. In the five-year period ending December 1996, Mr. Lord oversaw 43 different transactions valued in excess of $6.2 billion for the telecommunications, information services and technology industries. 23 26 John J. Callahan, who joined Allegiance as Senior Vice President of Sales and Marketing in December 1997, has more than 18 years of experience in the telecommunications industry. Most recently, Mr. Callahan was President of the Western Division for MFS Communications from December 1991 to November 1997, where he was responsible for the company's sales and operations in Arizona, California, Georgia, Florida, Illinois, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Oregon, Texas and Washington. Prior to joining MFS Communications, Mr. Callahan was Vice President and General Manager, Southwest Division for Sprint. Mr. Callahan also held sales positions with Data Switch and North American Telecom. Mr. Callahan was elected to Allegiance's board of directors in March 1998. Dana A. Crowne became Allegiance's Senior Vice President and Chief Engineer in August 1997. Prior to joining Allegiance, Mr. Crowne held various management positions at MFS Communications from the time of its founding in 1988, where his responsibilities included providing engineering support and overseeing budgets for the construction of MFS Communications' networks. Mr. Crowne ultimately became Vice President, Network Optimization for MFS Communications from January 1996 to May 1997 and managed the company's network expenses and planning and its domestic engineering functions. Prior to joining MFS Communications, Mr. Crowne designed and installed fiber optic transmission systems for Morrison-Knudsen and served as a consultant on the construction of private telecommunications networks with JW Reed and Associates. Stephen N. Holland joined Allegiance as its Senior Vice President and Chief Information Officer in September 1997. Prior to that time, Mr. Holland held several senior level positions involving management of or consulting on information systems, accounting, taxation and finance. Mr. Holland's experience includes serving as Practice Manager and Information Technology Consultant for Oracle Corporation from June 1995 to September 1997, as Chief Financial Officer of Petrosurance Casualty Co. from September 1992 to June 1995, as Manager of Business Development for Electronic Data Systems, and as a partner of Price Waterhouse. Mr. Holland's brother, Royce J. Holland, presently serves as Allegiance's Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer. Patricia E. Koide has been Allegiance's Senior Vice President of Human Resources, Real Estate, Training Facilities and Administration since August 1997. Before then, Ms. Koide was Vice President of Corporate Services, Facilities and Administration for WorldCom from March 1997 to August 1997. Ms. Koide also held various management positions within MFS Communications and its subsidiaries since 1989, including Senior Vice President of Facilities, Administration and Purchasing for MFS Communications North America from 1996 to 1997, Senior Vice President of Human Resources, Facilities and Administration for MFS Communications Telecom from 1994 to 1996, and Vice President of Human Resources and Administration for MFS Communications North America from 1989 to 1993. Prior to MFS Communications, Ms. Koide was with Sprint for eight years where she managed the company's human resources, real estate and facilities for the Midwest. Gregg A. Long, who became Allegiance's Senior Vice President of Regulatory and Development in September 1997, spent 11 years at Destec Energy, Inc. as Project Development Manager C Partnership Vice President and Director. In that position, he was responsible for the development of gas-fired power plants from conceptual stages through project financing. Prior to joining Destec, Mr. Long was Manager of Project Finance at Morrison-Knudsen, where he was responsible for analyzing and arranging finance packages for various industrial, mining and civil projects and also served as financial consultant and analyst. Mark B. Tresnowski became Allegiance's Senior Vice President and General Counsel in February 1999. Mr. Tresnowski has been Allegiance's Secretary since September 1997. Mr. Tresnowski practiced law at Kirkland & Ellis for 13 years and was a partner of that firm from October 1992 to January 1999. In private practice, Mr. Tresnowski specialized in private and public financings, mergers and acquisitions and securities law. Anthony J. Parella, who joined Allegiance as its Regional Vice President -- Central Division in August 1997 and became its National Vice President of Field Sales in August 1998, has more than 10 years of experience in the telecommunications industry. Prior to joining Allegiance, Mr. Parella was Vice President and General Manager for MFS Intelenet, Inc., an operating unit of MFS Communications, from February 1994 to January 1997, where he was responsible for the company's sales and operations in Texas. Mr. Parella also served as Director of Commercial Sales for Sprint from 1991 to January 1994. 24 27 PART II ITEM 5. MARKET FOR ALLEGIANCE'S COMMON STOCK AND RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS MARKET INFORMATION Allegiance's common stock is listed on the Nasdaq National Market. Allegiance's ticker symbol is "ALGX." Allegiance completed the initial public offering of its common stock in July 1998. Prior to July 1, 1998, no established public trading market for the common stock existed. The following table sets forth on a per share basis, the high and low sale prices per share for our common stock as reported on the Nasdaq National Market for the periods indicated:
HIGH LOW ---- --- Year ended December 31, 1998: Third quarter (from July 1, 1998).......................................... $15.688 $ 6.250 Fourth quarter............................................................ $13.375 $ 5.000 Year ended December 31, 1999: First quarter (through March 24, 1999).................................... $31.000 $11.563
STOCKHOLDERS There were approximately 128 owners of record of Allegiance common stock as of March 24, 1999. This number excludes stockholders whose stock is held in nominee or street name by brokers and Allegiance believes that it has a significantly larger number of beneficial holders of common stock. A recent reported last sale price of our common stock on the Nasdaq National Market is set forth on the front cover of this report. DIVIDENDS We do not anticipate paying any cash dividends in the foreseeable future. Any future determination to pay dividends will be at the discretion of our board of directors and will be dependent upon then existing conditions, including our financial condition, results of operations, contractual restrictions, capital requirements, business prospects, and other factors our board of directors deems relevant. In addition, our current financing arrangements effectively prohibit us from paying cash dividends for the foreseeable future. RECENT SALES OF UNREGISTERED SECURITIES On February 25, 1998, Allegiance issued: (a) 71.25 shares of redeemable convertible preferred stock to Richard Fields for an aggregate initial purchase price of $37,500; these shares now represent 30,374 shares of common stock after giving effect to the conversion of such preferred stock into common stock and stock split in connection with the initial public offering; (b) 95 shares of redeemable convertible preferred stock to Roger Curry for an aggregate initial purchase price of $50,000; these shares now represent 40,498 shares of common stock after giving effect to the conversion of such preferred stock into common stock and stock split in connection with the initial public offering; (c) 23.75 shares of redeemable convertible preferred stock to Northwestern University for an aggregate initial purchase price of $12,500; these shares now represent 10,125 shares of common stock after giving effect to the conversion of such preferred stock into common stock and stock split in connection with the initial public offering; (d) 237.5 shares of redeemable convertible preferred stock to MKW Partners, L.P. for an aggregate initial purchase price of $125,001; these shares now represent 101,245 shares of common stock after giving effect to the conversion of such preferred stock into common stock and stock split in connection with the initial public offering; (e) 47.5 shares of redeemable convertible preferred stock to Tom Shattan for an aggregate initial purchase price of $25,000; these shares now represent 20,249 shares of common stock after giving effect to the conversion of such preferred stock into common stock and stock split in connection with the initial public offering; 25 28 (f) 28.5 shares of redeemable convertible preferred stock to Greg Mendel for an aggregate initial purchase price of $15,000; these shares now represent 12,149 shares of common stock after giving effect to the conversion of such preferred stock into common stock and stock split in connection with the initial public offering; and (g) 19 shares of redeemable convertible preferred stock to Kevin Fechtmeyer for an aggregate initial purchase price of $10,000; these shares now represent 8,100 shares of common stock after giving effect to the conversion of such preferred stock into common stock and stock split in connection with the initial public offering. On March 13, 1998, Allegiance issued 118.75 shares of redeemable convertible preferred stock to Charles Ross Partners, LLC for an aggregate initial purchase price of $62,500. These shares now represent 50,623 shares of common stock after giving effect to the conversion of such preferred stock into common stock and stock split in connection with the initial public offering. The above-described transactions were exempt from registration under the Securities Act under Section 4(2) of the Securities Act, as transactions not involving any public offering. On February 3, 1998, Allegiance issued 445,000 units, with each unit consisting of one 11 3/4% Senior Discount Note due 2008 and one redeemable warrant to purchase .0034224719 shares of Allegiance's common stock. Allegiance received approximately $240.7 million of net proceeds, after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions of approximately $8.75 million and other expenses payable by Allegiance of approximately $1.0 million, from the issuance of the units. Such units were issued to: (a) "qualified institutional buyers" (as defined in Rule 144A of the Securities Act), (b) other institutional "accredited investors" (as defined in Rule 501(a) of the Securities Act), and (c) outside the United States in compliance with Regulation S under the Securities Act, and therefore, the issuance of such units was exempt from registration under the Securities Act. Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated, Salomon Brothers Inc, Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. and Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette Securities Corporation were the initial purchasers of the units. As a result of Allegiance's 426.2953905-for-one stock split in connection with its initial public offering, each warrant is exercisable to purchase 1.45898399509 shares of common stock at an exercise price of $.01 per share, subject to anti-dilution adjustments set forth in the warrant agreement governing the warrants. All of these warrants are currently exercisable. ITEM 6. SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA The information required by this Item 6 is incorporated in this report by reference from the section titled "Selected Financial Data" of our annual report to stockholders for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1998 (the "annual report"). ITEM 7. MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS The information required by this Item 7 is incorporated in this report by reference from the section titled "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations" of our annual report. ITEM 7A. QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISK Allegiance's investment policy is limited by its existing bond indentures. Allegiance is restricted to investing in financial instruments with a maturity of one year or less. The indentures require investments in high quality instruments, such as obligations of the U.S. Government or any agency thereof guaranteed by the United States of America, money market deposits, and commercial paper with a rating of A1/P1. Allegiance is thus exposed to market risk related to changes in short-term U.S. interest rates. Allegiance manages these risks by closely monitoring market rates and the duration of its investments. Allegiance does not enter into financial or commodity investments for speculation or trading purposes and is not a party to any financial or commodity derivatives. 26 29 Interest income earned on Allegiance's investment portfolio is affected by changes in short-term U.S. interest rates. Allegiance believes that it is not exposed to significant changes in fair value because of its conservative investment strategy. However, the estimated interest income for the calendar year 1999, based on the average 1998 earned rate on investments, is $13.6 million and assuming a 100 basis point drop in the average rate, Allegiance would be exposed to a $2.5 million reduction in interest income for the year. The following table illustrates this impact on a quarterly basis:
QUARTER ENDING -------------- MARCH JUNE SEPTEMBER DECEMBER 1999 1999 1999 1999 TOTAL ----- ---- ---- ---- ----- ($S IN MILLIONS) Estimated Average Outstanding Balance............ $ 367.4 $ 290.7 $ 213.9 $ 131.8 Estimated Interest Earned at Estimated Rate of 5.4% at December 31, 1998..................... $ 5.0 $ 3.9 $ 2.9 $ 1.8 $ 13.6 Estimated Impact of Interest Rate drop........... $ 0.9 $ 0.7 $ 0.5 $ 0.3 $ 2.5
Allegiance has outstanding long term, fixed rate notes, not subject to interest rate fluctuations. ITEM 8. CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY DATA The information required by this Item 8 is incorporated in this report by reference from the financial statements contained in our annual report, except for the financial statement schedules which are included in Item 14 of this report. For a list of financial statements filed as part of this report, see Item 14 of this report. ITEM 9. CHANGES IN AND DISAGREEMENTS WITH ACCOUNTANTS ON ACCOUNTING AND FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE None. PART III ITEM 10. DIRECTORS AND EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF ALLEGIANCE The information required by this Item 10 regarding Allegiance's directors is incorporated in this report by reference from certain sections of our definitive proxy statement for the annual meeting of stockholders for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1998, which will be filed with the SEC no later than April 30, 1999 (the "proxy statement"). You will find our response to this Item 10 in the sections titled "Who Are Allegiance's Directors and Officers?" and "About the Board of Directors and its Committees" of our proxy statement. Information required by this Item 10 regarding the executive officers of Allegiance is included in Item 4A of Part I of this report as permitted by Instruction 3 to Item 401(b) of Regulation S-K. ITEM 11. EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION The information required by this Item 11 is incorporated in this report by reference from the sections titled "Compensation of Directors and Executive Officers," "Compensation Committee Interlocks and Insider Participation" and "Executive Agreements" of our proxy statement. ITEM 12. SECURITY OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN BENEFICIAL OWNERS AND MANAGEMENT The information required by this Item 12 is incorporated in this report by reference from the section titled "Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management" of our proxy statement. ITEM 13. CERTAIN RELATIONSHIPS AND RELATED TRANSACTIONS The information required by this Item 13 is incorporated in this report by reference from the section titled "Certain Relationships and Related Transactions" of our proxy statement. 27 30 PART IV ITEM 14. EXHIBITS, FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULES AND REPORTS ON FORM 8-K (a)(1) Financial Statements (the following financial information from our annual report is incorporated by reference into Part II of this report): Report of Independent Public Accountants Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 1998, and December 31, 1997 Consolidated Statements of Operations for the year ended December 31, 1998, and for the Period from Inception (April 22, 1997) through December 31, 1997 Consolidated Statements of Stockholders' Equity (Deficit) for the year ended December 31, 1998, and for the Period from Inception (April 22, 1997) through December 31, 1997 Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for the year ended December 31, 1998, and for the Period from Inception (April 22, 1997) through December 31, 1997 Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (a)(2) Financial Statement Schedules: S-I Report of Independent Public Accountants on Financial Statement Schedule S-II Valuation and Qualifying Accounts for the years ended December 31, 1997 and 1998 (a)(3) The exhibits filed in response to Item 601 of Regulation S-K are listed in the Exhibit Index starting on page E-1 of this report. (b) Reports on Form 8-K There were no reports filed during the three months ended December 31, 1998. 28 31 SIGNATURES According to the requirements of the Securities Exchange act of 1934, Allegiance Telecom, Inc. has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized on March 29, 1999. ALLEGIANCE TELECOM, INC. By /s/ ROYCE J. HOLLAND ---------------------------------------------- Royce J. Holland, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer According to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this report has been signed by the following persons in the capacities indicated on March 29, 1999. /s/ ROYCE J. HOLLAND Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer - ------------------------------------------ (Principal Executive Officer) Royce J. Holland /s/ C. DANIEL YOST - ------------------------------------------ President, Chief Operating Officer, and Director C. Daniel Yost /s/ THOMAS M. LORD Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, - ------------------------------------------ and Director (Principal Financial Officer) Thomas M. Lord /s/ DENNIS M. MAUNDER Vice President and Controller (Principal Accounting - ------------------------------------------ Officer) Dennis M. Maunder /s/ JOHN J. CALLAHAN Senior Vice President of Sales and Marketing, and - ------------------------------------------ Director John J. Callahan /s/ PAUL D. CARBERY - ------------------------------------------ Director Paul D. Carbery /s/ JAMES E. CRAWFORD, III - ------------------------------------------ Director James E. Crawford, III /s/ JOHN B. EHRENKRANZ - ------------------------------------------ Director John B. Ehrenkranz /s/ PAUL J. FINNEGAN - ------------------------------------------ Director Paul J. Finnegan /s/ RICHARD D. FRISBIE - ------------------------------------------ Director Richard D. Frisbie /s/ ALAN E. GOLDBERG - ------------------------------------------ Director Alan E. Goldberg /s/ REED E. HUNDT - ------------------------------------------ Director Reed E. Hundt /s/ JAMES N. PERRY, JR. - ------------------------------------------ Director James N. Perry, Jr.
32 ALLEGIANCE TELECOM, INC. SCHEDULE I -- REPORT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS ON FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULE To the Board of Directors and Stockholders of Allegiance Telecom, Inc.: We have audited, in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, the consolidated balance sheets of Allegiance Telecom, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1998 and 1997, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity (deficit) and cash flows for the year ended December 31, 1998, and for the period from inception (April 22, 1997), to December 31, 1997, incorporated by reference in this Form 10-K and have issued our report thereon dated February 3, 1999. These consolidated financial statements and the schedule referred to below are the responsibility of the Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these consolidated financial statements and schedule based on our audits. Our audits were made for the purpose of forming an opinion on the basic consolidated financial statements taken as a whole. Schedule II -- Valuation and Qualifying Accounts is not a required part of the basic consolidated financial statements but is supplementary information required by the Securities and Exchange Commission. This information has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in our audit of the basic financial statements and, in our opinion, is fairly stated in all material respects in relation to the basic consolidated financial statements taken as a whole. ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP Dallas, Texas, February 3, 1999 S-I 33 ALLEGIANCE TELECOM, INC. SCHEDULE II -- VALUATION AND QUALIFYING ACCOUNTS FOR THE YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND 1998 (DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)
ADDITIONS --------------------- BALANCE AT CHARGED TO CHARGED BEGINNING OF COSTS AND TO OTHER BALANCE AT DESCRIPTION PERIOD EXPENSES ACCOUNTS DEDUCTIONS END OF PERIOD ----------- ------------ ---------- -------- ---------- ------------- ALLOWANCE FOR DOUBTFUL ACCOUNTS Year Ended December 31, 1998............. $ -- $649.8 $ -- $(72.6) $577.2 From period of inception (April 22, 1997) to December 31, 1997.................. $ -- $ -- $ -- $ -- $ --
S-II 34 EXHIBIT INDEX
EXHIBIT NO. DESCRIPTION ------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.1 Form of Underwriting Agreement (Exhibit 1.1 to Allegiance's Registration Statement on Form S-1, Registration No. 333-53479 (the "Form S-1 Registration Statement")). 3.1 Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation (Exhibit 3.1 to Allegiance's Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 1998). *3.2 Certificate of Correction to Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation. 3.3 Amended and Restated By-Laws (Exhibit 3.2 to Allegiance's Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 1998). 4.1 Indenture, dated as of July 7, 1998, by and between Allegiance and The Bank of New York, as trustee (including the Form of Notes) (Exhibit 4.1 to Allegiance's Registration Statement on Form S-1, Registration No. 333-69543). 4.2 Indenture, dated as of February 3, 1998, by and between Allegiance and The Bank of New York, as trustee (Exhibit 4.2 to Allegiance's Registration Statement on Form S-4, Registration No. 333-49013 (the "Form S-4 Registration Statement")). 4.3 Form of 11 3/4% Senior Discount Notes (Exhibit 4.3 to the Form S-4 Registration Statement). 4.4 Collateral Pledge and Security Agreement, dated as of July 7, 1998, by and between Allegiance and The Bank of New York, as trustee (Exhibit 4.4 to Allegiance Telecom, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-1, Registration No. 333-69543). 10.1 Stock Purchase Agreement, dated August 13, 1997, between Allegiance LLC and Allegiance (Exhibit 10.1 to the Form S-4 Registration Statement). 10.2 Securityholders Agreement, dated August 13, 1997, among Allegiance LLC, the Fund Investors, the Management Investors and Allegiance (Exhibit 10.2 to the Form S-4 Registration Statement). 10.3 Registration Agreement, dated August 13, 1997, among the Fund Investors, the Management Investors and Allegiance (Exhibit 10.3 to the Form S-4 Registration Statement). 10.4 Warrant Registration Rights Agreement, dated as of January 29, 1998, by and among Allegiance and Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated, Salomon Brothers Inc, Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. and Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette Securities Corporation, as initial purchasers of the 11 3/4% Senior Discount Notes (Exhibit 10.11 to the Form S-4 Registration Statement). +10.5 Allegiance Telecom, Inc. 1997 Nonqualified Stock Option Plan (Exhibit 10.4 to the Form S-4 Registration Statement). +10.6 Allegiance Telecom, Inc. 1998 Stock Incentive Plan (Exhibit 10.6 to the Form S-1 Registration Statement). *+10.7 First Amendment to the Allegiance Telecom, Inc. 1998 Stock Incentive Plan. +10.8 Executive Purchase Agreement, dated August 13, 1997, among Allegiance LLC, Allegiance and Royce J. Holland (Exhibit 10.5 to the Form S-4 Registration Statement). +10.9 Executive Purchase Agreement, dated August 13, 1997, among Allegiance LLC, Allegiance and Thomas M. Lord (Exhibit 10.6 to the Form S-4 Registration Statement). +10.10 Executive Purchase Agreement, dated January 28, 1998, among Allegiance LLC, Allegiance and C. Daniel Yost (Exhibit 10.7 to the Form S-4 Registration Statement). +10.11 Form of Executive Purchase Agreement among Allegiance LLC, Allegiance and each of the other Management Investors (Exhibit 10.8 to the Form S-4 Registration Statement). 10.12 Warrant Agreement, dated February 3, 1998, by and between Allegiance and The Bank of New York, as Warrant Agent (including the form of the Warrant Certificate) (Exhibit 10.9 to the Form S-4 Registration Statement). 10.13 General Agreement, dated October 16, 1997, as amended, between Allegiance and Lucent Technologies Inc. (Exhibit 10.10 to the Form S-4 Registration Statement). 10.14 Form of Indemnification Agreement by and between Allegiance and its directors and officers (Exhibit 10.13 to the Form S-1 Registration Statement). *11.1 Statement Regarding Computation of Per Share Earnings (Loss) for the year ended December 31, 1998. *11.2 Statement Regarding Computation of Per Share Earnings (Loss) for the period from inception (April 22, 1997) through December 31, 1997. *13.1 Portions of Allegiance's Annual Report to Stockholders for the year ended December 31, 1998. *21.1 Subsidiaries of Allegiance.
E-1 35 *23.1 Consent of Arthur Andersen LLP. *27.1 Financial Data Schedule for the year ended December 31, 1998. 27.2 Financial Data Schedule for the period from inception (April 22, 1997) through December 31, 1997 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 27.2 to the Form S-4 Registration Statement).
- ------------------ * Filed as part of this report. + Management contract or compensatory plan or arrangement filed as an exhibit to this report pursuant to Items 14(a) and 14(c) of Form 10-K. E-2
EX-3.2 2 CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION TO INCORPORATION 1 EXHIBIT 3.2 CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION TO AMENDED AND RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION OF ALLEGIANCE TELECOM, INC. * * * * Adopted in accordance with the provisions of '103 (f) of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware * * * * Mark B. Tresnowski, being the Secretary of Allegiance Telecom, Inc., a corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (the "Corporation"), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY as follows: FIRST: The name of the corporation is Allegiance Telecom, Inc. SECOND: The Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation which was filed with the Secretary of State of Delaware on July 2, 1998 inadvertently deleted provisions from Part C of ARTICLE IV of the Corporation=s Certificate of Incorporation. THIRD: ARTICLE IV of the Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation is hereby corrected to add at the end of Part C thereof, the following: "(4) Notwithstanding any provision herein to the contrary, in connection with an acquisition of Common Stock as to which the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 (the AHSR Act") is applicable, until such time as the applicable waiting period (and extensions thereof) under the HSR Act relating to any holder making such acquisition have expired or otherwise terminated, such holder shall have no right to vote the Common Stock (except for votes concerning proposed amendments or waivers to this Certificate of Incorporation).@ IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, being the Secretary hereinabove named, for the purpose of correcting the Amended and Restated Certificate of 2 Incorporation of the Corporation pursuant to the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware, under penalties of perjury does hereby declare and certify that this is the act and deed of the Corporation and the facts stated herein are true, and accordingly has hereunto signed this Certificate of Correction to Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation this 1st day of February, 1999. Allegiance Telecom, Inc., a Delaware corporation By: /s/ Mark B. Tresnowski ------------------------------- Mark B. Tresnowski Secretary -2- EX-10.7 3 1ST AMENDMENT TO 1998 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN 1 EXHIBIT 10.7 FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE ALLEGIANCE TELECOM, INC. 1998 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN WHEREAS, the Allegiance Telecom, Inc. 1998 Stock Incentive Plan was adopted by the board of directors and stockholders of Allegiance Telecom, Inc. ("Allegiance"). WHEREAS, Allegiance's board of directors is correcting and amending the Allegiance Telecom, Inc. 1998 Stock Incentive Plan in accordance with Section 16 of such plan. RESOLVED, that the number of shares of common stock available under the Allegiance Telecom, Inc. 1998 Stock Incentive Plan be corrected by substituting the number "3,655,778" for the number "3,806,658" in Section 4 of this plan. Such correction shall be effective as of December 31, 1998. FURTHER RESOLVED, that the number of shares of common stock available under the Allegiance Telecom, Inc. 1998 Stock Incentive Plan be increased by substituting the number "6,155,778" for the number "3,655,778" in Section 4 of this plan. Such amendment shall be effective as of March 2, 1999. FURTHER RESOLVED, that the officers of Allegiance be, and hereby are, authorized to take whatever actions are necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of the foregoing amendment. EX-11.1 4 STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS 1 EXHIBIT 11.1 ALLEGIANCE TELECOM, INC. COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS (LOSS) Year Ended December 31, 1998 (In thousands, except share and per share amounts)
Number of Shares Percent Outstanding Equivalent Shares ---------------- ------------------- ----------------- Prior to Initial Public Offering 1997 Common Stock Offering 426 51.23% 218 After Initial Public Offering 1997 Common Stock Offering 426 48.77% 208 1998 Common Stock Offering 10,000,000 48.77% 4,876,712 Preferred Stock Converted to Common Stock 40,341,128 48.77% 19,673,208 -------------- 24,550,346 WEIGHTED AVERAGE SHARES OUTSTANDING 24,550,346 NET LOSS APPLICABLE TO COMMON STOCK $ (258,459.6) NET LOSS PER SHARE, BASIC AND DILUTED $ (10.53) ==============
EX-11.2 5 COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS (LOSS) 1 EXHIBIT 11.2 ALLEGIANCE TELECOM, INC. COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS (LOSS) Period From Inception (April 22, 1997) to December 31, 1997 (In thousands, except share and per share amounts)
Number of Shares Percent Outstanding Equivalent Shares ---------------- ------------------- ----------------- 1997 Common Stock Offering 426 100.00% 426 WEIGHTED AVERAGE SHARES OUTSTANDING 426 NET LOSS APPLICABLE TO COMMON STOCK $ (7,502.1) NET LOSS PER SHARE, BASIC AND DILUTED $ (17,610.68) =============
EX-13.1 6 PORTIONS OF ANNUAL REPORT TO STOCKHOLDERS 1 EXHIBIT 13.1 ALLEGIANCE TELECOM, INC. PORTIONS OF ANNUAL REPORT TO STOCKHOLDERS FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998 Selected Financial Data (dollars in thousands, except share and per share information) The selected consolidated financial data presented below as of and for the year ended December 31, 1998, and as of and for the period from inception (April 22, 1997) through December 31, 1997, were derived from the audited consolidated financial statements of the Company and should be read in conjunction with "Management's Discussion & Analysis of Financial Condition & Results of Operations" and the Company's audited financial statements and the notes thereto contained elsewhere in this annual report.
Period from Inception (April 22, 1997), Year Ended through December 31, December 31, 1998 1997 -------------- -------------- Statement of Operations Data: Revenue $ 9,786.2 $ 0.4 Network 9,528.8 151.2 Selling, general and administrative 46,089.4 3,425.9 Management ownership allocation charge 167,311.9 -- Noncash deferred compensation 5,307.2 209.9 Depreciation and amortization 9,002.8 12.7 -------------- -------------- Loss from operations (227,453.9) (3,799.3) Interest income 19,917.4 111.4 Interest expense (38,951.7) -- -------------- -------------- Net loss (246,488.2) (3,687.9) Accretion of redeemable preferred stock and warrant values (11,971.4) (3,814.2) -------------- -------------- Net loss applicable to common stock $ (258,459.6) $ (7,502.1) ============== ============== Net loss per share, basic and diluted $ (10.53) $ (17,610.68) ============== ============== Weighted average number of shares outstanding, basic and diluted 24,550,346 426 ============== ==============
2 < As of December 31, ---------------------------- 1998 1997 ------------ ------------ Balance Sheet Data: ------------ ------------ Cash and cash equivalents $ 262,501.7 $ 5,726.4 Short-term investments 143,389.7 -- Short-term investments, restricted(1) 25,542.8 -- Working capital(2) 366,162.7 2,046.2 Property and equipment, net of accumulated depreciation and amortization 144,860.0 23,899.9 Long-term investments, restricted(1) 36,699.2 -- Total assets 637,874.3 30,047.0 Long-term debt 471,652.1 -- Redeemable cumulative convertible preferred stock -- 33,409.4 Redeemable warrants 8,634.1 -- Stockholders' equity (deficit) 110,429.6 (7,292.1) ------------ ------------ Other Financial Data: ------------ ------------ EBITDA(3) $ (45,832.0) $ (3,576.7) Net cash used in operating activities (17,269.8) (1,942.9) Net cash used in investing activities (319,170.4) (21,926.0) Net cash provided by financing activities 593,215.5 29,595.3 Capital expenditures (113,538.7) (21,926.0) ------------ ------------ (1) Reflects the purchase of U.S. government securities, which have been placed in a pledge account, to fund the first three years' interest payments on the 12 7/8% Senior Notes due 2008, the first semiannual installment of which was paid in November 1998. The securities are stated at their accreted value, which approximates fair value, and are classified as short-term and long-term based upon the maturity dates of each of the securities at the balance sheet date. (2) Working capital was calculated as total current assets, less restricted short-term investments, less total current liabilities. (3) EBITDA consists of earnings before interest, income taxes, depreciation and amortization, management ownership allocation charge and non-cash deferred compensation. While not a measure under generally accepted accounting principles, EBITDA is a measure commonly used in the telecommunications industry and is presented to assist in understanding the Company's operating results. Although EBITDA should not be construed as a substitute for operating income (loss) determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, it is included herein to provide additional information with respect to the ability of the Company to meet future debt service, capital expenditure and working capital requirements. The calculation of EBITDA does not include the commitments of the Company for capital expenditures and payment of debt and should not be deemed to represent funds available to the Company. See "Management's Discussion & Analysis of Financial Condition & Results of Operations" for a discussion of the financial operations and liquidity of the Company as determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. 3 p34>> Management's Discussion & Analysis of Financial Condition & Results of Operations Overview Allegiance is a competitive local exchange carrier (CLEC), seeking to be a premier provider of telecommunications services to business, government and other institutional users in major metropolitan areas across the United States. Allegiance offers an integrated set of telecommunications products and services including local exchange, local access, domestic and international long distance, data and a full suite of Internet services. Its principal competitors are incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs), such as the regional Bell operating companies and GTE Corporation operating units. Allegiance is developing its networks throughout the U.S., using what it refers to as a "Smart Build" approach. In contrast to the traditional network build-out strategy under which carriers install their own telecommunications switch in each market and then construct their own fiber optic networks to reach customers, Allegiance installs its own switch in each market but then leases other elements of the network from the ILECs. The Smart Build strategy specifically involves: o leasing existing ILEC copper wire connections throughout a local market area, also called the "local loop," which connect customers to the central offices, or "hubs," of an ILEC network; and o installing, or physically locating, transmission equipment in these central offices to route customer traffic through them to Allegiance's own switch. Locating equipment at ILEC facilities, also known as "collocation," is central to the success of the Smart Build strategy. By collocating, Allegiance has the ability to lease, on a monthly or long-term basis, local loop and other network elements owned by the ILEC. This enables Allegiance to reach a wide range of customers without having to build network connections to each one of them. Management believes that the Smart Build approach offers a number of competitive advantages over the traditional build-out strategy by allowing Allegiance to: o accelerate market entry by nine to 18 months by eliminating or at least deferring the need for city franchises, rights-of-way and building access; o reduce initial capital expenditures in each market, allowing Allegiance to focus its initial capital resources on the critical areas of sales, marketing, and operations support systems, instead of on constructing extensive fiber optic networks to each customer; o improve return on capital by generating revenue with a smaller capital investment; o defer capital expenditures for network assets to the time when revenue generated by customer demand is available to finance such expenditures; and o address attractive service areas selectively throughout target markets and not just in those areas where Allegiance owns network transmission facilities. 4 < As of December 31, -------------------- 1998 1997 ----------- ------ Markets served 9 -- Number of switches deployed 7 -- Central office collocations 101 -- Addressable market (business lines) 3.6 million -- Lines sold 86,500 20 Lines installed 47,700 9 Sales force employees 295 -- Total employees 649 40 ----------- ------ Allegiance does not begin to develop a new market until it has raised the capital that it projects to be necessary to build its network and operate that market to the point at which operating cash flow from the market is sufficient to fund such market's operating costs and capital expenditures. Results of Operations Allegiance commenced operations in August 1997. During the period from August to December 1997, Allegiance did not sell any services or open any markets. Instead, substantial effort was devoted to developing business plans, initiating applications for governmental authorizations, hiring management and other key personnel, working on the design and development of local exchange telephone networks and operations support systems, acquiring equipment and facilities, and negotiating interconnection agreements. Allegiance initiated service by buying phone lines at wholesale prices and then reselling them to nine "beta" customers in Dallas during December 1997, generating only $400 of revenue for that period. Given that Allegiance has significantly increased its customer base and geographic markets from the commencement of operations in Dallas during 1997, comparisons of 1998 results with those of 1997 are not meaningful. Allegiance first provided service using its own switch and transmission equipment in April 1998 to customers in New York City. Throughout the remainder of 1998, it initiated facilities-based services in Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Fort Worth, Los Angeles, Oakland and San Francisco. In January 1999, Allegiance announced that it was operational in Philadelphia. In March 1999, Allegiance announced that it was operational in Washington, D.C., including suburban Maryland and Virginia. Allegiance expects to become operational in San Jose during the first quarter of 1999. Allegiance plans to open five additional markets during 1999 for which it has already raised the necessary capital. 5 p36>> Although Allegiance initiated resale services in Dallas in 1997, Allegiance sales teams have focused their efforts almost exclusively on selling services that require the use of Allegiance facilities. Allegiance earns significantly higher margins by providing facilities-based services instead of resale services. During the fourth quarter of 1998, facilities-based lines represented 91% of all lines sold and 83% of all lines installed, as compared to 86% and 73% for the third quarter of 1998 and 51% and 17% for the second quarter of 1998, respectively. For the full year, 67,100 facilities-based lines were sold, and 30,500 of those were installed. Resale lines sold during 1998 totaled 19,400, of which 17,200 were installed. Allegiance continues to emphasize the sale of facilities-based services and lines. We estimate that the proportion of customer lines for which we simply resell service provided by other carriers will continue to decline to the point that, eventually, no more than 5% of all lines Allegiance sells will be resale lines. During 1998, Allegiance generated $9.8 million of revenue. The majority, $6.9 million, was local service revenue consisting of: o the monthly recurring charge for basic service; o usage-based charges for local calls in certain markets; o charges for vertical services, such as call waiting and call forwarding; and o to a lesser extent, non-recurring charges, such as charges for additional lines for an existing customer. Access charges, which we earn by connecting Allegiance local service customers to their selected long distance carriers for outbound calls or by delivering inbound long distance traffic to Allegiance local service customers, accounted for $2.2 million of Allegiance's 1998 revenues. Approximately 20% of Allegiance's local service customers have chosen Allegiance as their long distance carrier. Long distance revenues during 1998 amounted to $.7 million. All other sources of revenue accounted for approximately $10,000 during 1998. During 1998, Allegiance recognized an insignificant amount of revenue from "reciprocal compensation" generated by having customers of other local exchange carriers calling Internet service providers that are Allegiance customers. Allegiance had no revenue from reciprocal compensation during 1997. Given the uncertainty as to whether reciprocal compensation should be payable in connection with calls to Internet service providers, Allegiance recognizes such revenue only when realization of it is certain, which in most cases will be upon receipt of cash. ILECs around the country have been contesting whether the obligation to pay reciprocal compensation to CLECs should apply to local telephone calls from an ILEC's customers to Internet service providers served by CLECs. The ILECs claim that this traffic is interstate in nature and therefore should be exempt from compensation arrangements applicable to local, intrastate calls. CLECs have contended that the interconnection agreements provide no exception for local calls to Internet service providers and reciprocal compensation is therefore applicable. Currently, over 25 state commissions and several federal and state courts have ruled that reciprocal compensation arrangements do apply to calls to Internet service providers, and no jurisdiction has ruled to the contrary. Certain of these rulings are subject to appeal. Additional disputes over the appropriate treatment of Internet service provider traffic are pending in other states. On February 26, 1999, the FCC released a Declaratory Ruling determining that Internet service provider traffic is interstate for jurisdictional purposes, but that its current rules neither require nor prohibit the payment of reciprocal compensation for such calls. In the absence of a federal rule, the FCC determined that state commissions have authority to interpret and enforce the reciprocal compensation provisions of existing interconnection agreements, and to determine the appropriate treatment of Internet service provider traffic in arbitrating new agreements. The FCC also requested comment on alternative federal rules to govern compensation for such calls in the future. In response to the FCC ruling, some regional Bell operating companies have asked state commissions to reopen previous decisions requiring the payment of reciprocal compensation on Internet service provider calls. Allegiance anticipates that Internet service providers will be among its target customers, and adverse decisions in state proceedings could limit its ability to service this group of customers profitably. 6 < 7 p38>> Network expenses increased from $.2 million in 1997 to $9.5 million in 1998. This sharp increase is consistent with the deployment of our networks and initiation and growth of our services during 1998. Network expenses represent: o the cost of leasing high-capacity digital lines that interconnect Allegiance's network with ILEC networks; o the cost of leasing high-capacity digital lines that connect Allegiance's switching equipment to Allegiance transmission equipment located in ILEC central offices; o the cost of leasing local loop lines, that connect Allegiance's customers to Allegiance's network; o the cost of leasing space in ILEC central offices for collocating Allegiance transmission equipment; and o the cost of leasing Allegiance's nationwide Internet network. The costs to lease local loop lines and high-capacity digital lines from the ILECs vary by ILEC and are regulated by state authorities under the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Allegiance believes that, in many instances, there are multiple carriers in addition to the ILEC from which it can lease high capacity lines and that Allegiance can generally lease those lines at lower prices than are charged by the ILEC. Allegiance expects that the costs associated with these leases will increase with customer volume and will be a significant part of its ongoing cost of services. The cost of leasing switch sites is also a significant part of Allegiance's ongoing cost of services. On January 25, 1999, the United States Supreme Court reaffirmed the FCC's broad authority to issue rules implementing the Telecommunications Act of 1996, although it did vacate a rule determining which network elements the ILECs must provide to competitors on an unbundled basis. Allegiance, however, leases only the basic unbundled network elements from the ILEC and therefore does not expect reconsideration of the unbundling rules to have an adverse effect on its Smart Build strategy. Nevertheless, the FCC likely will conduct additional rulemaking proceedings to conform to the Supreme Court's interpretation of the law and these proceedings may result in further judicial review. In constructing its initial switching and transmission equipment for a new market, Allegiance capitalizes only the non-recurring charges associated with its initial network facilities and the monthly recurring costs of those network facilities until the switching equipment begins to carry revenue-producing traffic. Typically, the charges for just one to two months are capitalized. We expense the monthly recurring and non-recurring costs resulting from the growth of existing collocation sites, and the costs related to expansion of the network to additional collocation sites in operational markets as we incur these charges. In an effort to reduce network expenses, Allegiance is moving to the next stage of its Smart Build strategy in New York City and Dallas by entering into leases for dark fiber to which Allegiance is installing its own electronic equipment. These leases are accounted for as capital leases. In New York City, Allegiance has entered into an agreement to lease three rings of dark fiber in Manhattan, with an extension into Brooklyn. In the Dallas market, Allegiance has reached an agreement to lease one ring of dark fiber in Dallas County. Allegiance anticipates that any future dark fiber leases will have roughly similar terms and conditions, and therefore it is likely that such additional dark fiber leases, if any, will also be accounted for as capital leases. We expect "reciprocal compensation" costs to be a major portion of our cost of services. Allegiance must enter into an interconnection agreement with the ILEC in each market to make widespread calling available to Allegiance's customers. These agreements typically set the cost per minute to be charged by each party for the calls that are exchanged between the two carriers' networks. Generally, a carrier must compensate another carrier when a local call by the first carrier's customer terminates on the second carrier's network. These reciprocal compensation costs will grow for Allegiance as its customers' outbound call volume grows. We expect, however, to generate increased revenue from the ILECs as inbound calling volume to our customers increases. If our customers' outbound call volume is equivalent to their inbound call volume, our interconnection costs paid to the ILECs will be substantially offset by the interconnection revenues we receive from them. 8 < 9 p40>> Interest expense for the year ended December 31, 1998, was $39.0 million. There was no interest expense incurred during 1997. Interest expense recorded during 1998 reflects: the issuance on February 3, 1998, of 11 3/4% Senior Discount Notes due 2008, and the issuance on July 7, 1998, of 12 7/8% Senior Notes due 2008. See "Liquidity and Capital Resources" on page 41 for a discussion of these note offerings. Allegiance capitalizes a portion of its interest costs as part of the construction cost of its networks, in accordance with Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 34. The amount of interest capitalized during 1998 was $2.8 million. No interest was capitalized during 1997. Interest income during 1998 and 1997 was $19.9 million and $.1 million, respectively, resulting from the investment of excess cash and from U.S. government securities that we purchased and placed in a pledge account to secure the semiannual payments of interest through May 2001 on the 12 7/8% Senior Notes due 2008. Allegiance has recorded the potential redemption value of its redeemable warrants in the event that they are redeemed at fair market value in February 2008. Amounts are accreted using the effective interest method and management's estimates of the future fair market value of such warrants when redemption is first permitted. Amounts accreted increase the recorded value of such warrants on the balance sheet and result in a non-cash charge to increase the net loss applicable to Allegiance's common stock. Accretion of $.5 million related to the redeemable warrants has been recorded for the year ending December 31, 1998. Until the consummation of Allegiance's initial public offering of common stock, Allegiance also recorded the potential redemption values of its redeemable convertible preferred stock, in the event that they would be redeemed at fair market value in August 2004. At the time of the initial public offering, such preferred stock was converted into common stock. Accordingly, the amounts accreted for the redeemable convertible preferred stock were reclassified as an increase to additional paid-in capital in the stockholders' equity section of the balance sheet, and there has been, and will be, no additional accretion of redeemable convertible preferred stock values beyond that point in time. Accretion related to the redeemable convertible preferred stock of $11.5 million was recorded for the year ending December 31, 1998, and $3.8 million was recorded for the period from inception to December 31, 1997. Our net loss for 1998, after the non-cash, one-time management allocation charge and amortization of deferred compensation and a portion of the deferred management allocation charge, but before the accretion of the redeemable convertible preferred stock and redeemable warrants, was $246.5 million and was $3.7 million for the period from inception to December 31, 1997. After deducting accretion of preferred stock and warrant values, the net loss applicable to common stock was $258.5 million and $7.5 million for the year ended December 31, 1998, and for the period from inception to December 31, 1997, respectively. Many securities analysts use the measure of earnings before deducting interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization, also commonly referred to as "EBITDA," as a way of evaluating a company. Allegiance had negative EBITDA of $45.8 million and $3.6 million for the year ended December 31, 1998, and for the period from inception to December 31, 1997, respectively. In calculating EBITDA, Allegiance also excludes the non-cash charges to operations for management ownership allocation charge and deferred stock compensation expense totaling $172.6 million and $.2 million for the year ended December 31, 1998 and for the period from inception to December 31, 1997, respectively. Allegiance expects to continue to experience increasing operating losses and negative EBITDA as a result of its development activities and as it expands its operations. Allegiance does not expect to achieve positive EBITDA in any market until at least its second year of operation in such market. 10 < 11 p42>> On February 3, 1998, Allegiance raised gross proceeds of approximately $250.5 million in an offering of 445,000 units, each unit consisting of one 11 3/4% note and one redeemable warrant to purchase .0034224719 shares of common stock at an exercise price of $.01 per share, subject to certain antidilution provisions. Net proceeds of approximately $240.7 million were received from this offering. Of the gross proceeds, $242.3 million was allocated to the value of the 11 3/4% notes, and $8.2 million was allocated to the redeemable warrants. The 11 3/4% notes have a principal amount at maturity of $445.0 million and an effective interest rate of 12.45%. The 11 3/4% notes mature on February 15, 2008. From and after February 15, 2003, interest on such notes will be payable semi-annually in cash at the rate of 11 3/4% per annum. The accretion of original issue discount will cause an increase in indebtedness from December 31, 1998, to February 15, 2008, of $174.5 million. Allegiance completed the initial public offering of its common stock and the offering of the 12 7/8% notes early in the third quarter of 1998. Allegiance raised net proceeds of approximately $124.8 million from the offering of these notes and approximately $137.8 million from its initial public offering of common stock. The 12 7/8% notes mature on May 15, 2008. Interest on these notes is payable in cash semi-annually, commencing November 15, 1998. The 12 7/8% notes were sold at less than par, resulting in an effective rate of 13.24%, and the value of the 12 7/8% notes is being accreted, using the effective interest method, from the $200.9 million gross proceeds realized at the time of the sale to the aggregate value at maturity, $205.0 million, over the period ending May 15, 2008. In connection with the sale of the 12 7/8% notes, Allegiance purchased U.S. government securities for approximately $69.0 million and placed them in a pledge account to fund interest payments for the first three years the 12 7/8% notes are outstanding. The first interest payment was made in November 1998. Such U.S. government securities are reflected in the balance sheet as of December 31, 1998, at accreted value of approximately $62.2 million, $25.5 million of which we classified as current assets and $36.7 million of which we classified in other non-current assets. Allegiance expended $21.9 million and $113.5 million during 1997 and 1998, respectively, for property, plant, equipment, software and hardware necessary in deploying its networks in nine markets and providing operations and other support systems necessary in conducting its business. Allegiance also used capital during 1998 to fund its operations; excess cash was used to purchase short-term investments and money market investments. On December 31, 1998, Allegiance transmission equipment was collocated in 101 ILEC central offices. Allegiance anticipates that it will more than double the number of collocations during 1999. As of December 31, 1998, Allegiance had committed $17.1 million of its capital for switching equipment and switch facilities and $3.2 million for dark fiber leases. Under Allegiance's current business plans, it plans to make approximately $250 million in capital expenditures in 1999, including approximately $227 million for switching equipment, switch and sales facilities, transmission equipment and collocation facilities. As of December 31, 1998, Allegiance had approximately $405.9 million of cash and short-term investments. This amount excludes the restricted U.S. government securities that have been placed in a pledge account. Allegiance believes, based on its business plan, that the net proceeds from its current capital raising efforts and previous capital raising activities will be sufficient to prefund its market deployment in all of its 24 targeted markets to the point of positive free cash flow in each of these markets. On March 19, 1999, Allegiance announced that it intends to offer shares of its common stock in an underwritten primary offering. On that date, Allegiance also announced that it had entered into a letter agreement with Goldman Sachs Credit Partners L.P., TD Securities (USA) Inc. and Morgan Stanley Senior Funding, Inc. to arrange a seven year senior secured revolving credit facility for a subsidiary of Allegiance Telecom, Inc. These banks have received commitments for this facility aggregating in excess of $200.0 million from various lenders. These commitments remain subject to various conditions, including the negotiation and execution of a definitive credit agreement. This revolving facility would be available, subject to satisfaction of certain terms and conditions, to provide purchase money financing for the acquisition, construction and improvement of telecommunications assets by Allegiance's operating subsidiaries. Borrowings under the facility will not be available to us until we reach certain financial and operating objectives, and then will only be available to the extent we have achieved certain further objectives and have maintained certain financial ratios and covenants. Based on Allegiance's current business plan, we do not expect to draw on the facility until year 2000. 12 < Generally, Allegiance has identified two areas for year 2000 review: internal systems and operations, and external systems and services. As a new enterprise, Allegiance does not have older systems that are not year 2000 ready. As it develops its network and support systems, Allegiance intends to ensure that all systems will be year 2000 ready. Allegiance is purchasing its operations support systems with express specifications, warranties and remedies that all systems be year 2000 ready. In addition, Allegiance requires all vendors supplying third-party software and hardware to warrant year 2000 readiness. However, there can be no assurance, until the year 2000, that all systems will then function adequately. Also, Allegiance intends to sell its telecommunications services to companies that may rely upon computerized systems to make payments for such services and to interconnect certain portions of its network and systems with other companies' networks and systems. These transactions and interactions could expose Allegiance to year 2000 problems. Allegiance is in the process of conducting a company-wide inventory of all computer systems on which the company relies, both within and outside of Allegiance. This inventory is scheduled to be completed by the end of May 1999. Allegiance will use this inventory to contact its external suppliers, vendors and providers to obtain information about their year 2000 readiness and, based on that information, will assess the extent to which these external information technology and noninformation technology systems, including embedded technology, could cause a material adverse effect on Allegiance's operations in the event that the systems fail to properly process date-sensitive transactions after December 31, 1999. Allegiance's assessment of its year 2000 readiness will be ongoing as it continues to develop its own operations support systems and becomes reliant on the systems of additional third parties as a result of the geographic expansion of its business into additional markets. As a result, Allegiance may in the future identify a significant internal or external year 2000 issue that, if not remedied in a timely manner, could have a material adverse effect on Allegiance's business, financial condition and results of operations. 13 p44>> COSTS TO ADDRESS YEAR 2000 ISSUES > Allegiance has used its internal information technology and other personnel in identifying year 2000 issues. Allegiance does not anticipate any significant costs to make its internal systems year 2000 compliant because it does not expect any remediation to be required and does not expect to make material expenditures for outside consultants to assist Allegiance in its effort to address year 2000 issues. Because no material year 2000 issues have yet been identified in connection with external sources, Allegiance cannot reasonably estimate costs that may be required for remediation or for implementation of contingency plans. As Allegiance gathers information relating to external sources of year 2000 issues, Allegiance will reevaluate its ability to estimate costs associated with year 2000 issues. There can be no assurance that, as additional year 2000 issues are addressed, Allegiance's costs to remediate such issues will be consistent with its historical costs. RISKS OF YEAR 2000 ISSUES > Allegiance cannot reasonably ascertain the extent of the risks involved in the event that any one system fails to process date-sensitive calculations accurately because it has not identified any material year 2000 issues. Potential risks include: o the inability to process customer billing accurately or in a timely manner; o the inability to provide accurate financial reporting to management, auditors, investors and others; o litigation costs associated with potential suits from customers and investors; o delays in implementing other information technology projects, as a result of work by internal personnel on year 2000 issues; o delays in receiving payment or equipment from customers or suppliers, as a result of their systems' failure; and o the inability to occupy and operate in a facility. Any one of these risks, if it materializes, could have a material adverse effect on Allegiance's business, financial condition or results of operations. All of Allegiance's information technology and noninformation technology systems and products relating to Allegiance's external issues are manufactured or supplied by other companies outside of Allegiance's control. As a result, we cannot assure you that the systems of any of those companies will be year 2000 ready. In particular, Allegiance will be dependent upon other ILECs, long distance carriers and other companies for interconnection and completion of off-network calls. These interconnection arrangements are material to Allegiance's ability to conduct its business, and failure by any of these providers to be year 2000 ready may have a material adverse effect on Allegiance's business in the affected market. Moreover, although Allegiance has taken every precaution to purchase its internal systems to be fully year 2000 ready, there can be no assurance that every vendor will fully comply with the contract requirements. If some or all of Allegiance's internal and external systems fail or are not year 2000 ready in a timely manner, there could be a material adverse effect on Allegiance's business, financial condition or results of operations. CONTINGENCY PLANS > Even though Allegiance has not identified any specific year 2000 issues, Allegiance believes that the design of its networks and support systems could provide Allegiance with certain operating contingencies in the event material external systems fail. In all of its markets, however, Allegiance has or intends to establish interconnection agreements with the ILECs and other regional and international carriers. If one of these carriers fails for any reason, including year 2000 problems, there may be little Allegiance can do to mitigate the impact of such a failure on Allegiance's operations. Allegiance has attempted to ensure that its own operating facilities and systems are fully backed up with auxiliary power generators capable of operating all equipment and systems for indeterminate periods should power supplies fail, subject to the availability of fuel to run these generators. Allegiance also has the ability to relocate headquarters and administrative personnel to other Allegiance facilities should power and other services at its Dallas headquarters fail. Because of the inability of Allegiance's contingency plans to eliminate the negative impact that disruptions in ILEC service or the service of other carriers would create, there can be no assurance that Allegiance will not experience numerous disruptions that could have a material effect on Allegiance's operations. 14 < 15 Allegiance Telecom, Inc. and Subsidiaries Consolidated Balance Sheets December 31, 1998 and 1997 (in thousands, except share and per share data)
1998 1997 ------------ ------------ ASSETS CURRENT ASSETS: Cash and cash equivalents $ 262,501.7 $ 5,726.4 Short-term investments 143,389.7 -- Short-term investments, restricted 25,542.8 -- Accounts receivable (net of allowance for doubtful accounts of $577.2 and $0, at December 31, 1998 and 1997, respectively) 6,186.6 4.3 Prepaid expenses and other current assets 1,243.2 245.2 ------------ ------------ Total current assets 438,864.0 5,975.9 PROPERTY AND EQUIPMENT (net of accumulated depreciation and amortization of $9,015.4 and $12.7 at December 31, 1998 and 1997,respectively) 144,860.0 23,899.9 OTHER NONCURRENT ASSETS: Deferred debt issuance costs (net of accumulated amortization of $733.7 and $0, at December 31, 1998 and 1997, respectively) 16,078.4 -- Long-term investments, restricted 36,699.2 -- Other assets 1,372.7 171.2 ------------ ------------ Total other noncurrent assets 54,150.3 171.2 ------------ ------------ Total assets $ 637,874.3 $ 30,047.0 ============ ============ LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS' EQUITY (DEFICIT) CURRENT LIABILITIES: Accounts payable $ 20,981.7 $ 2,261.7 Accrued liabilities and other current liabilities 26,176.8 1,668.0 ------------ ------------ Total current liabilities 47,158.5 3,929.7 LONG-TERM DEBT 471,652.1 -- REDEEMABLE CUMULATIVE CONVERTIBLE PREFERRED STOCK, $.01 par value, 0 and 40,498,062 shares authorized, 0 and 40,498,062 shares issued and outstanding at December 31, 1998 and 1997, respectively -- 33,409.4 REDEEMABLE WARRANTS 8,634.1 -- COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES (see Notes 6 and 8) STOCKHOLDERS' EQUITY (DEFICIT): Preferred stock, $.01 par value, 1,000,000 and 0 shares authorized, no shares issued or outstanding at December 31, 1998 and 1997, respectively -- -- Common stock, $.01 par value, 150,000,000 and 42,629,965 shares authorized, 50,341,554 and 426 shares issued and outstanding at December 31, 1998 and 1997, respectively 503.4 -- Additional paid-in capital 416,729.9 3,008.4 Deferred compensation (14,617.3) (2,798.4) Deferred management ownership allocation charge (26,224.7) -- Accumulated deficit (265,961.7) (7,502.1) ------------ ------------ Total stockholders' equity (deficit) 110,429.6 (7,292.1) ------------ ------------ Total liabilities and stockholders' equity (deficit) $ 637,874.3 $ 30,047.0 ============ ============
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements. 16 < Period from Inception (April 22, 1997), Year Ended through December 31, December 31, 1998 1997 -------------- -------------- REVENUE $ 9,786.2 $ 0.4 OPERATING EXPENSES: Network 9,528.8 151.2 Selling, general and administrative 46,089.4 3,425.9 Management ownership allocation charge 167,311.9 -- Noncash deferred compensation 5,307.2 209.9 Depreciation and amortization 9,002.8 12.7 -------------- -------------- Total operating expenses 237,240.1 3,799.7 -------------- -------------- Loss from operations (227,453.9) (3,799.3) OTHER (EXPENSE) INCOME: Interest income 19,917.4 111.4 Interest expense (38,951.7) -- -------------- -------------- Total other (expense) income (19,034.3) 111.4 -------------- -------------- NET LOSS (246,488.2) (3,687.9) ACCRETION OF REDEEMABLE PREFERRED STOCK AND WARRANT VALUES (11,971.4) (3,814.2) -------------- -------------- NET LOSS APPLICABLE TO COMMON STOCK $ (258,459.6) $ (7,502.1) ============== ============== NET LOSS PER SHARE, basic and diluted $ (10.53) $ (17,610.68) ============== ============== WEIGHTED AVERAGE NUMBER OF SHARES OUTSTANDING, basic and diluted 24,550,346 426 ============== ============== The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements. 17 Allegiance Telecom, Inc. and Subsidiaries Consolidated Statements of Stockholders' Equity (Deficit) For the year ended December 31, 1998, and for the period from inception (April 22, 1997), through December 31, 1997 (in thousands, except share and per share data)
Preferred Stock Common Stock ---------------------- ---------------------- Number Number of of Shares Amount Shares Amount ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- Balance, April 22, 1997 (date of inception) -- $ -- -- $ -- Issuance of common stock at $.23 per share -- -- 426 -- Accretion of redeemable preferred stock and warrant values -- -- -- -- Deferred compensation -- -- -- -- Amortization of deferred compensation -- -- -- -- Net loss -- -- -- -- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- Balance, December 31, 1997 -- -- 426 -- Accretion of redeemable preferred stock and warrant values -- -- -- -- Initial public offering -- -- 10,000,000 100.0 Conversion of redeemable preferred stock -- -- 40,341,128 403.4 Deferred compensation -- -- -- -- Amortization of deferred compensation -- -- -- -- Net loss -- -- -- -- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- Balance, December 31, 1998 -- $ -- 50,341,554 $ 503.4 ========== ========== ========== ==========
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements. 18
Deferred Management Additional Ownership Paid-In Deferred Allocation Accumulated Capital Compensation Charge Deficit Total ---------- ----------- ---------- ----------- ---------- Balance, April 22, 1997 (date of inception) $ -- $ -- $ -- $ -- $ -- Issuance of common stock at $.23 per share 0.1 -- -- -- 0.1 Accretion of redeemable preferred stock and warrant values -- -- -- (3,814.2) (3,814.2) Deferred compensation 3,008.3 (3,008.3) -- -- -- Amortization of deferred compensation -- 209.9 -- -- 209.9 Net loss -- -- -- (3,687.9) (3,687.9) ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- ---------- Balance, December 31, 1997 3,008.4 (2,798.4) -- (7,502.1) (7,292.1) Accretion of redeemable preferred stock and warrant values -- -- -- (11,971.4) (11,971.4) Initial public offering 137,656.8 -- -- -- 137,756.8 Conversion of redeemable preferred stock 65,402.0 -- -- -- 65,805.4 Deferred compensation 210,662.7 (17,126.1) (193,536.6) -- -- Amortization of deferred compensation -- 5,307.2 167,311.9 -- 172,619.1 Net loss -- -- -- (246,488.2) (246,488.2) ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- ---------- Balance, December 31, 1998 $416,729.9 $(14,617.3) $(26,224.7) $(265,961.7) $110,429.6 ========== ========== ========== =========== ==========
19 Allegiance Telecom, Inc. and Subsidiaries Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows For the year ended December 31, 1998, and for the period from inception (April 22, 1997), through December 31, 1997 (in thousands)
1998 1997 ------------ ------------ CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES: Net loss $ (246,488.2) $ (3,687.9) Adjustments to reconcile net loss to cash used in operating activities-- Depreciation and amortization 9,002.8 12.7 Provision for uncollectible accounts receivable 577.2 -- Accretion of senior discount notes 27,762.7 -- Amortization of original issue discount 569.9 -- Amortization of deferred debt issuance costs 733.7 -- Amortization of management ownership allocation charge and deferred compensation 172,619.1 209.9 Changes in assets and liabilities-- Accounts receivable (6,759.5) (4.3) Prepaid expenses and other current assets (998.0) (245.2) Other assets (1,201.5) (171.2) Accounts payable 4,703.9 275.1 Accrued liabilities and other current liabilities 22,208.1 1,668.0 ------------ ------------ Net cash used in operating activities (17,269.8) (1,942.9) ------------ ------------ CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES: Purchases of property and equipment (113,538.7) (21,926.0) Purchases of investments (294,688.8) -- Proceeds from redemption of investments 89,057.1 -- ------------ ------------ Net cash used in investing activities (319,170.4) (21,926.0) ------------ ------------ CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES: Proceeds from senior notes 443,212.1 -- Proceeds from issuance of redeemable warrants 8,183.5 -- Deferred debt issuance costs (16,812.1) -- Proceeds from issuance of redeemable preferred stock -- 5,000.0 Proceeds from redeemable capital contributions 20,875.2 24,595.2 Proceeds from issuance of common stock -- 0.1 Proceeds from initial public offering 137,756.8 -- ------------ ------------ Net cash provided by financing activities 593,215.5 29,595.3 ------------ ------------ INCREASE IN CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS 256,775.3 5,726.4 CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS, beginning of period 5,726.4 -- ------------ ------------ CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS, end of period $ 262,501.7 $ 5,726.4 ============ ============ SUPPLEMENTAL DISCLOSURES OF CASH FLOW INFORMATION: Cash paid during the period for interest $ 9,384.4 $ -- ============ ============
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements. 20 < The accompanying financial statements include the accounts of Allegiance Telecom, Inc. and its wholly owned subsidiaries. All significant intercompany balances and transactions have been eliminated. CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS > For purposes of reporting cash flows, the Company includes as cash and cash equivalents, cash, marketable securities, and commercial paper with original maturities of three months or less at date of purchase. 21 SHORT-TERM INVESTMENTS > Short-term investments consist primarily of commercial paper with original maturities at date of purchase beyond three months and less than 12 months. Such short-term investments are carried at their accreted value, which approximates fair value, due to the short period of time to maturity. RESTRICTED INVESTMENTS > Restricted investments consist primarily of U.S. government securities purchased in connection with the Company's outstanding 12 7/8% Notes (see Note 4) to secure the first three years' (six semiannual) interest payments on the 12 7/8% Notes. Such investments are stated at their accreted value, which approximates fair value, and are shown in both current and other noncurrent assets, based upon the maturity dates of each of the securities at the balance sheet date. Restricted investments also includes $787.2 in certificates of deposit held as collateral for letters of credit issued on behalf of the Company. These investments are classified as other noncurrent assets. ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE > Accounts receivable consist of end-user receivables, interest receivable, and at December 31, 1997, a receivable from an employee. PREPAID EXPENSES AND OTHER CURRENT ASSETS > Prepaid expenses and other current assets consist of prepaid rent, prepaid insurance, and refundable deposits. Prepayments are expensed on a straight-line basis over the life of the underlying agreements. PROPERTY AND EQUIPMENT > Property and equipment includes network equipment, leasehold improvements, software, office equipment, furniture and fixtures, construction-in-progress, and other. These assets are stated at cost, which includes direct costs and capitalized interest, and are depreciated once placed in service using the straight-line method. Interest expense for the year ended December 31, 1998, was $41,749.9 before the capitalization of $2,798.2 of interest related to construction-in-progress. No interest expense was incurred during the period ended December 31, 1997. Repair and maintenance costs are expensed as incurred. Property and equipment at December 31, 1998 and 1997, consist of the following:
Useful Lives 1998 1997 (in years) ---------- ---------- ---------- Network equipment $ 67,303.8 $ -- 5-7 Leasehold improvements 24,483.2 37.5 5-10 Software 7,840.0 -- 3 Office equipment and other 4,384.3 89.9 2 Furniture and fixtures 2,419.6 150.2 5 ---------- ---------- Property and equipment, in service 106,430.9 277.6 Less-accumulated depreciation (9,015.4) (12.7) ---------- ---------- Property and equipment, in service, net 97,415.5 264.9 Construction-in-progress 47,444.5 23,635.0 ---------- ---------- Property and equipment, net $144,860.0 $ 23,899.9 ========== ==========
REVENUE RECOGNITION > Revenue is recognized in the month in which the service is provided, except for reciprocal compensation generated by calls placed to Internet service providers connected to the Company's network. The propriety of CLECs (such as the Company) to earn local reciprocal compensation is the subject of numerous regulatory and legal challenges. Until this issue is ultimately resolved, the Company has determined to recognize this revenue only when realization of it is certain, which in most cases will be upon receipt of cash. COMPREHENSIVE INCOME > In June 1997, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (SFAS) No. 130 (SFAS 130), "Reporting Comprehensive Income." SFAS 130 established reporting and disclosure requirements for comprehensive income and its components within the financial statements. The Company's comprehensive income components were immaterial as of December 31, 1998, and the Company had no comprehensive income components as of December 31, 1997; therefore, comprehensive income/loss is the same as net income/loss for both periods. 22 LOSS PER SHARE > The Company calculates net loss per share under the provisions of SFAS No. 128, "Earnings per Share." The net loss per share amounts reflected on the statements of operations and the number of shares outstanding on the balance sheets reflect a 426.2953905-for-one stock split, which occurred in connection with the initial public offering (see Note 3). The net loss applicable to common stock includes the accretion of redeemable cumulative convertible preferred stock and warrant values of $11,971.4 for the year ended December 31, 1998, and $3,814.2 for the period from inception (April 22, 1997), through December 31, 1997. The securities listed below were not included in the computation of diluted loss per share, since the effect from the conversion would be antidilutive.
December 31, -------------------------- 1998 1997 ------------ ------------ Redeemable Cumulative Convertible Preferred Stock -- 40,498,062 Redeemable Warrants 649,248 -- 1997 Nonqualified Stock Option Plan 886,127 189,127 1998 Stock Incentive Plan 365,526 -- Employee Stock Discount Purchase Plan 44,624 -- ------------ ------------
RECOGNITION OF THE COST OF START-UP ACTIVITIES > On April 3, 1998, the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants issued Statement of Position No. 98-5 (SOP 98-5), "Reporting on the Costs of Start-up Activities." SOP 98-5 requires that start-up activities and organization costs be expensed as incurred and that start-up costs capitalized prior to the adoption of SOP 98-5 be reported as a cumulative effect of a change in accounting principle. The Company adopted SOP 98-5 during the second quarter of 1998. Adoption of SOP 98-5 did not have an effect on the Company, inasmuch as the Company had previously expensed all such costs. ACCOUNTING FOR DERIVATIVE INSTRUMENTS AND HEDGING ACTIVITIES > In June 1998, the FASB issued SFAS No. 133, "Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities" (SFAS 133). SFAS 133 requires that all derivatives be recognized at fair value as either assets or liabilities. SFAS 133 also requires an entity that elects to apply hedge accounting to establish the method to be used in assessing the effectiveness of the hedging derivatives and the measurement approach for determining the ineffectiveness of the hedge at the inception of the hedge. The methods chosen must be consistent with the entity's approach to managing risk. The Company adopted SFAS 133 at the beginning of the fourth quarter of 1998. Adoption of SFAS 133 did not have an effect on the Company, inasmuch as the Company has historically not invested in derivatives or participated in hedging activities. USE OF ESTIMATES IN FINANCIAL STATEMENTS > The preparation of financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates. RECLASSIFICATIONS > Certain amounts in the prior period's consolidated financial statements have been reclassified to conform with the current period presentation. 3. Capitalization: In connection with its initial public offering of common stock (the "IPO") on July 7, 1998 (see below), the Company effected a 426.2953905-for-one stock split, which is retroactively reflected within these financial statements. STOCK PURCHASE AGREEMENT AND SECURITY HOLDERS AGREEMENT > On August 13, 1997, the Company entered into a stock purchase agreement with Allegiance Telecom, LLC ("Allegiance LLC") (see Note 7). Allegiance LLC purchased 40,498,062 shares of 12% redeemable cumulative convertible preferred stock ("Redeemable Preferred Stock"), par value $.01 per share, for aggregate consideration of $5,000.0 (the "Initial Closing"). Allegiance LLC agreed to make additional contributions as necessary to fund expansion into new markets ("Subsequent Closings"). In order to obtain funds through Subsequent Closings, the Company submitted a proposal 23 p54>> to Allegiance LLC detailing the funds necessary to build out the Company's business in a new market. Allegiance LLC was not required to make any contributions until it approved the proposal. The maximum commitment of Allegiance LLC was $100,000.0. No capital contributions were required to be made after the Company consummated an initial public offering of its stock (which occurred on July 7, 1998). Allegiance LLC contributed a total of $50,132.9 and $29,595.2 prior to the Company's initial public offering and as of December 31, 1997, respectively. Each security holder in Allegiance LLC had the right to require Allegiance LLC to repurchase all of the outstanding securities held by such security holder at the greater of the original cost (including interest at 12% per annum) for such security or the fair market value, as defined in the security holders agreement, at any time and from time to time after August 13, 2004, but not after the consummation of a public offering or sale of the Company. If repurchase provisions had been exercised, the Company had agreed, at the request and direction of Allegiance LLC, to take any and all actions necessary, including declaring and paying dividends and repurchasing preferred or common stock, to enable Allegiance LLC to satisfy its repurchase obligations. Because of the redemption provisions, the Company has recognized the accretion of the value of the Redeemable Preferred Stock to reflect management's estimate of the potential future fair market value of the Redeemable Preferred Stock payable in the event the repurchase provisions were exercised. Amounts were accreted using the effective interest method, assuming the Redeemable Preferred Stock is redeemed at a redemption price based on the estimated potential future fair market value of the equity of the Company in August 2004. The accretion was recorded each period as an increase in the balance of Redeemable Preferred Stock outstanding and a noncash increase in the net loss applicable to common stock. In connection with the IPO, the Redeemable Preferred Stock was converted into common stock, and the amounts accreted were reclassified as a component of additional paid-in capital. In addition, the redemption provisions and the obligation of Allegiance LLC to make additional contributions to the Company (and the obligation of the members of Allegiance LLC to make capital contributions) have terminated. REDEEMABLE CUMULATIVE CONVERTIBLE PREFERRED STOCK > Each share of the Company's Redeemable Preferred Stock was convertible into shares of the Company's common stock (the "Common Stock") on a one-for-one basis, subject to certain antidilution provisions. No dividends were declared in 1998 or 1997. In 1998, prior to the conversion of the Redeemable Preferred Stock, the Company recorded accretion of $11,520.8. Accretion recorded in the period ended December 31, 1997, was $3,814.2. Capital contributed in the Subsequent Closings occurring in October 1997 and January 1998 and other capital contributions totaled approximately $45,132.9. In February and March 1998, the Company issued 273,361.92 shares of Redeemable Preferred Stock for aggregate consideration of $337.5. In connection with the consummation of the IPO, the outstanding shares of the Redeemable Preferred Stock were converted into 40,341,128 shares of Common Stock. Upon the conversion of the Redeemable Preferred Stock, the obligation of the Company to redeem the Redeemable Preferred Stock also terminated and, therefore, the accretion of the Redeemable Preferred Stock value recorded to the date of the IPO, $15,335.0, was reclassified to additional paid-in capital along with $50,470.4 proceeds from the issuance of the Redeemable Preferred Stock and redeemable capital contributions. PREFERRED STOCK > In connection with the IPO, the Company authorized 1,000,000 shares of preferred stock ("Preferred Stock") with a $.01 par value. At December 31, 1998, no shares of Preferred Stock were issued and outstanding. COMMON STOCK > On July 7, 1998, the Company raised $150,000.0 of gross proceeds in the Company's IPO. The Company sold 10,000,000 shares of its Common Stock at a price of $15 per share. In connection with the IPO, the outstanding shares of Redeemable Preferred Stock were converted into 40,341,128 shares of Common Stock, and the Company increased the number of authorized Common Stock to 150,000,000. At December 31, 1998, 50,341,554 shares were issued and outstanding. Of the authorized but unissued Common Stock, 6,998,970 shares are reserved for issuance upon exercise of options issued under the Company's stock option, stock incentive, and stock purchase plans (see Note 10) and 649,248 shares are reserved for issuance, sale, and delivery upon the exercise of warrants (see Note 4). 24 DEFERRED COMPENSATION > Allegiance LLC sold to certain management investors (the "Management Investors") membership units of Allegiance LLC at amounts less than their estimated fair market value; therefore, the Company has recognized deferred compensation of $10,090.2 and $977.6 at December 31, 1998 and 1997, respectively, of which $2,726.1 and $40.7 have been amortized to expense at December 31, 1998 and 1997, respectively. In connection with the IPO, the Redeemable Preferred Stock was converted into Common Stock, and Allegiance LLC was dissolved. The deferred compensation charge is amortized based upon the period over which the Company has the right to repurchase certain of the securities (at the lower of fair market value or the price paid by the employee) in the event the management employee's employment with the Company is terminated. DEFERRED MANAGEMENT OWNERSHIP ALLOCATION CHARGE > On July 7, 1998, in connection with the IPO, certain venture capital investors (the "Fund Investors") and certain Management Investors owned 95.0% and 5.0%, respectively, of the ownership interests of Allegiance LLC, which owned substantially all of the Company's outstanding capital stock. As a result of the successful IPO, Allegiance LLC was dissolved, and its assets (which consisted almost entirely of such capital stock) have been distributed to the Fund Investors and Management Investors in accordance with Allegiance LLC's Limited Liability Company Agreement (the "LLC Agreement"). The LLC Agreement provided that the equity allocation between the Fund Investors and the Management Investors be 66.7% and 33.3%, respectively, based upon the valuation implied by the IPO. Under generally accepted accounting principles, the Company recorded the increase in the assets of Allegiance LLC allocated to the Management Investors as a $193,536.6 increase in additional paid-in capital, of which $122,475.5 was recorded as a noncash, nonrecurring charge to operating expense and $71,061.1 was recorded as a deferred management ownership allocation charge. The deferred charge was amortized at $44,836.4 as of December 31, 1998, and will be further amortized at $18,870.2, $7,175.7, and $178.8 during the years 1999, 2000, and 2001, respectively, which is the period over which the Company has the right to repurchase certain of the securities (at the lower of fair market value or the price paid by the employee) in the event the management employee's employment with the Company is terminated. 4. Long-Term Debt: Long-term debt consisted of the following:
December 31, -------------------------- 1998 1997 ------------ ------------ Series B 11 3/4% Notes, face amount $445,000.0 due February 15, 2008, effective interest rate of 12.45%, at accreted value $ 270,526.1 $ -- 12 7/8% Senior Notes, face amount $205,000.0 due May 15, 2008, effective interest rate of 13.24%, at accreted value 201,018.6 -- Other 107.4 -- ------------ ------------ Total long-term debt $ 471,652.1 $ -- ============ ============
On February 3,1998, the Company raised gross proceeds of approximately $250,477.1 in an offering of 445,000 Units (the "Unit Offering"), each of which consists of one 11 3/4% Senior Discount Note due 2008 of the Company (the "11 3/4% Notes") and one warrant to purchase .0034224719 shares of Common Stock (the "Redeemable Warrants") at an exercise price of $.01 per share, subject to certain antidilution provisions. Of the gross proceeds, $242,293.6 was allocated to the 11 3/4% Notes and $8,183.5 was allocated to the Redeemable Warrants. The Redeemable Warrants became exercisable in connection with the IPO (see Note 3) in July 1998, and each warrant may now purchase 1.45898399509 shares of Common Stock as a result of the stock split (see Note 3). A Registration Statement on Form S-4 (File No. 333-49013), registering the Company's 11 3/4% Notes and offering to exchange (the "Exchange Offer") any and all of the outstanding 11 3/4% Notes for Series B 11 3/4% Notes due 2008 (the "Series B Notes"), was declared effective by the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 22, 1998. The Exchange Offer terminated after all of the outstanding 11 3/4% Notes were exchanged. The terms and conditions of the Series B Notes are identical to those of the 11 3/4% Notes in all material respects. 25 p56>> The Series B Notes have a principal amount at maturity of $445,000.0 and an effective interest rate of 12.45%. The Series B Notes mature on February 15, 2008. From and after February 15, 2003, interest on the Series B Notes will be payable semi-annually in cash at the rate of 11 3/4% per annum. The Company must make an offer to purchase the Redeemable Warrants for cash at the relevant value upon the occurrence of a repurchase event. A repurchase event is defined to occur when (i) the Company consolidates with or merges into another person if the Common Stock thereafter issuable upon exercise of the Redeemable Warrants is not registered under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act") or (ii) the Company sells all or substantially all of its assets to another person, if the Common Stock thereafter issuable upon the exercise of the Redeemable Warrants is not registered under the Exchange Act, unless the consideration for such a transaction is cash. The relevant value is defined to be the fair market value of the Common Stock as determined by the trading value of the securities if publicly traded or at an estimated fair market value without giving effect to any discount for lack of liquidity, lack of registered securities, or the fact that the securities represent a minority of the total shares outstanding. As a result of the warrant redemption provisions, the Company is recognizing the potential future redemption value of the Redeemable Warrants by recording accretion of the Redeemable Warrants to their estimated fair market value at February 3, 2008, using the effective interest method. Accretion recorded in the year ended December 31, 1998, was $450.6. The Series B Notes are redeemable by the Company, in whole or in part, anytime on or after February 15, 2003, at 105.875% of their principal amount at maturity, plus accrued and unpaid interest, declining to 100% of their principal amount at maturity, plus accrued and unpaid interest on and after February 15, 2006. In addition, at any time prior to February 15, 2001, the Company may, at its option, redeem up to 35% of the principal amount at maturity of the Series B Notes in connection with one or more public equity offerings at 111.750% of the accreted value on the redemption date, provided that at least $289,250.0 aggregate principal amount at maturity of the Series B Notes remains outstanding after such redemption. On July 7, 1998, the Company raised approximately $200,918.5 of gross proceeds from the sale of its 12 7/8% Senior Notes due 2008 (the "12 7/8% Notes"), of which approximately $69,033.4 was used to purchase U.S. government securities, which were placed in a pledge account to secure and fund the first six scheduled payments of interest on the notes (see Note 2). The 12 7/8% Notes have a principal amount at maturity of $205,000.0 and an effective interest rate of 13.24%. The 12 7/8% Notes mature on May 15, 2008. Interest on the 12 7/8% Notes is payable semi-annually in cash at the rate of 12 7/8% on May 15 and November 15 of each year. As of December 31, 1998, the Company has recorded accrued interest associated with the 12 7/8% Notes of $3,470.2, which is included in other current liabilities. The 12 7/8% Notes are redeemable by the Company, in whole or in part, at any time on or after May 15, 2003, at 106.438% of their principal amount, declining to 100% of their principal amount, plus accrued interest, on or after May 15, 2006. In addition, prior to May 15, 2001, the Company may redeem up to 35% of the aggregate principal amount of the 12 7/8% Notes with the proceeds of one or more public offerings (as defined in the indenture relating to the 12 7/8% Notes) at 112.875% of their principal amount, plus accrued interest, provided, however, that after any such redemption at least 65% of the aggregate principal amount of the 12 7/8% Notes originally issued remains outstanding. The Series B and the 12 7/8% Notes carry certain restrictive covenants that, among other things, limit the ability of the Company to incur indebtedness, create liens, engage in sale-leaseback transactions, pay dividends or make distributions in respect to their capital stock, redeem capital stock, make investments or certain other restricted payments, sell assets, issue or sell stock of restricted subsidiaries (as defined in the indentures relating to the Series B Notes and the 12 7/8% Notes), enter into transactions with any holder of 5% or more of any class of capital stock of the Company, or effect a consolidation or merger. In addition, upon a change of control, the Company is required to make an offer to purchase each series of notes at a purchase price of 101% of the accreted value thereof (in the case of the Series B Notes) and 101% of the principal amount thereof (in the case of the 12 7/8% Notes), together with accrued interest, if any. However, these limitations are subject to a number of qualifications and exceptions (as defined in the indentures relating to each series of notes). The Company was in compliance with all such restrictive covenants of each series of notes at December 31, 1998. 26 < 27 p58>> 8. Commitments and Contingencies: The Company has entered into various operating lease agreements, with expirations through 2009, for network facilities, office space, and equipment. Future minimum lease obligations related to the Company's operating leases as of December 31, 1998, are as follows: ------------- 1999 $ 10,984.8 2000 11,201.6 2001 10,436.7 2002 8,600.8 2003 7,940.7 Thereafter 30,083.5 =============
Total rent expense for the year ended December 31, 1998, was $2,991.8 and for the period from inception (April 22, 1997) through December 31, 1997, was $212.1. In October 1997, the Company entered into a five-year general agreement with Lucent Technologies, Inc. ("Lucent") establishing terms and conditions for the purchase of Lucent products, services, and licensed materials. This agreement includes a three-year exclusivity commitment for the purchase of products and services related to new switches. The agreement contains no minimum purchase requirements. 9. Federal Income Taxes: The Company accounts for income tax under the provisions of SFAS No. 109, "Accounting for Income Taxes" (SFAS 109). SFAS 109 requires an asset and liability approach that requires the recognition of deferred tax assets and liabilities for the expected future tax consequences of events that have been recognized in the Company's financial statements. The Company had approximately $53,572.5 and $460.5 of net operating loss carryforwards for federal income tax purposes at December 31, 1998 and 1997, respectively. The net operating loss carryforwards will expire in the years 2012 and 2018 if not previously utilized. The Company has recorded a valuation allowance equal to the net deferred tax assets at December 31, 1998 and 1997, due to the uncertainty of future operating results. The valuation allowance will be reduced at such time as management believes it is more likely than not that the net deferred tax assets will be realized. Any reductions in the valuation allowance will reduce future provisions for income tax expense. The Company's deferred tax assets and liabilities and the changes in those assets are:
1997 Change 1998 ------------ ------------ ------------ Start-up costs capitalized for tax purposes $ 1,025.9 $ (213.7) $ 812.2 Net operating loss carryforward 156.6 18,058.1 18,214.7 Amortization of original issue discount -- 9,663.6 9,663.6 Depreciation -- (2,392.4) (2,392.4) Valuation allowance (1,182.5) (25,115.6) (26,298.1) ------------ ------------ ------------ $ -- $ -- $ -- ============ ============ ============
Amortization of the original issue discount on the Series B Notes and 12 7/8% Notes as interest expense is not deductible in the income tax return until paid. Under existing income tax law, all operating expenses incurred prior to a company commencing its principal operations are capitalized and amortized over a five-year period for tax purposes. 28 < 1998 1997 ------------ ------------ Net loss applicable to common stock - as reported $ 258,459.6 $ 7,502.1 Net loss applicable to common stock - pro forma 259,796.6 7,512.2 Net loss per share, basic and diluted - as reported 10.53 17,610.68 Net loss per share, basic and diluted - pro forma 10.58 17,634.27 ------------ ------------ As the 1998 Stock Incentive Plan and the Stock Purchase Plan were adopted in 1998, the December 31, 1997, pro forma balances do not include expenses for these plans. 1997 OPTION PLAN AND 1998 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN > Under the 1997 Option Plan, the Company granted options to key employees, a director, and a consultant of the Company for an aggregate of 1,037,474 shares of the Company's Common Stock. The Company will not grant options for any additional shares under the 1997 Option Plan. Under the 1998 Stock Incentive Plan, the Company may grant options to certain employees, directors, advisors, and consultants of the Company. The 1998 Stock Incentive Plan provides for issuance of the following types of incentive awards: stock options, stock appreciation rights, restricted stock, performance grants, and other types of awards that the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors (the "Compensation Committee") deems consistent with the purposes of the 1998 Stock Incentive Plan. The Company has reserved 3,655,778 shares of Common Stock for issuance under the 1998 Stock Incentive Plan. Options granted under both plans have a term of six years and vest over a three-year period, and the Compensation Committee administers both option plans. A summary of the status of the 1997 Option Plan as of December 31, 1998 and 1997, is presented in the table below:
December 31, 1998 December 31, 1997 ------------------------------- ---------------------------- Weighted Weighted Average Average Shares Exercise Price Shares Exercise Price ------------ -------------- ------------ -------------- Outstanding, beginning of period 189,127 $ 2.47 -- $ -- Granted 848,347 2.76 189,127 2.47 Exercised -- -- -- -- Forfeited (151,347) 2.60 -- -- ------------ ------------ Outstanding, end of period 886,127 2.73 189,127 2.47 ============ ============ Options exercisable at period-end 44,481 -- ============ ============ Weighted average fair value of options granted $ 2.82 $ 0.68 ============ ============
As of December 31, 1998 and 1997, options outstanding under the 1997 Option Plan have a weighted average remaining contractual life of 5.2 and 5.8 years, respectively. 29 p60>> A summary of the status of the 1998 Stock Incentive Plan as of December 31, 1998, is presented in the table below:
December 31,1998 --------------------------- Weighted Average Shares Exercise Price --------- ---------------- Outstanding, beginning of period -- $ -- Granted 399,974 10.21 Exercised -- -- Forfeited (34,448) 10.47 --------- --------- Outstanding, end of period 365,526 10.19 ========= Options exercisable at period-end -- ========= Weighted average fair value of options granted $ 10.22 =========
As of December 31, 1998, options outstanding under the 1998 Stock Incentive Plan have a weighted average remaining contractual life of 5.7 years. As the estimated fair market value of the Company's Common Stock (as implied by the IPO price) exceeded the exercise price of the options granted, the Company has recognized deferred compensation of $7,635.0 and $2,030.7 at December 31, 1998 and 1997, respectively, of which $2,581.1 and $169.2 have been amortized to expense at December 31, 1998 and 1997, respectively, over the vesting period of the options. As of December 31, 1998, the Company has reversed $599.1 of unamortized deferred compensation related to options forfeited. STOCK PURCHASE PLAN > The Company's Stock Purchase Plan is intended to give employees a convenient means of purchasing shares of Common Stock through payroll deductions. Each participating employee's contributions will be used to purchase shares for the employee's share account as promptly as practicable after each calendar quarter. The cost per share will be 85% of the lower of the closing price of the Company's Common Stock on the Nasdaq National Market on the first or the last day of the calendar quarter. The Company has reserved 2,305,718 shares of Common Stock for issuance under the Stock Purchase Plan. As of December 31, 1998, no shares have been issued under the Stock Purchase Plan; however, participants have contributed $303.4 and will be issued 44,624 shares of Common Stock in January 1999. The Compensation Committee administers the Stock Purchase Plan.
EX-21.1 7 SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT 1 EXHIBIT 21.1 Subsidiaries of Allegiance Telecom, Inc. Allegiance Telecom International, Inc., Delaware corporation Allegiance Telecom Service Corporation, Delaware corporation Allegiance Internet, Inc., Delaware corporation Allegiance Telecom of California, Inc., Delaware corporation Allegiance Telecom of Colorado, Inc., Delaware corporation Allegiance Telecom of the District of Columbia, Inc., Delaware corporation Allegiance Telecom of Florida, Inc., Delaware corporation Allegiance Telecom of Georgia, Inc., Delaware corporation Allegiance Telecom of Illinois, Inc., Delaware corporation Allegiance Telecom of Maryland, Inc., Delaware corporation Allegiance Telecom of Massachusetts, Inc., Delaware corporation Allegiance Telecom of Michigan, Inc., Delaware corporation Allegiance Telecom of New Jersey, Inc., Delaware corporation Allegiance Telecom of New York, Inc., Delaware corporation Allegiance Telecom of Pennsylvania, Inc., Delaware corporation Allegiance Telecom of Texas, Inc., Delaware corporation Allegiance Telecom of Virginia, Inc., Delaware corporation Allegiance Telecom of Washington, Inc., Delaware corporation Allegiance Finance Company, Inc., Delaware corporation EX-23.1 8 CONSENT OF ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP 1 EXHIBIT 23.1 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of our report incorporated by reference in this Form 10-K, into the Company's previously filed Registration Statements on Form S-8 File No. 333-70769 and 333-73453. ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP Dallas, Texas March 29, 1999 EX-27.1 9 FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE
5 THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND FROM THE CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENT. 1,000 12-MOS DEC-31-1998 JAN-01-1998 DEC-31-1998 262,502 143,390 6,764 577 0 438,864 153,875 9,015 637,874 47,159 471,545 0 0 503 109,926 637,874 0 9,786 0 9,529 181,622 577 38,952 (258,460) 0 (258,460) 0 0 0 (258,460) (10.53) (10.53)
-----END PRIVACY-ENHANCED MESSAGE-----