Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2011
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies As more fully described below, the Company is involved in a variety of lawsuits, claims, investigations and proceedings concerning intellectual property, commercial, business practices and other matters. Due in part to the growth and expansion of its business operations, the Company has become subject to increased amounts of litigation, including disputes alleging intellectual property infringement. The Company believes that any damage amounts alleged by plaintiffs in the matters discussed below are not necessarily meaningful indicators of its potential liability. The Company determines whether it should accrue an estimated loss for a contingency in a particular legal proceeding by assessing whether a loss is deemed probable and whether the amount can be reasonably estimated. The Company reassesses its views on estimated losses on a quarterly basis to reflect the impact of any developments in the matters in which it is involved. Legal proceedings are inherently unpredictable, and the matters in which the Company is involved often present complex legal and factual issues. The Company vigorously pursues defenses in legal proceedings and engages in discussions where possible to resolve these matters on favorable terms. The Company's policy is to recognize legal costs as incurred. It is possible, however, that the Company's business, financial condition and results of operations in future periods could be materially adversely affected by increased litigation expense, significant settlement costs and/or unfavorable damage awards. Patent Litigation DNT On May 1, 2009, the Company was sued by DNT LLC (“DNT”) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division, for alleged infringement of U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE37,660 entitled “Automatic Dialing System.” DNT alleges that the Company uses, encourages the use of, sells, offers for sale and/or imports voice and data service and wireless modem cards for computers designed to be used in conjunction with cellular networks and that such acts constitute both direct and indirect infringement of DNT's patent. DNT alleges that the Company's infringement is willful, and the complaint seeks an injunction against further infringement, unspecified damages (including enhanced damages) and attorneys' fees. On July 23, 2009, the Company filed an answer to the complaint as well as counterclaims. On December 14, 2009, DNT's patent was determined to be invalid in a case it brought against other wireless providers. DNT's lawsuit against the Company has been stayed, pending resolution of that other case. Digital Technology Licensing On April 21, 2009, the Company and certain other wireless carriers (including Hargray Wireless LLC ("Hargray Wireless"), a company which Cricket acquired in April 2008 and which was merged with and into Cricket in December 2008) were sued by Digital Technology Licensing LLC (“DTL”) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, for alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,051,799 entitled “Digital Output Transducer.” DTL alleges that the Company and Hargray Wireless sell and/or offer to sell Bluetooth^® devices or digital cellular telephones, including Kyocera and Sanyo telephones, and that such acts constitute direct and/or indirect infringement of DTL's patent. DTL further alleges that the Company and Hargray Wireless directly and/or indirectly infringe its patent by providing cellular telephone service and by using and inducing others to use a patented digital cellular telephone system by using cellular telephones, Bluetooth devices, and cellular telephone infrastructure made by companies such as Kyocera and Sanyo. DTL alleges that the asserted infringement is willful, and the complaint seeks a permanent injunction against further infringement, unspecified damages (including enhanced damages), attorneys' fees, and expenses. On January 5, 2010, this matter was stayed, pending final resolution of another case that DTL brought against another wireless provider in which it alleged infringement of the patent that is at issue in this matter. That other case has been settled and dismissed but the stay in the Company's matter has not been lifted. Department of Justice Inquiry On January 7, 2009, the Company received a letter from the Civil Division of the United States Department of Justice (the “DOJ”). In its letter, the DOJ alleges that between approximately 2002 and 2006, the Company failed to comply with certain federal postal regulations that required it to update customer mailing addresses in exchange for receiving certain bulk mailing rate discounts. As a result, the DOJ has asserted that the Company violated the False Claims Act (the “FCA”) and is therefore liable for damages. On November 18, 2009, the DOJ presented the Company with a calculation that single damages in this matter were $2.7 million for the period from June 2003 through June 2006, which amount may be trebled under the FCA. The FCA also provides for statutory penalties, which the DOJ has previously asserted could total up to $11,000 per mailing. The DOJ had also previously asserted as an alternative theory of liability that the Company is liable on a basis of unjust enrichment for estimated single damages. The Company is currently in discussions with the DOJ to settle this matter. Pentwater Capital Management On July 26, 2011, the Company entered into an agreement with Pentwater Capital Management LP and certain of its affiliates (collectively, "Pentwater"), to settle an action brought by Pentwater in the Delaware Court of Chancery on June 20, 2011. The action related to a notice of nominations, dated March 10, 2011, by which Pentwater purported to nominate three directors for election at the Company's Annual Meeting, which was held on July 28, 2011. The Company advised Pentwater that the notice they delivered was not in proper form because it did not comply with provisions of the Company's bylaws and that as a result any shares voted with respect to any nominees of Pentwater would not be counted for the purpose of determining the election of directors at the Annual Meeting. Pentwater's complaint sought a declaration that Article II, Section 8(a)(2)(D)(iv) of the Company's Amended and Restated Bylaws was invalid under Delaware Law. Pentwater also alleged that members of the Company's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties by adopting revisions to the advance notice provisions in the Company's Amended and Restated Bylaws on December 2, 2010. Under the terms of the settlement, Pentwater agreed to irrevocably withdraw their notice of intention to nominate directors for election and to dismiss the action with prejudice. Pentwater also agreed to vote all shares of Leap stock they held on the record date in favor of each of the directors nominated by the Company's board of directors at the Annual Meeting. Under the terms of the settlement, the Company increased the size of Leap's board to nine directors, appointed Robert E. Switz and Richard R. Roscitt as directors and appointed Mr. Roscitt to the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee and to the Compensation Committee. The action was dismissed on August 2, 2011. Other Litigation, Claims and Disputes In addition to the matters described above, the Company is often involved in certain other matters, which generally arise in the ordinary course of business and seek monetary damages and other relief. Based upon information currently available to the Company, none of these other matters is expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial condition or results of operations. Wholesale Agreement On August 2, 2010, the Company entered into a wholesale agreement with an affiliate of Sprint Nextel which permits the Company to offer Cricket wireless services outside the Company's current network footprint using Sprint's network. The Company and Sprint amended the agreement in July 2011 to, among other things, revise the amount of the annual minimum revenue commitments for the years 2011 and 2013. The initial term of the wholesale agreement runs until December 31, 2015, and automatically renews for successive one-year periods unless either party provides 180-day advance notice to the other. Under the agreement, the Company will pay Sprint a specified amount per month for each subscriber activated on its network, subject to periodic market-based adjustments. The Company has agreed to provide Sprint with a minimum of $300 million of revenue under the agreement, as amended, over the initial five-year term (against which the Company can credit up to $100 million of service revenue under other existing commercial arrangements between the companies), with a minimum of $20 million of revenue to be provided in 2011, a minimum of $75 million of revenue to be provided in 2012, a minimum of $80 million of revenue to be provided in 2013, a minimum of $75 million of revenue to be provided in 2014 and a minimum of $50 million of revenue to be provided in 2015. Any revenue provided by the Company in a given year above the minimum revenue commitment for that particular year will be credited to the next succeeding year. However, to the extent the Company's revenues were to fall beneath the applicable commitment amount for any given year, excess revenues from a subsequent year could not be carried back to offset such shortfall. In addition, in the event Leap is involved in a change-of-control transaction with another facilities-based wireless carrier with annual revenues of at least $500 million in the fiscal year preceding the date of the change of control agreement (other than MetroPCS Communications, Inc. ("MetroPCS")), either the Company (or the Company's successor in interest) or Sprint may terminate the wholesale agreement within 60 days following the closing of such a transaction. In connection with any such termination, the Company (or its successor in interest) would be required to pay to Sprint a specified percentage of the remaining aggregate minimum revenue commitment, with the percentage to be paid depending on the year in which the change of control agreement was entered into, beginning at 40% for any such agreement entered into in 2011, 30% for any such agreement entered into in 2012, 20% for any such agreement entered into in 2013 and 10% for any such agreement entered into in 2014 or 2015. In the event that Leap is involved in a change-of-control transaction with MetroPCS during the term of the wholesale agreement, then the agreement would continue in full force and effect, subject to certain revisions, including, without limitation, an increase to the total minimum revenue commitment to $350 million, taking into account any revenue contributed by Cricket prior to the date thereof. In the event Sprint is involved in a change-of-control transaction, the agreement would bind Sprint's successor-in-interest. Device Purchase Agreements The Company has entered into agreements with various suppliers for the purchase of wireless devices. These agreements require the Company to purchase specified quantities of devices based on minimum commitment levels through July 2012. The total aggregate commitments outstanding under these agreements were approximately $222.8 million and $218.2 million as of June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively.

Commitments and Contingencies

As more fully described below, the Company is involved in a variety of lawsuits, claims, investigations and proceedings concerning intellectual property, commercial, business practices and other matters. Due in part to the growth and expansion of its business operations, the Company has become subject to increased amounts of litigation, including disputes alleging intellectual property infringement.

The Company believes that any damage amounts alleged by plaintiffs in the matters discussed below are not necessarily meaningful indicators of its potential liability. The Company determines whether it should accrue an estimated loss for a contingency in a particular legal proceeding by assessing whether a loss is deemed probable and whether the amount can be reasonably estimated. The Company reassesses its views on estimated losses on a quarterly basis to reflect the impact of any developments in the matters in which it is involved.

Legal proceedings are inherently unpredictable, and the matters in which the Company is involved often present complex legal and factual issues. The Company vigorously pursues defenses in legal proceedings and engages in discussions where possible to resolve these matters on favorable terms. The Company's policy is to recognize legal costs as incurred. It is possible, however, that the Company's business, financial condition and results of operations in future periods could be materially adversely affected by increased litigation expense, significant settlement costs and/or unfavorable damage awards.

Patent Litigation

DNT

On May 1, 2009, the Company was sued by DNT LLC (“DNT”) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division, for alleged infringement of U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE37,660 entitled “Automatic Dialing System.” DNT alleges that the Company uses, encourages the use of, sells, offers for sale and/or imports voice and data service and wireless modem cards for computers designed to be used in conjunction with cellular networks and that such acts constitute both direct and indirect infringement of DNT's patent. DNT alleges that the Company's infringement is willful, and the complaint seeks an injunction against further infringement, unspecified damages (including enhanced damages) and attorneys' fees. On July 23, 2009, the Company filed an answer to the complaint as well as counterclaims. On December 14, 2009, DNT's patent was determined to be invalid in a case it brought against other wireless providers. DNT's lawsuit against the Company has been stayed, pending resolution of that other case.

Digital Technology Licensing

On April 21, 2009, the Company and certain other wireless carriers (including Hargray Wireless LLC ("Hargray Wireless"), a company which Cricket acquired in April 2008 and which was merged with and into Cricket in December 2008) were sued by Digital Technology Licensing LLC (“DTL”) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, for alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,051,799 entitled “Digital Output Transducer.” DTL alleges that the Company and Hargray Wireless sell and/or offer to sell Bluetooth^® devices or digital cellular telephones, including Kyocera and Sanyo telephones, and that such acts constitute direct and/or indirect infringement of DTL's patent. DTL further alleges that the Company and Hargray Wireless directly and/or indirectly infringe its patent by providing cellular telephone service and by using and inducing others to use a patented digital cellular telephone system by using cellular telephones, Bluetooth devices, and cellular telephone infrastructure made by companies such as Kyocera and Sanyo. DTL alleges that the asserted infringement is willful, and the complaint seeks a permanent injunction against further infringement, unspecified damages (including enhanced damages), attorneys' fees, and expenses. On January 5, 2010, this matter was stayed, pending final resolution of another case that DTL brought against another wireless provider in which it alleged infringement of the patent that is at issue in this matter. That other case has been settled and dismissed but the stay in the Company's matter has not been lifted.

Department of Justice Inquiry

On January 7, 2009, the Company received a letter from the Civil Division of the United States Department of Justice (the “DOJ”). In its letter, the DOJ alleges that between approximately 2002 and 2006, the Company failed to comply with certain federal postal regulations that required it to update customer mailing addresses in exchange for receiving certain bulk mailing rate discounts. As a result, the DOJ has asserted that the Company violated the False Claims Act (the “FCA”) and is therefore liable for damages. On November 18, 2009, the DOJ presented the Company with a calculation that single damages in this matter were $2.7 million for the period from June 2003 through June 2006, which amount may be trebled under the FCA. The FCA also provides for statutory penalties, which the DOJ has previously asserted could total up to $11,000 per mailing. The DOJ had also previously asserted as an alternative theory of liability that the Company is liable on a basis of unjust enrichment for estimated single damages. The Company is currently in discussions with the DOJ to settle this matter.

Pentwater Capital Management

On July 26, 2011, the Company entered into an agreement with Pentwater Capital Management LP and certain of its affiliates (collectively, "Pentwater"), to settle an action brought by Pentwater in the Delaware Court of Chancery on June 20, 2011. The action related to a notice of nominations, dated March 10, 2011, by which Pentwater purported to nominate three directors for election at the Company's Annual Meeting, which was held on July 28, 2011. The Company advised Pentwater that the notice they delivered was not in proper form because it did not comply with provisions of the Company's bylaws and that as a result any shares voted with respect to any nominees of Pentwater would not be counted for the purpose of determining the election of directors at the Annual Meeting. Pentwater's complaint sought a declaration that Article II, Section 8(a)(2)(D)(iv) of the Company's Amended and Restated Bylaws was invalid under Delaware Law. Pentwater also alleged that members of the Company's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties by adopting revisions to the advance notice provisions in the Company's Amended and Restated Bylaws on December 2, 2010. Under the terms of the settlement, Pentwater agreed to irrevocably withdraw their notice of intention to nominate directors for election and to dismiss the action with prejudice. Pentwater also agreed to vote all shares of Leap stock they held on the record date in favor of each of the directors nominated by the Company's board of directors at the Annual Meeting. Under the terms of the settlement, the Company increased the size of Leap's board to nine directors, appointed Robert E. Switz and Richard R. Roscitt as directors and appointed Mr. Roscitt to the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee and to the Compensation Committee. The action was dismissed on August 2, 2011.

Other Litigation, Claims and Disputes

In addition to the matters described above, the Company is often involved in certain other matters, which generally arise in the ordinary course of business and seek monetary damages and other relief. Based upon information currently available to the Company, none of these other matters is expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial condition or results of operations.

Wholesale Agreement

On August 2, 2010, the Company entered into a wholesale agreement with an affiliate of Sprint Nextel which permits the Company to offer Cricket wireless services outside the Company's current network footprint using Sprint's network. The Company and Sprint amended the agreement in July 2011 to, among other things, revise the amount of the annual minimum revenue commitments for the years 2011 and 2013.

The initial term of the wholesale agreement runs until December 31, 2015, and automatically renews for successive one-year periods unless either party provides 180-day advance notice to the other. Under the agreement, the Company will pay Sprint a specified amount per month for each subscriber activated on its network, subject to periodic market-based adjustments. The Company has agreed to provide Sprint with a minimum of $300 million of revenue under the agreement, as amended, over the initial five-year term (against which the Company can credit up to $100 million of service revenue under other existing commercial arrangements between the companies), with a minimum of $20 million of revenue to be provided in 2011, a minimum of $75 million of revenue to be provided in 2012, a minimum of $80 million of revenue to be provided in 2013, a minimum of $75 million of revenue to be provided in 2014 and a minimum of $50 million of revenue to be provided in 2015. Any revenue provided by the Company in a given year above the minimum revenue commitment for that particular year will be credited to the next succeeding year. However, to the extent the Company's revenues were to fall beneath the applicable commitment amount for any given year, excess revenues from a subsequent year could not be carried back to offset such shortfall.

In addition, in the event Leap is involved in a change-of-control transaction with another facilities-based wireless carrier with annual revenues of at least $500 million in the fiscal year preceding the date of the change of control agreement (other than MetroPCS Communications, Inc. ("MetroPCS")), either the Company (or the Company's successor in interest) or Sprint may terminate the wholesale agreement within 60 days following the closing of such a transaction. In connection with any such termination, the Company (or its successor in interest) would be required to pay to Sprint a specified percentage of the remaining aggregate minimum revenue commitment, with the percentage to be paid depending on the year in which the change of control agreement was entered into, beginning at 40% for any such agreement entered into in 2011, 30% for any such agreement entered into in 2012, 20% for any such agreement entered into in 2013 and 10% for any such agreement entered into in 2014 or 2015.

In the event that Leap is involved in a change-of-control transaction with MetroPCS during the term of the wholesale agreement, then the agreement would continue in full force and effect, subject to certain revisions, including, without limitation, an increase to the total minimum revenue commitment to $350 million, taking into account any revenue contributed by Cricket prior to the date thereof.

In the event Sprint is involved in a change-of-control transaction, the agreement would bind Sprint's successor-in-interest.

Device Purchase Agreements

The Company has entered into agreements with various suppliers for the purchase of wireless devices. These agreements require the Company to purchase specified quantities of devices based on minimum commitment levels through July 2012. The total aggregate commitments outstanding under these agreements were approximately $222.8 million and $218.2 million as of June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively.