CONTINGENCIES	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2011
CONTINGENCIES	9. CONTINGENCIES Arbitration On June 3, 2011, the Company filed a demand for arbitration against Thales before the American Arbitration Association to enforce certain rights to order additional satellites under the Amended and Restated Contract for the construction of the Company’s satellites for the second-generation constellation. Specifically, the Company seeks a declaration that Thales is obligated to manufacture and deliver Phase 3 satellites (additional second-generation satellites beyond the first 25 satellites) in amounts timely ordered by the Company at the Contract price calculable in accordance with the Amended and Restated Contract, along with additional declaratory relief and specific performance. Thales claims that the Company is not entitled to the fixed pricing for Phase 3 satellites provided under the Amended and Restated Contract and that the price of any Phase 3 satellites ordered by the Company is subject to equitable adjustment. Thales also claims that the Company has terminated all further rights under the Contract to order additional satellites. Thales delivered to the Company an invoice for termination costs under the contract of €51.5 million. The Company claims that it has previously paid Thales €12.0 million for the procurement of certain Long Lead Items for six of these satellites and prepaid €53.0 million for these satellites, which Thales disputes claiming that the €53.0 prepaid was for the construction of the first 25 second-generation satellites and not Phase 3 satellites. The Company disputes that it has terminated any portion of the contract for convenience and under the unambiguous language of the contract, even if it had terminated any portion of the contract for convenience, management believes the Company would not owe any termination charges as no work has been performed under Phase 3 of the contract. As such, the Company has not recorded any reserve for Thales’ claims. Additionally, the Company has claimed that even if the Company has terminated all rights to order Phase 3 satellites, Globalstar nevertheless may exercise its option under Article 29(B) of the contract to order additional spacecraft at the contractually fixed pricing and delivery schedule provided therein. Finally, the Company has claimed up to €395 million would be due to the Company from Thales if the arbitration panel finds that a termination for convenience has occurred. The Company has requested and received formal assurance from Thales that the arbitration process will not affect any work being performed pursuant to the Contract regarding manufacture and delivery of the remaining Phase 2 second-generation satellites. An evidentiary arbitration hearing was held during the last full week of January 2012. The parties will file post-hearing briefs in March before the arbitration panel renders a decision. The outcome of the arbitration is unknown and therefore no adjustments have been made to the financial statements with respect to the arbitration. Litigation Due to the nature of the Company's business, the Company is involved, from time to time, in various litigation matters or subject to disputes or routine claims regarding its business activities. Legal costs related to these matters are expensed as incurred. In management's opinion, none of the pending litigation, disputes or claims are expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, results of operations or liquidity. Appeal of FCC S-Band Sharing Decision. This case is Sprint Nextel Corporation’s petition in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for review of, among others, the FCC’s April 27, 2006, decision regarding sharing of the 2495 – 2500 MHz portion of the Company’s radiofrequency spectrum. This is known as “The S-band Sharing Proceeding.” The Court of Appeals has granted the FCC’s motion to hold the case in abeyance while the FCC considers the petitions for reconsideration pending before it. The Court has also granted the Company’s motion to intervene as a party in the case. The Company cannot determine when the FCC might act on the petitions for reconsideration.

9. CONTINGENCIES

Arbitration

On June 3, 2011, the Company filed a demand for arbitration against Thales before the American Arbitration Association to enforce certain rights to order additional satellites under the Amended and Restated Contract for the construction of the Company’s satellites for the second-generation constellation. Specifically, the Company seeks a declaration that Thales is obligated to manufacture and deliver Phase 3 satellites (additional second-generation satellites beyond the first 25 satellites) in amounts timely ordered by the Company at the Contract price calculable in accordance with the Amended and Restated Contract, along with additional declaratory relief and specific performance.

Thales claims that the Company is not entitled to the fixed pricing for Phase 3 satellites provided under the Amended and Restated Contract and that the price of any Phase 3 satellites ordered by the Company is subject to equitable adjustment. Thales also claims that the Company has terminated all further rights under the Contract to order additional satellites. Thales delivered to the Company an invoice for termination costs under the contract of €51.5 million. The Company claims that it has previously paid Thales €12.0 million for the procurement of certain Long Lead Items for six of these satellites and prepaid €53.0 million for these satellites, which Thales disputes claiming that the €53.0 prepaid was for the construction of the first 25 second-generation satellites and not Phase 3 satellites. The Company disputes that it has terminated any portion of the contract for convenience and under the unambiguous language of the contract, even if it had terminated any portion of the contract for convenience, management believes the Company would not owe any termination charges as no work has been performed under Phase 3 of the contract. As such, the Company has not recorded any reserve for Thales’ claims. Additionally, the Company has claimed that even if the Company has terminated all rights to order Phase 3 satellites, Globalstar nevertheless may exercise its option under Article 29(B) of the contract to order additional spacecraft at the contractually fixed pricing and delivery schedule provided therein. Finally, the Company has claimed up to €395 million would be due to the Company from Thales if the arbitration panel finds that a termination for convenience has occurred.

The Company has requested and received formal assurance from Thales that the arbitration process will not affect any work being performed pursuant to the Contract regarding manufacture and delivery of the remaining Phase 2 second-generation satellites.

An evidentiary arbitration hearing was held during the last full week of January 2012. The parties will file post-hearing briefs in March before the arbitration panel renders a decision. The outcome of the arbitration is unknown and therefore no adjustments have been made to the financial statements with respect to the arbitration.

Litigation

Due to the nature of the Company's business, the Company is involved, from time to time, in various litigation matters or subject to disputes or routine claims regarding its business activities. Legal costs related to these matters are expensed as incurred. In management's opinion, none of the pending litigation, disputes or claims are expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, results of operations or liquidity.

Appeal of FCC S-Band Sharing Decision. This case is Sprint Nextel Corporation’s petition in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for review of, among others, the FCC’s April 27, 2006, decision regarding sharing of the 2495 – 2500 MHz portion of the Company’s radiofrequency spectrum. This is known as “The S-band Sharing Proceeding.” The Court of Appeals has granted the FCC’s motion to hold the case in abeyance while the FCC considers the petitions for reconsideration pending before it. The Court has also granted the Company’s motion to intervene as a party in the case. The Company cannot determine when the FCC might act on the petitions for reconsideration.