The following table summarizes our expected contractual cash commitments as of March 31, 2015:

Debt obligations.    Debt obligations include principal payments on outstanding debt and capital lease obligations.

Cash interest payments.    Cash interest payments include interest due on outstanding debt and capital lease payments through maturity.

Satellite and transmission.    We have entered into agreements with third parties to operate and maintain the off-site satellite telemetry, tracking and control facilities and certain components of our terrestrial repeater networks.

Programming and content.    We have entered into various programming agreements. Under the terms of these agreements, our obligations include fixed payments, advertising commitments and revenue sharing arrangements. Our future revenue sharing costs are dependent upon many factors and are difficult to estimate; therefore, they are not included in our minimum contractual cash commitments.

Marketing and distribution.    We have entered into various marketing, sponsorship and distribution agreements to promote our brand and are obligated to make payments to sponsors, retailers, automakers and radio manufacturers under these agreements. Certain programming and content agreements also require us to purchase advertising on properties owned or controlled by the licensors. We also reimburse automakers for certain engineering and development costs associated with the incorporation of satellite radios into new vehicles they manufacture. In addition, in the event certain new products are not shipped by a distributor to its customers within 90 days of the distributor’s receipt of goods, we have agreed to purchase and take title to the product.

Satellite incentive payments.    Boeing Satellite Systems International, Inc., the manufacturer of certain of our in-orbit satellites, may be entitled to future in-orbit performance payments with respect to XM-3 and XM-4 meeting their fifteen-year design life.  Boeing may also be entitled to additional incentive payments up to $10,000 if our XM-4 satellite continues to operate above baseline specifications during the five years beyond the satellite’s fifteen-year design life.

Space Systems/Loral, the manufacturer of certain of our in-orbit satellites, may be entitled to future in-orbit performance payments with respect to XM-5, FM-5 and FM-6 meeting their fifteen-year design life.

Operating lease obligations.    We have entered into both cancelable and non-cancelable operating leases for office space, equipment and terrestrial repeaters. These leases provide for minimum lease payments, additional operating expense charges, leasehold improvements and rent escalations that have initial terms ranging from one to fifteen years, and certain leases have options to renew. The effect of the rent holidays and rent concessions are recognized on a straight-line basis over the lease term, including reasonably assured renewal periods.

Other.    We have entered into various agreements with third parties for general operating purposes. In addition to the minimum contractual cash commitments described above, we have entered into agreements with other variable cost arrangements. These future costs are dependent upon many factors, including subscriber growth, and are difficult to anticipate; however, these costs may be substantial. We may enter into additional programming, distribution, marketing and other agreements that contain similar variable cost provisions.  The cost of our stock acquired from a third-party financial institution but not paid for as of March 31, 2015 is included in this category.

We do not have any other significant off-balance sheet financing arrangements that are reasonably likely to have a material effect on our financial condition, results of operations, liquidity, capital expenditures or capital resources.

Legal Proceedings

In the ordinary course of business, we are a defendant or party to various claims and lawsuits, including those discussed below.  These claims are at various stages of arbitration or adjudication.

We record a liability when we believe that it is both probable that a liability will be incurred, and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. We evaluate developments in legal matters that could affect the amount of liability that has been previously accrued and make adjustments as appropriate.  Significant judgment is required to determine both probability and the estimated amount of a loss or potential loss.  We may be unable to reasonably estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss for a particular legal contingency for various reasons, including, among others, because: (i) the damages sought are indeterminate; (ii) the proceedings are in the relative early stages; (iii)  there is uncertainty as to the outcome of pending proceedings (including motions and appeals); (iv) there is uncertainty as to the likelihood of settlement and the outcome of any negotiations with respect thereto; (v) there remain significant factual issues to be determined or resolved; (vi) the relevant law is unsettled; or (vii) the proceedings involve novel or untested legal theories.  In such instances, there may be considerable uncertainty regarding the ultimate resolution of such matters, including a possible eventual loss, if any.

Pre-1972 Sound Recording Matters. We are a defendant in three class action suits and one additional suit, which were commenced in August and September 2013 and challenge our use and public performance via satellite radio and the Internet of sound recordings fixed prior to February 15, 1972 under California, New York and/or Florida law.  The plaintiffs in each of these suits purport to seek in excess of $100,000 in compensatory damages along with unspecified punitive damages and injunctive relief.   Accordingly, at this point we cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss, or range of loss, which could be incurred if the plaintiffs were to prevail in the allegations, but we believe we have substantial defenses to the claims asserted.  We are defending these actions vigorously.

In September 2014, the United States District Court for the Central District of California ruled that the grant of “exclusive ownership” to the owner of a sound recording under California’s copyright statute included the exclusive right to control public performances of the sound recording.  The court further found that the unauthorized public performance of sound recordings violated California laws on unfair competition, misappropriation and conversion.  In October 2014, the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles adopted the Central District Court's interpretation of "exclusive ownership" under California's copyright statute.  That Court did not find that the unauthorized public performance of sound recordings violated California laws on unfair competition, misappropriation and conversion.  In November 2014, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that sound recordings fixed before February 15, 1972 were entitled under various theories of New York common law to the benefits of a public performances right.  We are appealing the decisions issued by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, and intend to appeal the decision of the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

These cases are titled Flo & Eddie Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio Inc. et al., No. 2:13-cv-5693-PSG-RZ (C.D. Cal.), Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., et al., No. 1:13-cv-23182-DPG (S.D. Fla.), Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio Inc. et al., No. 1:13-cv-5784-CM (S.D.N.Y.), and Capitol Records LLC et al. v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., No. BC-520981 (Super. Ct. L.A. County). Additional information concerning each of these actions is publicly available in court filings under their docket numbers.

In addition, in August 2013, SoundExchange, Inc. filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia alleging that we underpaid royalties for statutory licenses during the 2007-2012 rate period in violation of the regulations established by the Copyright Royalty Board for that period.  SoundExchange principally alleges that we improperly reduced our calculation of gross revenues, on which the royalty payments are based, by deducting non-recognized revenue attributable to pre-1972 recordings and Premier package revenue that is not “separately charged” as required by the regulations.  SoundExchange is seeking compensatory damages of not less than $50,000 and up to $100,000 or more, payment of late fees and interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

In August 2014, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted our motion to dismiss the complaint without prejudice on the grounds that the case properly should be pursued before the Copyright Royalty Board rather than the district court.  In December 2014, SoundExchange filed a petition with the Copyright Royalty Board requesting an order interpreting the applicable regulations.  At this point we cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss, or range of loss, which could be incurred if the plaintiffs were to prevail in the allegations, but we believe we have substantial defenses to the claims asserted.  We intend to defend these actions vigorously.

This matter is titled SoundExchange, Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc.. No.13-cv-1290-RJL (D.D.C.), and Determination of Rates and Terms for Preexisting Subscription Services and Satellite Digital Audio Radio Services, United States Copyright Royalty Board, No. 2006-1 CRB DSTRA.  Additional information concerning each of these actions is publicly available in filings under their docket numbers.

Telephone Consumer Protection Act Suits.  We are a defendant in several purported class action suits, which were commenced in February 2012, January 2013, January 2015 and April 2015, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Newport News Division, the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, and the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois that allege that we, or certain call center vendors acting on our behalf, made numerous calls which violate provisions of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (the “TCPA”).  The plaintiffs in these actions allege, among other things, that we called mobile phones using an automatic telephone dialing system without the consumer’s prior consent or, alternatively, after the consumer revoked their prior consent and, in one of the actions, that we violated the TCPA’s call time restrictions.  The plaintiffs in these suits are seeking various forms of relief, including statutory damages of five-hundred dollars for each violation of the TCPA or, in the alternative, treble damages of up to fifteen-hundred dollars for each knowing and willful violation of the TCPA, as well as payment of interest, attorneys’ fees and costs, and certain injunctive relief prohibiting violations of the TCPA in the future.  Plaintiffs in certain of these suits have filed a motion with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to transfer these purported class actions, and other allegedly related cases, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois for consolidated or coordinated pretrial proceedings.  We believe we have substantial defenses to the claims asserted in these actions, and we intend to defend them vigorously.

We have notified certain of our call center vendors of these actions and requested that they defend and indemnify us against these claims pursuant to the provisions of their existing or former agreements with us.  We believe we have valid contractual claims against certain call center vendors in connection with these claims and intend to preserve and pursue our rights to recover from these entities.

These purported class action cases are titled Erik Knutson v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., No. 12-cv-0418-AJB-NLS (S.D. Cal.), Francis W. Hooker v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc., No. 4:13-cv-3 (E.D. Va.), Brian Trenz v. Sirius XM Holdings, Inc. and Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., No. 15-cv-0044L-BLM (S.D. Cal) and Yefim Elikman v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc. and Career Horizons, Inc., No. 1:15-cv-02093 (N.D. Ill.).  Additional information concerning each of these actions is publicly available in court filings under their docket numbers.

With respect to the matters described above under the captions “Pre-1972 Sound Recording Matters” and “Telephone Consumer Protection Act Suits”, we have determined, based on our current knowledge, that the amount of loss or range of loss, that is reasonably possible is not reasonably estimable.  However, these matters are inherently unpredictable and subject to significant uncertainties, many of which are beyond our control.  As such, there can be no assurance that the final outcome of these matters will not materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.

Other Matters.  In the ordinary course of business, we are a defendant in various other lawsuits and arbitration proceedings, including derivative actions; actions filed by subscribers, both on behalf of themselves and on a class action basis; former employees; parties to contracts or leases; and owners of patents, trademarks, copyrights or other intellectual property. None of these matters, in our opinion, is likely to have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.