UNITED STATES
                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549
                                ----------------

                                    FORM 8-K

                                 CURRENT REPORT
                     PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 or 15(d) OF THE
                         SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934


         Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported): June 10, 2003

                       PEGASUS COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION

               (Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Charter)


         Delaware                     0-32383                     23-3070336
----------------------------   ------------------------      -------------------
(State or Other Jurisdiction   (Commission File Number)       (IRS Employer
      of Incorporation)                                      Identification No.)


      c/o Pegasus Communications Management Company, 225 City Line Avenue,
                   Suite 200, Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania 19004

               (Address of Principal Executive Offices) (Zip Code)

        Registrant's telephone number, including area code: 888-438-7488

          (Former Name or Former Address, if Changed Since Last Report)

<PAGE>

Item 5. Other Events and Required FD Disclosure.
        ---------------------------------------

     In connection with our lawsuit against DIRECTV, Inc., DIRECTV, Inc. filed
four summary judgment motions on September 11, 2002 with the United States
District Court, Central District of California. The motions covered a broad
range of claims in the case, including 1) the term of the agreement between the
National Rural Telecommunications Cooperative and DIRECTV, Inc., 2) the right of
first refusal as it relates to our subsidiaries, Pegasus Satellite Television,
Inc. and Golden Sky Systems, Inc., 3) the right to distribute the premiums, and
4) damages relating to the premiums, launch fees, and advanced services claims.
These motions were argued on May 5, 2003 and decided on May 22, 2003 and were
then the subject of a motion for reconsideration argued on June 2, 2003 and
decided on June 5, 2003. On June 10, 2003, the Court set a date of July 22, 2003
for the first phase of the trial.

     Set forth below is an updated description of (i) the DIRECTV, Inc.
litigation and (ii) the patent infringement lawsuit filed by Pegasus Development
Corporation, a subsidiary, and Personalized Media Communications, L.L.C., in the
United States District Court, District of Delaware against DIRECTV, Inc., Hughes
Electronics Corporation, Thomson Consumer Electronics, and Philips Electronics
North America Corporation.

DIRECTV Litigation:

National Rural Telecommunications Cooperative

     Our subsidiaries, Pegasus Satellite Television ("PST") and Golden Sky
Systems ("GSS"), are affiliates of the National Rural Telecommunications
Cooperative ("NRTC") that participate through agreements in the NRTC's direct
broadcast satellite program. "DIRECTV" refers to the programming services
provided by DIRECTV, Inc.

     On June 3, 1999, the NRTC filed a lawsuit in United States District Court,
Central District of California against DIRECTV, Inc. seeking a court order to
enforce the NRTC's contractual rights to obtain from DIRECTV, Inc. certain
premium programming formerly distributed by United States Satellite Broadcasting
Company, Inc. for exclusive distribution by the NRTC's members and affiliates in
their rural markets. On July 22, 1999, DIRECTV, Inc. filed a counterclaim
seeking judicial clarification of certain provisions of DIRECTV, Inc.'s contract
with the NRTC. On August 26, 1999, the NRTC filed a separate lawsuit in United
States District Court, Central District of California against DIRECTV, Inc.
claiming that DIRECTV, Inc. had failed to provide to the NRTC its share of
launch fees and other benefits that DIRECTV, Inc. and its affiliates have
received relating to programming and other services. The NRTC and DIRECTV, Inc.
have also filed indemnity claims against one another that pertain to the alleged
obligation, if any, of the NRTC to indemnify DIRECTV, Inc. for costs incurred in
various lawsuits described herein. These claims have been severed from the other
claims in the case and will be tried separately.

     DIRECTV, Inc. is seeking as part of its counterclaim a declaratory judgment
that the term of the NRTC's agreement with DIRECTV, Inc. is measured only by the
life of DBS-1, the first DIRECTV satellite launched, and not the orbital lives
of the other DIRECTV satellites at the 101(degree) W orbital location. If
DIRECTV, Inc. were to prevail on its counterclaim, any failure of DBS-1 could
have a material adverse effect on our DIRECTV rights. On May 22, 2003, the Court
issued an order denying DIRECTV, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment relating to
the term of the agreement. While the NRTC has a right of first refusal to
receive certain services after the term of NRTC's agreement with DIRECTV, Inc.,
the scope and terms of this right of first refusal are also being disputed as
part of DIRECTV, Inc.'s counterclaim. On December 29, 1999, DIRECTV, Inc. filed
a motion for partial summary judgment seeking an order that the right of first
refusal does not include programming services and is limited to 20 program
channels of transponder capacity. On January 31, 2001, the Court issued an order
denying DIRECTV Inc.'s motion for partial summary judgment relating to the right
of first refusal.


                                       1
<PAGE>

     On July 3, 2002, the Court granted a motion for partial summary judgment
filed by DIRECTV, Inc., holding that the NRTC is liable to indemnify DIRECTV,
Inc. for the costs of defense and liabilities that DIRECTV, Inc. incurs in a
patent case filed by Pegasus Development Corporation ("PDC") and Personalized
Media Communications, L.L.C. ("Personalized Media") in December 2000 in the
United States District Court, District of Delaware against DIRECTV, Inc., Hughes
Electronics Corporation ("Hughes"), Thomson Consumer Electronics ("Thomson"),
and Philips Electronics North America Corporation ("Philips"). See below for
further information on this litigation. In February 2003, the United States
District Court, District of Delaware granted PDC's and Personalized Media's
motion for leave to amend the complaint to exclude relief for the delivery
nationwide, using specified satellite capacity, of services carried for the
NRTC, plus any other services delivered through the NRTC to subscribers in the
NRTC's territories. The NRTC filed a motion with the United States District
Court, Central District of California to reconsider its July 3, 2002 decision
that the NRTC indemnify DIRECTV, Inc. for DIRECTV, Inc.'s costs of defense and
liabilities from the patent litigation. The motion was heard by the Court on
June 2, 2003. On June 10, 2003, the Court granted the NRTC's motion for
reconsideration, reversed the partial summary judgment previously granted to
DIRECTV, and granted partial summary judgment in favor of the NRTC. The Court's
ruling provides that the NRTC has no obligation to indemnify DIRECTV for the
costs of defense or liabilities that DIRECTV incurs in the patent litigation,
based on the allegations of the amended complaint.

Pegasus Satellite Television and Golden Sky Systems

     On January 10, 2000, PST and GSS filed a class action lawsuit in federal
court in Los Angeles against DIRECTV, Inc. as representatives of a proposed
class that would include all members and affiliates of the NRTC that are
distributors of DIRECTV. The complaint contained causes of action for various
torts, common counts, and declaratory relief based on DIRECTV, Inc.'s failure to
provide the NRTC with certain premium programming, and on DIRECTV, Inc.'s
position with respect to launch fees and other benefits, term, and right of
first refusal. The complaint sought monetary damages and a court order regarding
the rights of the NRTC and its members and affiliates. On February 10, 2000, PST
and GSS filed an amended complaint, and withdrew the class action allegations to
allow a new class action to be filed on behalf of the members and affiliates of
the NRTC. The amended complaint also added claims regarding DIRECTV Inc.'s
failure to allow distribution through the NRTC of various advanced services,
including Tivo. The new class action was filed on February 29, 2000. The Court
certified the plaintiff's class on December 28, 2000. On March 9, 2001, DIRECTV,
Inc. filed a counterclaim against PST and GSS, as well as the class members,
seeking two claims for relief: 1) a declaratory judgment whether DIRECTV, Inc.
is under a contractual obligation to provide PST and GSS with services after the
expiration of the term of their agreements with the NRTC and 2) an order that
DBS-1 is the satellite (and the only satellite) that measures the term of PST's
and GSS' agreements with the NRTC. On October 29, 2001, the Court denied
DIRECTV's motion for partial summary judgment on its term counterclaim. On June
20, 2001, PST and GSS filed a second amended complaint, updating the claims
asserted in the earlier complaints.

     On June 22, 2001, DIRECTV, Inc. brought suit against PST and GSS in Los
Angeles County Superior Court for breach of contract and common counts. The
lawsuit pertains to the seamless marketing agreement dated August 9, 2000, as
amended, between DIRECTV, Inc. and PST and GSS. On July 13, 2001, PST and GSS
terminated the seamless marketing agreement. The seamless marketing agreement
provided seamless marketing and sales for DIRECTV retailers and distributors. On
July 16, 2001, PST and GSS filed a cross complaint against DIRECTV, Inc.
alleging, among other things, that 1) DIRECTV, Inc. breached the seamless
marketing agreement and 2) DIRECTV, Inc. engaged in unlawful and/or unfair
business practices, as defined in Section 17200, et seq. of the California
Business and Professions Code. This suit has since been removed to the United
States District Court, Central District of California. On September 16, 2002,
PST and GSS filed first amended counterclaims against DIRECTV, Inc. Among other
things, the first amended counterclaims added claims for 1) rescission of the
seamless marketing agreement on the ground of fraudulent inducement, 2) specific
performance of audit rights, and 3) punitive damages on the breach of the
implied covenant of good faith claim. In addition, the first amended
counterclaims deleted the business and professions code claim and the claims for
tortious interference that were alleged in the initial cross complaint. On
November 5, 2002 the Court granted DIRECTV, Inc.'s motion to dismiss 1) the
specific performance claim and 2) the punitive damages allegations on the breach
of the implied covenant of good faith claim. The Court denied DIRECTV, Inc.'s
motion to dismiss the implied covenant of good faith claim in its entirety.


                                       2
<PAGE>

     DIRECTV, Inc. filed four summary judgment motions on September 11, 2002
against the NRTC, the class members, and PST and GSS on a variety of issues in
the case. The motions cover a broad range of claims in the case, including 1)
the term of the agreement between the NRTC and DIRECTV, Inc., 2) the right of
first refusal as it relates to PST and GSS, 3) the right to distribute the
premiums, and 4) damages relating to the premiums, launch fees, and advanced
services claims. These motions were argued on May 5, 2003 and decided on May 22,
2003 and were then the subject of a motion for reconsideration argued on June 2,
2003 and decided on June 5, 2003. As a result of these and earlier rulings, the
term of the agreement, the content of the right of first refusal, and plaintiffs
rights to launch fees and advanced services and to distribute premiums will all
be determined at trial. The Court dismissed PST's tort and punitive damage
claims and the restitution aspects of PST's unfair business practices claim
other than with respect to launch fees. The Court did not dismiss the injunctive
relief portions of the unfair business practices claim. The Court also ruled
that DIRECTV, Inc. has no obligation to provide PST with services after the
Member Agreements between PST and NRTC expire, except that the ruling does not
affect: (1) obligations NRTC has or may have to PST under the Member Agreements
or otherwise; (2) obligations DIRECTV has or may have in the event it steps into
the shoes of NRTC as the provider of services to PST; or (3) fiduciary or
cooperative obligations to deliver services owed PST by DIRECTV through NRTC.

     Both of the NRTC's lawsuits against DIRECTV, Inc. have been consolidated
for discovery and pretrial purposes. All five lawsuits discussed above,
including both lawsuits brought by the NRTC, the class action, and PST's and
GSS' lawsuit (but excluding the indemnity lawsuits), are pending before the same
judge. On June 10, 2003, the Court set a date of July 22, 2003 for the first
phase of the trial which will include issues relating to term and the right of
first refusal.

Patent Infringement Litigation:

     On December 4, 2000, PDC and Personalized Media filed a patent infringement
lawsuit in the United States District Court, District of Delaware against
DIRECTV, Inc., Hughes, Thomson, and Philips. Personalized Media is a company
with which PDC has a licensing arrangement. PDC and Personalized Media are
seeking injunctive relief and monetary damages for the defendants' alleged
patent infringement and unauthorized manufacture, use, sale, offer to sell, and
importation of products, services, and systems that fall within the scope of
Personalized Media's portfolio of patented media and communications
technologies, of which PDC is an exclusive licensee within a field of use. The
technologies covered by PDC's exclusive license include services distributed to
consumers using certain Ku band BSS frequencies and Ka band frequencies,
including frequencies licensed to affiliates of Hughes and used by DIRECTV, Inc.
to provide services to its subscribers. We are unable to predict the possible
effects of this litigation on our relationship with DIRECTV, Inc.

     DIRECTV, Inc. also filed a counterclaim against PDC alleging unfair
competition under the federal Lanham Act. In a separate counterclaim, DIRECTV,
Inc. alleged that both PDC's and Personalized Media's patent infringement
lawsuit constitutes "abuse of process." Those counterclaims have since been
dismissed by the Court or voluntarily by DIRECTV, Inc. Separately, Thomson has
filed counterclaims against PDC, Personalized Media, Gemstar-TV Guide, Inc. (and
two Gemstar-TV Guide affiliated companies, TVG-PMC, Inc. and Starsight Telecast,
Inc.), alleging violations of the federal Sherman Act and California unfair
competition law as a result of alleged licensing practices.

     The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation subsequently transferred
Thomson's antitrust/unfair competition counterclaims to an ongoing Multidistrict
Litigation in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia. The Panel found that these counterclaims presented common questions of
fact with actions previously consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the
Northern District of Georgia and that including Thomson's claims in the
coordinated pretrial proceedings would promote the just and efficient conduct of
the litigation. Discovery has been ongoing regarding Thomson's counterclaims.
All parties to the Thomson claims have filed written responses to discovery
requests, produced documents, and served expert reports. Most expert depositions
will be held in May 2003, and all discovery closes at the beginning of June
2003. The deadline for filing summary judgment motions is July 3, 2003.


                                       3
<PAGE>

     Pretrial proceedings continue in the Delaware litigation, and discovery is
ongoing. The Court decided several important motions in favor of PDC and
Personalized Media. The Court granted PDC and Personalized Media's motion for
leave to amend the complaint to limit the relief sought and it also granted
their motion to bifurcate the trial into two proceedings to address the patent
and antitrust issues separately. The Court denied a motion originally brought by
DIRECTV, Inc. and Hughes, which was later joined by Thomson and Philips, for
partial summary judgment under the doctrine of prosecution laches.

     In March 2003, a hearing was held before a special master appointed by the
Delaware district court to recommend constructions of disputed terms in the
patent claims in suit. On March 24, 2003, the special master issued his report,
recommending claim constructions largely favorable to the plaintiffs. The report
of the special master is subject to review by the district judge..

     In April 2003, the United States Patent and Trademark Office granted a
petition filed by defendant Thomson seeking reexamination of one of the patents
in suit in the Delaware litigation. Additional petitions seeking reexamination
of other patents in suit have either already been filed by Thomson, or are
anticipated to be filed in the near future. On April 14, 2003, the defendants
filed a motion in the Delaware district court seeking a stay of the patent
litigation pending completion of reexamination proceedings. On May 14, 2003, the
Delaware district court granted defendants' motion.


                                       4
<PAGE>

                                    SIGNATURE

         Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned hereunto duly authorized.


                                              PEGASUS COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION


                                              By:/s/ Scott A. Blank
                                                 ------------------
                                                 Scott A. Blank,
                                                 Senior Vice President


June 12, 2003


                                       5
[{"type": "8-K", "sequence": "1", "filename": "pcc8k061003_litupdate.txt", "description": "JUNE 10, 2003 LITIGATION UPDATE", "secsgml_size_bytes": 18193}]
{"company-data": {"conformed-name": "PEGASUS COMMUNICATIONS CORP /", "cik": "0001135338", "assigned-sic": "4833", "irs-number": "233070336", "state-of-incorporation": "DE", "fiscal-year-end": "1231"}, "filing-values": {"form-type": "8-K", "act": "34", "file-number": "000-32383", "film-number": "03742191"}, "business-address": {"street1": "225 CITY LINE AVE", "street2": "STE 200", "city": "BALA CYNWYD", "state": "PA", "zip": "19004", "phone": "8884387488"}, "mail-address": {"street1": "225 CITY LINE AVE", "street2": "STE 200", "city": "BALA CYNWYD", "state": "PA", "zip": "19004"}, "former-company": {"former-conformed-name": "PEGASUS HOLDINGS CORP I", "date-changed": "20010221"}}
UNITED STATES
                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549
                                ----------------

                                    FORM 8-K

                                 CURRENT REPORT
                     PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 or 15(d) OF THE
                         SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

         Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported): June 10, 2003

                       PEGASUS COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION

               (Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Charter)

         Delaware                     0-32383                     23-3070336
----------------------------   ------------------------      -------------------
(State or Other Jurisdiction   (Commission File Number)       (IRS Employer
      of Incorporation)                                      Identification No.)

      c/o Pegasus Communications Management Company, 225 City Line Avenue,
                   Suite 200, Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania 19004

               (Address of Principal Executive Offices) (Zip Code)

        Registrant's telephone number, including area code: 888-438-7488

          (Former Name or Former Address, if Changed Since Last Report)
Item 5. Other Events and Required FD Disclosure.
        ---------------------------------------

     In connection with our lawsuit against DIRECTV, Inc., DIRECTV, Inc. filed
four summary judgment motions on September 11, 2002 with the United States
District Court, Central District of California. The motions covered a broad
range of claims in the case, including 1) the term of the agreement between the
National Rural Telecommunications Cooperative and DIRECTV, Inc., 2) the right of
first refusal as it relates to our subsidiaries, Pegasus Satellite Television,
Inc. and Golden Sky Systems, Inc., 3) the right to distribute the premiums, and
4) damages relating to the premiums, launch fees, and advanced services claims.
These motions were argued on May 5, 2003 and decided on May 22, 2003 and were
then the subject of a motion for reconsideration argued on June 2, 2003 and
decided on June 5, 2003. On June 10, 2003, the Court set a date of July 22, 2003
for the first phase of the trial.

     Set forth below is an updated description of (i) the DIRECTV, Inc.
litigation and (ii) the patent infringement lawsuit filed by Pegasus Development
Corporation, a subsidiary, and Personalized Media Communications, L.L.C., in the
United States District Court, District of Delaware against DIRECTV, Inc., Hughes
Electronics Corporation, Thomson Consumer Electronics, and Philips Electronics
North America Corporation.

DIRECTV Litigation:

National Rural Telecommunications Cooperative

     Our subsidiaries, Pegasus Satellite Television ("PST") and Golden Sky
Systems ("GSS"), are affiliates of the National Rural Telecommunications
Cooperative ("NRTC") that participate through agreements in the NRTC's direct
broadcast satellite program. "DIRECTV" refers to the programming services
provided by DIRECTV, Inc.

     On June 3, 1999, the NRTC filed a lawsuit in United States District Court,
Central District of California against DIRECTV, Inc. seeking a court order to
enforce the NRTC's contractual rights to obtain from DIRECTV, Inc. certain
premium programming formerly distributed by United States Satellite Broadcasting
Company, Inc. for exclusive distribution by the NRTC's members and affiliates in
their rural markets. On July 22, 1999, DIRECTV, Inc. filed a counterclaim
seeking judicial clarification of certain provisions of DIRECTV, Inc.'s contract
with the NRTC. On August 26, 1999, the NRTC filed a separate lawsuit in United
States District Court, Central District of California against DIRECTV, Inc.
claiming that DIRECTV, Inc. had failed to provide to the NRTC its share of
launch fees and other benefits that DIRECTV, Inc. and its affiliates have
received relating to programming and other services. The NRTC and DIRECTV, Inc.
have also filed indemnity claims against one another that pertain to the alleged
obligation, if any, of the NRTC to indemnify DIRECTV, Inc. for costs incurred in
various lawsuits described herein. These claims have been severed from the other
claims in the case and will be tried separately.

     DIRECTV, Inc. is seeking as part of its counterclaim a declaratory judgment
that the term of the NRTC's agreement with DIRECTV, Inc. is measured only by the
life of DBS-1, the first DIRECTV satellite launched, and not the orbital lives
of the other DIRECTV satellites at the 101(degree) W orbital location. If
DIRECTV, Inc. were to prevail on its counterclaim, any failure of DBS-1 could
have a material adverse effect on our DIRECTV rights. On May 22, 2003, the Court
issued an order denying DIRECTV, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment relating to
the term of the agreement. While the NRTC has a right of first refusal to
receive certain services after the term of NRTC's agreement with DIRECTV, Inc.,
the scope and terms of this right of first refusal are also being disputed as
part of DIRECTV, Inc.'s counterclaim. On December 29, 1999, DIRECTV, Inc. filed
a motion for partial summary judgment seeking an order that the right of first
refusal does not include programming services and is limited to 20 program
channels of transponder capacity. On January 31, 2001, the Court issued an order
denying DIRECTV Inc.'s motion for partial summary judgment relating to the right
of first refusal.

                                       1
On July 3, 2002, the Court granted a motion for partial summary judgment
filed by DIRECTV, Inc., holding that the NRTC is liable to indemnify DIRECTV,
Inc. for the costs of defense and liabilities that DIRECTV, Inc. incurs in a
patent case filed by Pegasus Development Corporation ("PDC") and Personalized
Media Communications, L.L.C. ("Personalized Media") in December 2000 in the
United States District Court, District of Delaware against DIRECTV, Inc., Hughes
Electronics Corporation ("Hughes"), Thomson Consumer Electronics ("Thomson"),
and Philips Electronics North America Corporation ("Philips"). See below for
further information on this litigation. In February 2003, the United States
District Court, District of Delaware granted PDC's and Personalized Media's
motion for leave to amend the complaint to exclude relief for the delivery
nationwide, using specified satellite capacity, of services carried for the
NRTC, plus any other services delivered through the NRTC to subscribers in the
NRTC's territories. The NRTC filed a motion with the United States District
Court, Central District of California to reconsider its July 3, 2002 decision
that the NRTC indemnify DIRECTV, Inc. for DIRECTV, Inc.'s costs of defense and
liabilities from the patent litigation. The motion was heard by the Court on
June 2, 2003. On June 10, 2003, the Court granted the NRTC's motion for
reconsideration, reversed the partial summary judgment previously granted to
DIRECTV, and granted partial summary judgment in favor of the NRTC. The Court's
ruling provides that the NRTC has no obligation to indemnify DIRECTV for the
costs of defense or liabilities that DIRECTV incurs in the patent litigation,
based on the allegations of the amended complaint.

Pegasus Satellite Television and Golden Sky Systems

     On January 10, 2000, PST and GSS filed a class action lawsuit in federal
court in Los Angeles against DIRECTV, Inc. as representatives of a proposed
class that would include all members and affiliates of the NRTC that are
distributors of DIRECTV. The complaint contained causes of action for various
torts, common counts, and declaratory relief based on DIRECTV, Inc.'s failure to
provide the NRTC with certain premium programming, and on DIRECTV, Inc.'s
position with respect to launch fees and other benefits, term, and right of
first refusal. The complaint sought monetary damages and a court order regarding
the rights of the NRTC and its members and affiliates. On February 10, 2000, PST
and GSS filed an amended complaint, and withdrew the class action allegations to
allow a new class action to be filed on behalf of the members and affiliates of
the NRTC. The amended complaint also added claims regarding DIRECTV Inc.'s
failure to allow distribution through the NRTC of various advanced services,
including Tivo. The new class action was filed on February 29, 2000. The Court
certified the plaintiff's class on December 28, 2000. On March 9, 2001, DIRECTV,
Inc. filed a counterclaim against PST and GSS, as well as the class members,
seeking two claims for relief: 1) a declaratory judgment whether DIRECTV, Inc.
is under a contractual obligation to provide PST and GSS with services after the
expiration of the term of their agreements with the NRTC and 2) an order that
DBS-1 is the satellite (and the only satellite) that measures the term of PST's
and GSS' agreements with the NRTC. On October 29, 2001, the Court denied
DIRECTV's motion for partial summary judgment on its term counterclaim. On June
20, 2001, PST and GSS filed a second amended complaint, updating the claims
asserted in the earlier complaints.

     On June 22, 2001, DIRECTV, Inc. brought suit against PST and GSS in Los
Angeles County Superior Court for breach of contract and common counts. The
lawsuit pertains to the seamless marketing agreement dated August 9, 2000, as
amended, between DIRECTV, Inc. and PST and GSS. On July 13, 2001, PST and GSS
terminated the seamless marketing agreement. The seamless marketing agreement
provided seamless marketing and sales for DIRECTV retailers and distributors. On
July 16, 2001, PST and GSS filed a cross complaint against DIRECTV, Inc.
alleging, among other things, that 1) DIRECTV, Inc. breached the seamless
marketing agreement and 2) DIRECTV, Inc. engaged in unlawful and/or unfair
business practices, as defined in Section 17200, et seq. of the California
Business and Professions Code. This suit has since been removed to the United
States District Court, Central District of California. On September 16, 2002,
PST and GSS filed first amended counterclaims against DIRECTV, Inc. Among other
things, the first amended counterclaims added claims for 1) rescission of the
seamless marketing agreement on the ground of fraudulent inducement, 2) specific
performance of audit rights, and 3) punitive damages on the breach of the
implied covenant of good faith claim. In addition, the first amended
counterclaims deleted the business and professions code claim and the claims for
tortious interference that were alleged in the initial cross complaint. On
November 5, 2002 the Court granted DIRECTV, Inc.'s motion to dismiss 1) the
specific performance claim and 2) the punitive damages allegations on the breach
of the implied covenant of good faith claim. The Court denied DIRECTV, Inc.'s
motion to dismiss the implied covenant of good faith claim in its entirety.

                                       2
DIRECTV, Inc. filed four summary judgment motions on September 11, 2002
against the NRTC, the class members, and PST and GSS on a variety of issues in
the case. The motions cover a broad range of claims in the case, including 1)
the term of the agreement between the NRTC and DIRECTV, Inc., 2) the right of
first refusal as it relates to PST and GSS, 3) the right to distribute the
premiums, and 4) damages relating to the premiums, launch fees, and advanced
services claims. These motions were argued on May 5, 2003 and decided on May 22,
2003 and were then the subject of a motion for reconsideration argued on June 2,
2003 and decided on June 5, 2003. As a result of these and earlier rulings, the
term of the agreement, the content of the right of first refusal, and plaintiffs
rights to launch fees and advanced services and to distribute premiums will all
be determined at trial. The Court dismissed PST's tort and punitive damage
claims and the restitution aspects of PST's unfair business practices claim
other than with respect to launch fees. The Court did not dismiss the injunctive
relief portions of the unfair business practices claim. The Court also ruled
that DIRECTV, Inc. has no obligation to provide PST with services after the
Member Agreements between PST and NRTC expire, except that the ruling does not
affect: (1) obligations NRTC has or may have to PST under the Member Agreements
or otherwise; (2) obligations DIRECTV has or may have in the event it steps into
the shoes of NRTC as the provider of services to PST; or (3) fiduciary or
cooperative obligations to deliver services owed PST by DIRECTV through NRTC.

     Both of the NRTC's lawsuits against DIRECTV, Inc. have been consolidated
for discovery and pretrial purposes. All five lawsuits discussed above,
including both lawsuits brought by the NRTC, the class action, and PST's and
GSS' lawsuit (but excluding the indemnity lawsuits), are pending before the same
judge. On June 10, 2003, the Court set a date of July 22, 2003 for the first
phase of the trial which will include issues relating to term and the right of
first refusal.

Patent Infringement Litigation:

     On December 4, 2000, PDC and Personalized Media filed a patent infringement
lawsuit in the United States District Court, District of Delaware against
DIRECTV, Inc., Hughes, Thomson, and Philips. Personalized Media is a company
with which PDC has a licensing arrangement. PDC and Personalized Media are
seeking injunctive relief and monetary damages for the defendants' alleged
patent infringement and unauthorized manufacture, use, sale, offer to sell, and
importation of products, services, and systems that fall within the scope of
Personalized Media's portfolio of patented media and communications
technologies, of which PDC is an exclusive licensee within a field of use. The
technologies covered by PDC's exclusive license include services distributed to
consumers using certain Ku band BSS frequencies and Ka band frequencies,
including frequencies licensed to affiliates of Hughes and used by DIRECTV, Inc.
to provide services to its subscribers. We are unable to predict the possible
effects of this litigation on our relationship with DIRECTV, Inc.

     DIRECTV, Inc. also filed a counterclaim against PDC alleging unfair
competition under the federal Lanham Act. In a separate counterclaim, DIRECTV,
Inc. alleged that both PDC's and Personalized Media's patent infringement
lawsuit constitutes "abuse of process." Those counterclaims have since been
dismissed by the Court or voluntarily by DIRECTV, Inc. Separately, Thomson has
filed counterclaims against PDC, Personalized Media, Gemstar-TV Guide, Inc. (and
two Gemstar-TV Guide affiliated companies, TVG-PMC, Inc. and Starsight Telecast,
Inc.), alleging violations of the federal Sherman Act and California unfair
competition law as a result of alleged licensing practices.

     The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation subsequently transferred
Thomson's antitrust/unfair competition counterclaims to an ongoing Multidistrict
Litigation in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia. The Panel found that these counterclaims presented common questions of
fact with actions previously consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the
Northern District of Georgia and that including Thomson's claims in the
coordinated pretrial proceedings would promote the just and efficient conduct of
the litigation. Discovery has been ongoing regarding Thomson's counterclaims.
All parties to the Thomson claims have filed written responses to discovery
requests, produced documents, and served expert reports. Most expert depositions
will be held in May 2003, and all discovery closes at the beginning of June
2003. The deadline for filing summary judgment motions is July 3, 2003.

                                       3
Pretrial proceedings continue in the Delaware litigation, and discovery is
ongoing. The Court decided several important motions in favor of PDC and
Personalized Media. The Court granted PDC and Personalized Media's motion for
leave to amend the complaint to limit the relief sought and it also granted
their motion to bifurcate the trial into two proceedings to address the patent
and antitrust issues separately. The Court denied a motion originally brought by
DIRECTV, Inc. and Hughes, which was later joined by Thomson and Philips, for
partial summary judgment under the doctrine of prosecution laches.

     In March 2003, a hearing was held before a special master appointed by the
Delaware district court to recommend constructions of disputed terms in the
patent claims in suit. On March 24, 2003, the special master issued his report,
recommending claim constructions largely favorable to the plaintiffs. The report
of the special master is subject to review by the district judge..

     In April 2003, the United States Patent and Trademark Office granted a
petition filed by defendant Thomson seeking reexamination of one of the patents
in suit in the Delaware litigation. Additional petitions seeking reexamination
of other patents in suit have either already been filed by Thomson, or are
anticipated to be filed in the near future. On April 14, 2003, the defendants
filed a motion in the Delaware district court seeking a stay of the patent
litigation pending completion of reexamination proceedings. On May 14, 2003, the
Delaware district court granted defendants' motion.

                                       4
SIGNATURE

         Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned hereunto duly authorized.

                                              PEGASUS COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION

                                              By:/s/ Scott A. Blank
                                                 ------------------
                                                 Scott A. Blank,
                                                 Senior Vice President

June 12, 2003

                                       5