Sprint - Nextel 2006 Annual Report Download - page 29

Download and view the complete annual report

Please find page 29 of the 2006 Sprint - Nextel annual report below. You can navigate through the pages in the report by either clicking on the pages listed below, or by using the keyword search tool below to find specific information within the annual report.

Page out of 140

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32
  • 33
  • 34
  • 35
  • 36
  • 37
  • 38
  • 39
  • 40
  • 41
  • 42
  • 43
  • 44
  • 45
  • 46
  • 47
  • 48
  • 49
  • 50
  • 51
  • 52
  • 53
  • 54
  • 55
  • 56
  • 57
  • 58
  • 59
  • 60
  • 61
  • 62
  • 63
  • 64
  • 65
  • 66
  • 67
  • 68
  • 69
  • 70
  • 71
  • 72
  • 73
  • 74
  • 75
  • 76
  • 77
  • 78
  • 79
  • 80
  • 81
  • 82
  • 83
  • 84
  • 85
  • 86
  • 87
  • 88
  • 89
  • 90
  • 91
  • 92
  • 93
  • 94
  • 95
  • 96
  • 97
  • 98
  • 99
  • 100
  • 101
  • 102
  • 103
  • 104
  • 105
  • 106
  • 107
  • 108
  • 109
  • 110
  • 111
  • 112
  • 113
  • 114
  • 115
  • 116
  • 117
  • 118
  • 119
  • 120
  • 121
  • 122
  • 123
  • 124
  • 125
  • 126
  • 127
  • 128
  • 129
  • 130
  • 131
  • 132
  • 133
  • 134
  • 135
  • 136
  • 137
  • 138
  • 139
  • 140

of our former directors and reconsideration of the class definition. The court has asked the parties for further
briefing on the class certification issue and the plaintiffs’ request for a jury trial. Trial is scheduled for
September 2007. All defendants have denied plaintiffs’ allegations and intend to defend this matter vigorously.
In September 2004, the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas denied a motion to dismiss a shareholder
lawsuit alleging that our 2001 and 2002 proxy statements were false and misleading in violation of federal
securities laws to the extent they described new employment agreements with certain senior executives without
disclosing that, according to the allegations, replacement of those executives was inevitable. These allegations,
made in an amended complaint in a lawsuit originally filed in 2003, are asserted against us and certain of our
current and former officers and directors, and seek to recover any decline in the value of our tracking stocks
during the class period. The parties have stipulated that the case can proceed as a class action. All defendants
have denied plaintiffs’ allegations and intend to defend this matter vigorously. Allegations in the original
complaint, which asserted claims against the same defendants and our former independent auditor, were
dismissed by the court in April 2004.
A number of putative class action cases that allege Sprint Communications Company L.P. failed to obtain
easements from property owners during the installation of its fiber optic network in the 1980’s have been filed
in various courts. Several of these cases sought certification of nationwide classes, and in one case, a
nationwide class has been certified. In 2002, a nationwide settlement of these claims was approved by the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, but objectors appealed the preliminary approval order to the
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which overturned the settlement and remanded the case to the trial court for
further proceedings. The parties now are proceeding with litigation and/or settlement negotiations on a state by
state basis. In 2001, we accrued an expense reflecting the estimated settlement costs of these suits.
Various other suits, proceedings and claims, including purported class actions, typical for a large business
enterprise are pending against us or our subsidiaries. While it is not possible to determine the ultimate
disposition of each of these proceedings and whether they will be resolved consistent with our beliefs, we
expect that the outcome of such proceedings, individually or in the aggregate, will not have a material adverse
effect on our financial condition or results of operation.
Item 4. Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders
No matter was submitted to a vote of security holders during the fourth quarter 2006.
Executive Officers of the Registrant
The following people are serving as our executive officers as of February 28, 2007. These executive officers
were elected to serve until their successors have been elected. There is no familial relationship between any of
our executive officers and directors.
Office Name Age
Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President ....................... Gary D. Forsee
(1)
56
Chief Financial Officer .......................................... PaulN.Saleh
(2)
50
General Counsel ............................................... Leonard J. Kennedy
(3)
55
Chief Information Officer ........................................ Richard LeFave
(4)
55
Chief Network Officer ........................................... Kathryn A. Walker
(5)
47
Chief Technology Officer ........................................ Barry West
(6)
61
President — Sales & Distribution ................................... MarkAngelino
(7)
50
President — Customer Management ................................. Timothy E. Kelly
(8)
48
Senior Vice President & Controller ................................. William G. Arendt
(9)
49
Senior Vice President & Treasurer .................................. Richard S. Lindahl
(10)
43
(1) Mr. Forsee has been our Chief Executive Officer and one of our directors since March 2003. He was
appointed President in August 2005, and was appointed Chairman in December 2006. He had been our
27