Sprint - Nextel 2014 Annual Report Download - page 23

Table of Contents
21
Item 2. Properties
Our corporate headquarters are located in Overland Park, Kansas and consist of about 3,853,000 square feet. Our
gross property, plant and equipment at March 31, 2015 totaled $25.1 billion, as follows:
March 31,
2015
(in billions)
Wireless $ 22.5
Wireline 1.0
Corporate and other 1.6
Total $ 25.1
Properties utilized by our Wireless segment generally consist of either leased or owned assets in the following
categories: switching equipment, radio frequency equipment, cell site towers and related leasehold improvements, site
development costs, network software, leased devices, internal-use software, retail fixtures and retail leasehold improvements.
Properties utilized by our Wireline segment generally consist of either leased or owned assets in the following
categories: digital fiber optic cable, transport facilities, transmission-related equipment and network buildings.
Item 3. Legal Proceedings
In March 2009, a stockholder brought suit, Bennett v. Sprint Nextel Corp., in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Kansas, alleging that Sprint Communications and three of its former officers violated Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 by failing adequately to disclose certain alleged operational difficulties subsequent to the
Sprint-Nextel merger, and by purportedly issuing false and misleading statements regarding the write-down of goodwill. The
plaintiff sought class action status for purchasers of Sprint Communications common stock from October 26, 2006 to
February 27, 2008. On January 6, 2011, the Court denied the motion to dismiss. Subsequently, our motion to certify the
January 6, 2011 order for an interlocutory appeal was denied. On March 27, 2014, the court certified a class including
bondholders as well as stockholders. On April 11, 2014 we filed a petition to appeal that certification order to the Tenth
Circuit Court of Appeals but that petition was denied. After mediation, the parties have reached an agreement in principle to
settle the matter, and the settlement amount is expected to be substantially paid by the Company's insurers. The district court
granted preliminary approval of the proposed settlement on April 10, 2015 and a final approval hearing has been scheduled
for August 5, 2015. We do not expect the resolution of this matter to have a material adverse effect on our financial position
or results of operations.
In addition, five related stockholder derivative suits were filed against Sprint Communications and certain of its
present and/or former officers and directors. The first, Murphy v. Forsee, was filed in state court in Kansas on April 8, 2009,
was removed to federal court, and was stayed by the court pending resolution of the motion to dismiss the Bennett case; the
second, Randolph v. Forsee, was filed on July 15, 2010 in state court in Kansas, was removed to federal court, and was
remanded back to state court; the third, Ross-Williams v. Bennett, et al., was filed in state court in Kansas on February 1,
2011; the fourth, Price v. Forsee, et al., was filed in state court in Kansas on April 15, 2011; and the fifth, Hartleib v. Forsee,
et. al., was filed in federal court in Kansas on July 14, 2011. These cases are essentially stayed while the Bennett case is being
resolved. We do not expect the resolution of these matters to have a material adverse effect on our financial position or results
of operations.
Sprint Communications, Inc. is also a defendant in a complaint filed by stockholders of Clearwire Corporation,
asserting claims for breach of fiduciary duty by Sprint Communications, and related claims and otherwise challenging the
Clearwire Acquisition. ACP Master, LTD, et al. v. Sprint Nextel Corp., et al., was filed April 26, 2013 in Chancery Court in
Delaware. Our motion to dismiss the suit was denied and discovery has begun. The plaintiffs in the ACP Master, LTD suit
have also filed suit requesting an appraisal of the fair value of their Clearwire stock, and discovery is proceeding in that case.
Sprint Communications, Inc. intends to defend the ACP Master, LTD cases vigorously. We do not expect the resolution of
these matters to have a material adverse effect on our financial position or results of operations.