Sprint - Nextel 2015 Annual Report Download - page 23

Table of Contents
Regulatory authorities have imposed measures to protect national security and classified projects as well as other conditions that could have an adverse effect
on Sprint.
As a precondition to approval of the SoftBank Merger, certain U.S. government agencies required that SoftBank and Sprint enter into certain
agreements, including a National Security Agreement (NSA) under which SoftBank and Sprint have agreed to implement certain measures to protect national
security, certain of which may materially and adversely affect our operating results due to increasing the cost of compliance with security measures, and limiting
our control over certain U.S. facilities, contracts, personnel, vendor selection, and operations. If we fail to comply with our obligations under the NSA or other
agreements, our ability to operate our business may be adversely effected.
Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments
None.
Item 2. Properties
Our corporate headquarters are located in Overland Park, Kansas and consist of approximately 3,853,000 square feet. Our gross property, plant and
equipment at March 31, 2016 totaled $30.0 billion , as follows:
March 31,
2016
(inbillions)
Wireless $ 27.0
Wireline 1.2
Corporate and other 1.8
Total $ 30.0
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 district court granted final approval of a settlement in August 2015, which did not have a material impact to our financial statements. Five stockholder
derivative suits related to this 2009 stockholder suit 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
were essentially stayed while the Bennettcase was pending, and we have reached an agreement in principle to settle the matters, by agreeing to some governance
provisions and by paying plaintiffs' attorneys fees in an immaterial amount. The hearing to approve the settlement has been set for May 26, 2016.
21