
Note 12.	Commitments and Contingencies

Litigation, Claims and Assessments

In March 2009, a shareholder brought suit, Bennett v. Sprint Nextel Corp., in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, alleging that the Company and three of our 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 seeks class action status for purchasers of our common stock from October 26, 2006 to February 27, 2008. On January 6, 2011, the Court denied our motion to dismiss. Subsequently, our motion to certify the January 6, 2011 order for an interlocutory appeal was denied, and discovery is continuing. The plaintiff moved to certify a class of bondholders as well as owners of common stock, and we have opposed that motion. We believe the complaint is without merit and intend to defend the matter vigorously. 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 shareholder derivative suits were filed against the Company and certain of our 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 we are in the discovery phase of the Bennett case. We do not expect the resolution of these matters to have a material adverse effect on our financial position or results of operations.

On April 19, 2012, the New York Attorney General filed a complaint alleging that Sprint has fraudulently failed to collect and pay more than $100 million in New York sales taxes on receipts from its sale of wireless telephone services since July 2005. The complaint seeks recovery of triple damages as well as penalties and interest. We moved to dismiss the complaint on June 14, 2012. On July 1, 2013, the court entered an order denying the motion to dismiss in large part, although it did dismiss certain counts or parts of certain counts. New York law allows for an immediate appeal and we intend to appeal this order. We believe the complaint is without merit and intend to defend this matter vigorously. We do not expect the resolution of this matter to have a material adverse effect on our financial position or results of operations. On July 23, 2012, the SEC issued a formal order of investigation relating to the Company's sales tax collection. On July 2, 2013, the SEC notified the Company that it was closing its investigation and did not intend to recommend an enforcement action against the Company.

In addition, seven related shareholder derivative suits were filed against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors. Each suit alleges generally that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Company and its shareholders by allegedly permitting, and failing to disclose, the actions alleged in the suit filed by the New York Attorney General. One suit, filed by the Louisiana Municipal Police Employees Retirement System, is pending in federal court in New York; one suit is pending in state court in Johnson County, Kansas; and five suits are pending in federal court in Kansas. The six Kansas suits have been stayed by agreement among the parties. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the New York suit on September 19, 2012, and on July 26, 2013, the court granted the motion and dismissed the suit. We do not expect the resolution of these matters to have a material adverse effect on our financial position or results of operations.

The Company has received several complaints purporting to assert claims on behalf of Sprint shareholders, alleging that members of the board of directors breached their fiduciary duties in agreeing to the SoftBank Merger, and otherwise challenging that transaction. There are five cases pending in state court in Johnson County, Kansas: UFCW Local 23 and Employers Pension Fund, et al. v. Bennett, et al., filed on October 25, 2012; Iron Workers Mid-South Pension Fund, et al. v. Hesse, et al., filed on October 25, 2012; City of Dearborn Heights Act 345 Police and Fire Retirement System v. Sprint Nextel Corp., et al., filed on October 12, 2012; Testani, et al. v. Sprint Nextel Corp., et al., filed on November 1, 2012; and Patten, et al. v. Sprint Nextel Corp., et al., filed on November 1, 2012. The Plaintiffs in these cases filed an amended complaint and a motion for preliminary injunction on March 22, 2013. Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the consolidated cases as a class action on March 29, 2013, and we have opposed that motion. There are two cases filed in federal court in the District of Kansas, entitled Gerbino, et al. v. Sprint Nextel Corp., et al., filed on November 15, 2012, and Steinberg, et al. v. Bennett, et al., filed on May 16, 2013 (and now consolidated with Gerbino). The Company intends to defend these cases vigorously, and, because these cases are still in the preliminary stages, has not yet determined what effect the lawsuits will have, if any, on its financial position or results of operations.

The Company is also a defendant in several complaints filed by shareholders of Clearwire Corporation, asserting claims for breach of fiduciary duty by Sprint, and related claims and otherwise challenging the Clearwire Acquisition. There were five suits filed in Chancery Court in Delaware: Crest Financial Limited v. Sprint Nextel Corp., et al., filed on December 12, 2012; Katsman v. Prusch, et al., filed December 20, 2012; Feigeles, et al. v. Clearwire Corp., et al., filed December 28, 2012; Litwin, et al. v. Sprint Nextel Corp., et al., filed January 2, 2013; and ACP Master, LTD, et al. v. Sprint Nextel Corp., et al., filed April 26, 2013. The Crest Financial suit was dismissed, without prejudice, by the plaintiff voluntarily on June 28, 2013. There are three cases filed in state court in King County, Washington, and those cases have been stayed in favor of the Delaware proceedings: Rowe, et al. v. Clearwire Corp., et al., filed December 31, 2012; and Millen, et al. v. Clearwire Corp. et al., and Kuhnle, et al. v. Cleawire Corp., et al., both filed on December 20, 2012 (only clearwire Corporation and its Board of Directors are defendants in the Millen and Kuhnle cases). The Company intends to defend these cases vigorously, and, because these cases are still in the preliminary stages, has not yet determined what effect the lawsuits will have, if any, on its financial position or results of operations.

Sprint is currently involved in numerous court actions alleging that Sprint is infringing various patents. Most of these cases effectively seek only monetary damages. A small number of these cases are brought by companies that sell products and seek injunctive relief as well. These cases have progressed to various degrees and a small number may go to trial if they are not otherwise resolved. Adverse resolution of these cases could require us to pay significant damages, cease certain activities, or cease selling the relevant products and services. In many circumstances, we would be indemnified for monetary losses that we incur with respect to the actions of our suppliers or service providers. We do not expect the resolution of these cases to have a material adverse effect on our financial position or results of operations.

Various other suits, inquiries, proceedings and claims, either asserted or unasserted, including purported class actions typical for a large business enterprise and intellectual property matters, are possible or pending against us or our subsidiaries. If our interpretation of certain laws or regulations, including those related to various federal or state matters such as sales, use or property taxes, or other charges were found to be mistaken, it could result in payments by us. 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 position or results of operations.

Spectrum Reconfiguration Obligations

In 2004, the FCC adopted a Report and Order that included new rules regarding interference in the 800 MHz band and a comprehensive plan to reconfigure the 800 MHz band (the "Report and Order"). The Report and Order provides for the exchange of a portion of our 800 MHz FCC spectrum licenses, and requires us to fund the cost incurred by public safety systems and other incumbent licensees to reconfigure the 800 MHz spectrum band. Also, in exchange, we received licenses for 10 MHz of nationwide spectrum in the 1.9 GHz band; however, we were required to relocate and reimburse the incumbent licensees in this band for their costs of relocation to another band designated by the FCC. We completed all of our 1.9 GHz incumbent relocation and reimbursement obligations in the second half of 2010. The minimum cash obligation is $2.8 billion under the Report and Order. We are, however, obligated to pay the full amount of the costs relating to the reconfiguration plan, even if those costs exceed $2.8 billion. As required under the terms of the Report and Order, a letter of credit has been secured to provide assurance that funds will be available to pay the relocation costs of the incumbent users of the 800 MHz spectrum. Total payments directly attributable to our performance under the Report and Order, from the inception of the program, are approximately $3.2 billion, of which $88 million was incurred related to FCC licenses during the six-month period ended June 30, 2013. When incurred, these costs are generally accounted for either as property, plant and equipment or as additions to FCC licenses. Although costs incurred to date have exceeded $2.8 billion, not all of those costs have been reviewed and accepted as eligible by the transition administrator.

Completion of the 800 MHz band reconfiguration was initially required by June 26, 2008. The FCC continues to grant 800 MHz public safety licensees additional time to complete their band reconfigurations which, in turn, delays our access to some of our 800 MHz replacement channels. Accordingly, we will continue to transition to our 800 MHz replacement channels consistent with public safety licensees' reconfiguration progress. On May 24, 2012, the FCC revised its rules to authorize Sprint to deploy wireless broadband services, such as CDMA and LTE, on its 800 MHz spectrum, including channels that become available to Sprint upon completion of the 800 MHz band reconfiguration program.We anticipate that the continuing reconfiguration progress will be sufficient to support the 800 MHz portion of our Network Vision deployment. In January 2013, we submitted a Request for Declaratory Ruling to the FCC requesting two items: (i) that it declare that Sprint will not owe any anti-windfall payment to the US Treasury, because we have exceeded the $2.8 billion of required expenditures, and (ii) that the FCC remove the $850 million minimum for the letter of credit and allow further reductions based on quarterly estimates of remaining obligations. This Request for Declaratory Ruling is pending before the FCC.