
Note 12.	Commitments and Contingencies

Litigation, Claims and Assessments

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. The petition was denied on May 23, 2014. 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 pending. 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 Communications 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. Sprint Communications 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. Sprint Communications has appealed that order and the intermediate appellate court affirmed the order of the trial court. Our petition for leave to bring an interlocutory appeal to the highest court in New York was granted and briefing of that appeal was completed in January 2015. We believe the complaint is without merit and intend to continue 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.

Eight related stockholder derivative suits have been filed against Sprint Communications and certain of its current and former officers and directors. Each suit alleges generally that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Sprint Communications and its stockholders 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, was dismissed by a federal court. Two suits were filed in state court in Johnson County, Kansas and one of those suits was dismissed as premature; and five suits are pending in federal court in Kansas. The remaining Kansas suits have been stayed. 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. 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 intends to defend the ACP Master, LTD case vigorously. We do not expect the resolution of this matter to have a material adverse effect on our 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.

In October 2013, the FCC Enforcement Bureau began to issue notices of apparent liability (NALs) to other Lifeline providers, imposing fines for intracarrier duplicate accounts identified by the government during its audit function. Those audits also identified a small percentage of potentially duplicative intracarrier accounts related to our Assurance Wireless business. No NAL has yet been issued with respect to Sprint and we do not know if one will be issued. Further, we are not able to reasonably estimate the amount of any claim for penalties that might be asserted. However, based on the information currently available, if a claim is asserted by the FCC, Sprint does not believe that any amount ultimately paid would be material to the Company’s results of operations or financial position.

Beginning in early 2012, a group of state attorneys general began an investigation into the practice of wireless carriers including on their bills charges for certain content from third party providers, particularly premium short message services, and the measures taken by carriers to ensure that such charges were appropriately authorized. Late in 2013, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) also began a separate investigation into the issue, and the FCC began its own investigation in mid-2014. In July 2014, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) brought suit against T-Mobile, alleging that it included unauthorized charges on its bills; in December 2014, T-Mobile entered into a settlement agreement with the FTC, FCC and state attorneys general. In October 2014, the FTC, FCC and states announced a settlement with AT&T regarding third-party billing issues. In December, 2014, the CFPB brought suit against Sprint regarding third-party billing issues. On May 6, 2015, we entered into agreements with the FCC, CFPB, and various states to settle all issues involved in the investigation for an aggregate amount that is not material to the Company’s results of operations or financial position.

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 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.

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. The letter of credit was initially $2.5 billion, but has been reduced during the course of the proceeding to $376 million as of June 30, 2015. Since the inception of the program, we have incurred payments of approximately $3.4 billion directly attributable to our performance under the Report and Order, including approximately $25 million during the three-month period ended June 30, 2015. When incurred, substantially all costs are accounted for as additions to FCC licenses with the remainder as property, plant and equipment. Although costs incurred through June 30, 2015 have exceeded $2.8 billion, not all of those costs have been reviewed and accepted as eligible by the transition administrator. During the three-month period ended June 30, 2014, we received a cash payment of approximately $95 million, which represented a reimbursement of prior reconfiguration costs incurred by us that also benefited spectrum recently auctioned by the FCC. We do not expect any further reimbursements.

Completion of the 800 MHz band reconfiguration was initially required by June 26, 2008 and public safety reconfiguration is nearly complete across the country with the exception of the State of Washington and Arizona, California, Texas and New Mexico. The FCC continues to grant the remaining 800 MHz public safety licensees additional time to complete their band reconfigurations which, in turn, delays our access to our 800 MHz replacement channels in these areas. In the areas where band reconfiguration is complete, Sprint has received its replacement spectrum in the 800 MHz band and Sprint is deploying 3G CDMA and 4G LTE on this spectrum in combination with its spectrum in the 1.9 GHz and 2.5 GHz bands.