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 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 court approved the settlement but reduced the plaintiff's attorneys fees; the attorneys fees issue is on appeal.

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 also seeks recovery of triple damages under the State False Claims Act, 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 appealed that order and the intermediate appellate court affirmed the order of the trial court. On October 20, 2015, the Court of Appeals of New York affirmed the decision of the appellate court that the tax statute requires us to collect and remit the disputed taxes. Our petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court on grounds of federal preemption was denied. Through the year ended March 31, 2017, we have accrued approximately $200 million associated with this matter. The parties are now engaged in discovery in the trial court. We will continue to defend this matter vigorously and 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 pending resolution of the Attorney General's suit. 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 is also a defendant in a complaint filed by several stockholders of Clearwire Corporation (Clearwire) 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. Plaintiffs in the ACP Master, LTD suit have also filed suit requesting an appraisal of the fair value of their Clearwire stock. Trial of those cases took place in October and November 2016; the parties have submitted their post-trial briefing, and oral argument was held on April 25, 2017. We are awaiting a decision. We do not expect the resolution of these matters 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.

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. During the year ended March 31, 2017, we recorded a $103 million charge associated with a state tax matter which is presented in our consolidated statements of operations within "Other, net". 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 $165 million as of March 31, 2017. Since the inception of the program, we have incurred payments of approximately $3.5 billion directly attributable to our performance under the Report and Order, including approximately $45 million during the year ended March 31, 2017. 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 March 31, 2017 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 and public safety reconfiguration is nearly complete across the country with the exception of the States of Washington, 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.

Future Minimum Commitments

As of March 31, 2017, the minimum estimated amounts due under operating leases, spectrum leases and service credits, and purchase orders and other commitments were as follows:



Future Minimum Commitments	Total		Fiscal Year 2017		Fiscal Year 2018		Fiscal Year 2019		Fiscal Year 2020		Fiscal Year 2021		Fiscal Year 2022 and thereafter
	(in millions)
Operating leases	$	12,173	$	2,147	$	2,113	$	2,001	$	1,885	$	1,579	$	2,448
Spectrum leases and service credits	6,971		247		244		268		244		263		5,705
Purchase orders and other commitments	10,051		6,361		1,277		652		429		326		1,006
Total	$	29,195	$	8,755	$	3,634	$	2,921	$	2,558	$	2,168	$	9,159

Operating Leases

We lease various equipment, office facilities, retail outlets and kiosks, switching facilities and cell sites under operating leases. The non-cancelable portion of these leases generally ranges from monthly up to 15 years. These leases, with few exceptions, provide for automatic renewal options and escalations that are either fixed or based on the consumer price index. Any rent abatements, along with rent escalations, are included in the computation of rent expense calculated on a straight-line basis over the lease term. Our lease term for most leases includes the initial non-cancelable term plus at least one renewal period, if the non-cancelable term is less than ten years, as the exercise of the related renewal option or options is reasonably assured. Our cell site leases generally provide for an initial non-cancelable term of five to twelve years with up to 5 renewal options for five years each.

Our rental commitments for operating leases, including lease renewals that are reasonably assured, consisted mainly of leases for cell and switch sites, real estate, information technology and network equipment and office space. Total rental expense was $3.1 billion, $2.9 billion, and $2.6 billion, for the years ended March 31, 2017, 2016, and 2015, respectively.

Spectrum Leases and Service Credits

Certain of the spectrum leases provide for minimum lease payments, additional charges, renewal options and escalation clauses. Leased spectrum agreements generally have terms of up to 30 years. We expect that all renewal periods in our spectrum leases will be renewed by us.

We also have commitments to provide services to certain lessors, and to reimburse lessors for certain capital equipment and third-party service expenditures over the term of the lease. We accrue a monthly obligation for the services and equipment based on the total estimated available service credits divided by the term of the lease. The obligation is reduced by services provided and as actual invoices are presented and paid to the lessors. During the period ended March 31, 2017, we satisfied $3 million related to these commitments. The maximum remaining commitment at March 31, 2017 was $83 million and is expected to be incurred over the term of the related lease agreements, which generally range from 15 to 30 years.

Purchase Orders and Other Commitments

We are a party to other commitments, which includes, among other things, service, spectrum, network equipment, devices, asset retirement obligations and other executory contracts in connection with conducting our business. Amounts actually paid under some of these agreements will likely be higher due to variable components of these agreements. The more significant variable components that determine the ultimate obligation owed include such items as hours contracted, subscribers and other factors. In addition, we are a party to various arrangements that are conditional in nature and obligate us to make payments only upon the occurrence of certain events, such as the delivery of functioning software or a product. Because it is not possible to predict the timing or amounts that may be due under these conditional arrangements, no such amounts have been included in the table above.