This excerpt taken from the S 8-K filed Aug 18, 2005.
10. Commitments and Contingencies
Operating Lease Commitments. We lease various equipment, office facilities, retail outlets and kiosks, switching facilities, and transmitter and receiver sites under operating leases. The non-cancelable portion of these leases ranges from monthly up to 10 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 one renewal period, as the exercise of the related renewal option is reasonably assured (see note 1). Our cell site leases generally provide for an initial non-cancelable term of 5 to 7 years with 5 renewal options for 5 years each.
For years subsequent to December 31, 2004, minimum lease payments for all operating lease obligations that have lease terms exceeding one year, net of rental income, are as follows (in millions):
Total rental expense, net of rental income, was $548 million during 2004, $500 million during 2003 and $390 million during 2002.
Other Commitments. We are a party to service and other contracts in connection with conducting our business. Minimum amounts due under some of the more significant agreements are $864 million in 2005, $707 million in 2006, $504 million in 2007, $288 million in 2008, $263 million in 2009 and $507 million thereafter. 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 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. In addition, significant amounts expected to be paid to Motorola for infrastructure, handsets and related services are not included in the figures above due to the uncertainty surrounding the timing and extent of these payments; however, the figures above do include the minimum contractual amounts. See note 13 with respect to amounts paid to Motorola in 2004, 2003 and 2002.
Contingencies. In April 2001, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in the Circuit Court in Baltimore, Maryland by the Law Offices of Peter Angelos, and subsequently in other state courts in Pennsylvania, New York and Georgia by Mr. Angelos and other firms, alleging that wireless telephones pose a health risk to users of those telephones and that the defendants failed to disclose these risks. We, along with numerous other companies, were named as defendants in these cases. The cases, together with a similar case filed earlier in Louisiana state court, were ultimately transferred to federal court in Baltimore, Maryland. On March 5, 2003, the court granted the defendants motions to dismiss. The plaintiffs have appealed this decision.
A number of lawsuits have been filed against us in several state and federal courts around the United States, challenging the manner by which we recover the costs to us of federally mandated universal service, Telecommunications Relay Service payment requirements imposed by the FCC, and the costs (including costs to implement changes to our network) to comply with federal regulatory requirements to provide E911, telephone number pooling and telephone number portability. In general, these plaintiffs claim that our rate structure that breaks out and assesses federal program cost recovery fees on monthly customer bills is misleading and unlawful. The plaintiffs generally seek injunctive relief and damages on behalf of a class of customers, including a refund of amounts collected under these regulatory line item assessments. We have reached a settlement with the plaintiff, who purports to represent a nationwide class of affected customers, in one of the lawsuits that challenged the manner by which we recover the costs to comply with federal regulatory requirements to provide E911, telephone number pooling and telephone number portability. The settlement was found to be fair and was approved by the court, which approval recently was affirmed by the appellate court, and a motion for rehearing was filed by one of the objectors. Assuming no further appeal is sought, the settlement renders moot a majority of these lawsuits and would not have a material effect on our business or results of operations.
We are subject to other claims and legal actions that arise in the ordinary course of business. We do not believe that any of these other pending claims or legal actions will have a material effect on our business or results of operation.
On December 15, 2004, we entered into a definitive agreement for a merger of equals with Sprint. The merger agreement contains certain termination rights for each of us and Sprint and further provides for the payment of a termination fee of $1,000 million upon termination of the merger agreement under specified circumstances involving an alternative transaction.