Metro PCS 2009 Annual Report Download - page 69

57
• establish advance notice requirements for nominations for election to the board of directors or for
proposing matters that can be acted upon by stockholders at stockholder meetings.
In addition, Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation Law imposes restrictions on business combinations
such as mergers between us and a holder of 15% or more of our voting stock.
Any of the foregoing events or other events could cause revenues, customer additions, operating income, capital
expenditures and other financial or statistical information to vary from our forward-looking estimates by a material
amount.
Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments
None.
Item 2. Properties
We currently maintain our executive offices in Richardson, Texas, and regional offices in Alameda, California;
Folsom, California; Irvine, California; Los Angeles, California; Riverside, California; Ft. Lauderdale, Florida;
Jacksonville, Florida; Orlando, Florida; Tampa, Florida; Norcross, Georgia; Shreveport, Louisiana; Chelmsford,
Massachusetts; Grand Rapids, Michigan; Livonia, Michigan; Las Vegas, Nevada; Hawthorne, New York; Ft.
Washington, Pennsylvania; and Plano, Texas. As of December 31, 2009, we also operated 153 retail stores
throughout our metropolitan areas. Our executive offices, all of our regional offices, switch sites, retail stores and
virtually all of our cell sites are leased from unaffiliated third parties. We believe these properties, which are being
used for their intended purposes, are adequate and well-maintained.
Item 3. Legal Proceedings
We are involved in litigation from time to time, including litigation regarding intellectual property claims that we
consider to be in the normal course of business. Other than the matter listed below we are not currently party to any
pending legal proceedings that we believe would, individually or in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect on
our financial condition, cash flows or results of operations.
MetroPCS and certain current officers and a director (collectively, the “defendants”) have been named as
defendants in a putative securities class action lawsuit filed on December 15, 2009 in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Texas, Civil Action No. 3:09-CV-2392. Plaintiff, Ervant Zeronian, alleges that
the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
The complaint alleges that the defendants made false and misleading statements about MetroPCS’ business,
prospects and operations. The putative claims are based upon statements made in press releases, earnings calls and
the like during the period from February 26, 2009 through November 4, 2009. The lawsuit seeks, among other relief,
a determination that the alleged claims may be asserted on a class-wide basis, unspecified compensatory damages,
attorney’s fees, other expenses, and costs. Defendants have not yet been served with the complaint.
Due to the complex nature of the legal and factual issues involved in this class action matter, the outcome is not
presently determinable. If this matter were to proceed beyond the pleading stage, MetroPCS could be required to
incur substantial costs and expenses to defend this matter and/or be required to pay substantial damages or
settlement costs, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.
Item 4. Reserved