Tom's Response to a Class Action Lawsuit

April 3, 2000

GLENN D. HUFF, MARK A. WOLFE,
STRATTON TAYLOR & DARREL W. DOWNS
Cypret Litigation Class Counsel
PO BOX 26966
OKLAHOMA CITY OK 73126-0966

Pursuant to the NOTICE OF CERTIFICATION OF CLASS ACTION, PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION AND SCHEDULING OF FAIRNESS HEARING that I received today, I am writing to object to the proposed class settlement in the Cypret v. Sprint case (# CJ-99-110-01).

My objections and their reasons are as follows:

1. Before I received notice of this action or the proposed settlement¹, I switched my Sprint PCS service to a service plan that includes domestic long distance. As my Sprint PCS phone is my only phone, and I do not regularly use any other phone to place long distance calls, the enclosed long distance phone card has no value to me. Any other class members on similar service plans that include long distance may also find the long distance phone cards valueless.
2. I would very much prefer to receive any settlement amount as cash or as a monetary credit to my Sprint PCS account. Furthermore I assert that a majority of the class may also to prefer to receive any settlement amount as cash or as a monetary credit to their Sprint PCS account or other Sprint account. Any product or service based compensation, such long distance or air time minutes, substantially reduces the real value of the settlement to the class members. ²
3. I assert that at Sprint's past and current nationally advertised rates, the proposed class settlement overstates the real value of the services offered as compensation by a factor of at least 2.5 and perhaps by as much as 5. Please reference Sprint's "Dime a Minute" and "Sprint Nickel Nights" advertising campaigns. In addition, I believe that a review of Sprint's records of bulk purchases of long distance phone cards, in the quantities proposed in the settlement, by affinity groups and national chain stores will further support this assertion.
4. I assert that the Defendants have likely engaged in, and likely continue to engage in, a pattern of unfair and/or fraudulent business practices. See the enclosed Proposed Settlement of Class Action in the case "Donna M. Sewell and Sean M Weiner v. Sprint PCS Limited Partnership a/k/a Sprint Spectrum, L.P. and American PCS, Limited Partnership" litigated before the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. Also see the enclosed copies of my letters to Andrew Sukawaty, President Sprint PCS on February 14, 2000 and February 22, 2000 and the e-mail responses from Anitra Warren.
5. Furthermore I assert that the Defendants may be using the courts to cover up this pattern of unfair and/or fraudulent business practices by promoting class actions and specifically class action settlements that include "denial of wrongdoing" clauses. Class members typically must agree to these "denial of wrongdoing" clauses to participate in the settlement. Moreover, opting out of a class action settlement presents individual with representation difficulties due to the small size of any potential individual award. If this case went to trial, the Court might well find the Defendants liable for much larger damages including punitive damages, especially after considering this pattern of settlements of other class actions brought against the Defendants. The Court might also find grounds to expand the class or include other classes or even refer this case for criminal prosecution relating to this probable pattern of unfair and/or fraudulent business practices.

I strongly support the certification of this case as a class action. Due to the distance and the individual value of the proposed settlement, I find it impractical for me:

1. to travel at my own expense from my home in Maryland to Oklahoma for the Fairness Hearing on May 25, 2000 or any other proceedings in this case; or
2. to retain individual council in this case.

Therefore, it is not practical for me to address the Court at the hearing or to have individual council address the court on my behalf. Accordingly, I must rely on you, the Class Counsel, as my only practical representative in this case.

In addition to my request above, I also request that you, as the Class Counsel, prominently submit a copy of this letter and copies of all documents enclosed in with this letter to the Court for its consideration while determining the fairness of the proposed settlement.

At this time, I DO NOT wish to be excluded from the proposed class settlement, because I feel that the class action status best meets my representation needs. However, because I strongly object to the terms of the proposed settlement, I wish to reserve the right to be excluded from the proposed class settlement, pending my review of your presentation of my objections to the court and the court's consideration of my objections. To this end, I request that you send me a summary of your presentation and the Court's rulings on my objections, or at least a copy of transcript from the Fairness Hearing.

Sincerely