Subject: [NEXTEL-1] Background On $27,000,00.00 Securities Exchange Act Violation Lawsuit against Nextel, MORGAN E. O'BRIEN, BRIAN D. MCAULEY & others.

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 05:47:47 -0500

Background On $27,000,00.00 Securities Exchange Act Violation Lawsuit against
Nextel, MORGAN E. O'BRIEN, BRIAN D. MCAULEY & others.

=======================================================================================

Notices

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

IN RE NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS
SECURITIES LITIGATION
Master File No. 94-4213 (HAA)
THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:
ALL ACTIONS
NOTICE OF HEARING ON PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION

TO:      ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED THE COMMON STOCK OF
NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS, INC. DURING THE PERIOD FROM JULY 22, 1993 THROUGH
JANUARY 10, 1995, INCLUSIVE

SPECIAL NOTICE

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. IT MAY AFFECT YOUR RIGHTS.
IN ORDER TO BE ENTITLED TO
SHARE IN THE CASH PROCEEDS OF THE SETTLEMENT DESCRIBED HEREIN, YOU MUST COMPLETE
AND RETURN THE
ENCLOSED PROOF OF CLAIM AND RELEASE FORM ON OR BEFORE SEPTEMBER 28, 2000. THIS
NOTICE CONCERNS A PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT OF THE ABOVE ACTIONS IN AN AMOUNT UP TO $27,000,000 IN CASH.

This notice is given pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
and pursuant to an Order of the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey (the “Court”). The purpose of
this Notice is to advise you of the
proposed settlement (the “Settlement”) of the actions that is set forth in the
Stipulation of Settlement dated as of February
17, 2000 (the “Stipulation”), and which provides, among other things, for the
settlement of the above actions in an amount
up to Twenty-Seven Million Dollars ($27,000,000) in cash (the “Settlement Fund”).

A hearing (the “Settlement Hearing”) to consider whether the litigation may
properly be maintained as a class action,
whether the named Plaintiffs fairly and adequately represent the Class, whether
the proposed Settlement is fair,
reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the Class (hereinafter defined)
and, assuming the Class is certified and
the settlement is approved, whether to grant the application by Plaintiffs’
counsel for an award of fees and expenses, will
be held before the Honorable Stanley R. Chesler in Courtroom 9 of the United
States District Court for the District of New
Jersey, U.S. Post Office and Courthouse Building, Federal Square, Newark, New
Jersey 07101-0999 on June 15, 2000, at 1
p.m.

PART I
BACKGROUND OF LITIGATION

1. Plaintiffs filed three actions (the “Actions”) on and after August 30, 1994,
which were subsequently consolidated.
The Actions assert various claims on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of
Nextel Communications, Inc. (“Nextel”)
during the period July 22, 1993 through January 10, 1995, inclusive. Plaintiffs
allege, among other things, that Defendants
(hereinafter defined) violated the federal securities laws and state common law by
issuing various allegedly misleading
statements and disseminating allegedly misleading documents to the investing
public pertaining to the commercial
viability of a wireless communications technology deployed by Nextel.

2. Prior to entering into the Settlement, Plaintiffs’ counsel conducted a thorough
investigation relating to the events
and transactions underlying Plaintiffs’ claims and substantially completed all
non-expert pretrial discovery on the merits,
including, inter alia, analyzing hundreds of thousands of pages of documents
produced by Defendants and third parties,
and conducting numerous depositions in various locations throughout the United
States (See Part V below). Plaintiffs’
decision to enter into this Settlement is based on a detailed analysis and
understanding of the facts and circumstances
underlying Plaintiffs’ claims and the strengths and weaknesses of those claims
against Defendants.

3. In light of the foregoing factual investigation, both Plaintiffs and Defendants
were aware of, and considered, the
legal, evidentiary, and economic risks that they faced before reaching the
Settlement. Additionally, the uncertainty of the
outcome of continued litigation, especially in complex actions such as this, and
the difficulties and delays inherent in
such actions, weighed in favor of the Settlement. The expense and length of
continued proceedings necessary to
continue the litigation against Defendants through a trial, verdict, judgment, and
appeals would have also been
substantial. The parties have therefore determined that the Settlement described
below is in their respective best interests.

4. In the Consolidated and Amended Class Action Complaint filed in July 1995 (the
“Complaint”), and at the time of the
Settlement, the defendants named in the Actions were: Nextel; Motorola, Inc.
(“Motorola”); and certain of Nextel’s
officers and/or directors during the relevant time period (M.E. O’Brien; B.D.
McAuley; J.A. Schleicher; J.M. Dixon and J.
Markell) (the “Individual Defendants”). These individuals and entities are
referred to collectively herein as the
“Defendants.” By this proposed Settlement, all claims in the Actions are being
settled and released.

5. Each Defendant has denied and continues to deny all the claims and contentions
of wrongdoing asserted in the
Actions, has denied and continues to deny any liability arising out of the conduct
alleged therein, and has asserted
various defenses thereto. The giving of this Notice is not meant to imply that
there has been any wrongdoing or violation
of law.

6. If this Settlement is approved, the Court will enter an order certifying the
Actions as a class action with the class as
defined in Paragraph 9 below (the “Class”).

7. If you purchased the common stock of Nextel during the period from July 22,
1993 through January 10, 1995,
inclusive, you may be entitled to a recovery pursuant to the Settlement described
in this Notice.

8. Upon the Effective Date (hereinafter defined) of the Settlement, each Class
Member will be bound by a judgment
entered in the Court. The rights of Class Members will be represented by Class
Counsel designated by the Court: Arthur
N. Abbey, Esq. and Stephen T. Rodd, Esq. of Abbey, Gardy & Squitieri, LLP, 212
East 39th Street, New York, New York
10016, Telephone: (212) 889-3700; Samuel P. Sporn, Esq. and Christopher S.
Lometti, Esq. of Schoengold & Sporn, P.C.,
233 Broadway, New York, New York 10279, Telephone: (212) 964-0046; Herbert E.
Milstein, Esq. and Daniel S. Sommers,
Esq. of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C., 1100 New York Avenue, N.W.,
West Tower, Suite 500, Washington,
D.C. 20005-2113, Telephone: (202) 408-4600; and Peter S. Pearlman, Esq. of Cohn
Lifland Pearlman Herrmann & Knopf,
LLP, Park 80 Plaza West-One, Saddle Brook, New Jersey 07663, Telephone: (201)
845-9600. You may, but are not required
to, enter an appearance personally or through your own counsel at your own
expense.

PART II
THE CLASS

9. The Class consists of the Plaintiffs and all other persons and entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired Nextel
Common Stock during the period from July 22, 1993 through January 10, 1995,
inclusive (the “Class Period”). Excluded
from the Class are: the Individual Defendants herein, members of their immediate
families, and their respective legal
representatives, heirs, successors, affiliates and assigns; Nextel and Motorola,
and the assigns, subsidiaries and affiliates
of Nextel and Motorola; and those persons and entities who timely and validly
exercise their right to exclude themselves
from the Class pursuant to the procedures described in Paragraph 39 below.

10. Upon the Effective Date, each Class Member will be barred and permanently
enjoined from commencing,
prosecuting, or continuing to prosecute, either directly or indirectly, against
the Defendants, any and all claims or causes
of action, known or unknown, which they have had, now have, or in the future have,
arising out of, relating in any way to,
or based upon, any of the Released Claims as defined in the Stipulation and
described in Paragraph 12 below.

PART III
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT

11. The proposed settlement, which requires approval by the Court, consists of
cash payments by Nextel, Motorola
and National Union Fire Insurance Co. (“National Union”), the insurer for the
Individual Defendants, in an aggregate
amount of up to Twenty-Seven Million Dollars ($27,000,000.00).

12. The obligations incurred pursuant to this Stipulation shall be in full and
final disposition and settlement of any and
all actions, causes of action, suits, debts, dues, sums of money, accounts,
reckonings, bonds, bills, specialties,
covenants, contracts, controversies, agreements, promises, variances, trespasses,
damages, judgments, extents,
executions, claims, issues, matters and demands whatsoever, in law, admiralty or
equity, known or unknown, directly or
indirectly connected with, arising out of, or related, directly or indirectly, in
any way to (i) any of the matters alleged in the
Complaint or (ii) the purchase, sale or ownership of Nextel Common Stock during
the Class Period, that have been or
could have been asserted against Defendants or any of them, by, or on behalf of,
the Class or any Class Member, whether
individually, directly, representatively, derivatively or in any other capacity,
whether or not alleged in the Actions (all of
the above collectively referred to as the “Released Claims”).

13. In consideration of, and contingent upon, the final dismissal of the Actions,
with prejudice and without costs to
any party, Nextel, Motorola and National Union, in compromise and full settlement
of all claims for relief asserted against
the Defendants in the Actions, agree to pay up to the amount of the Settlement
Fund (in the proportions specified in a
separate agreement among them) under the terms and conditions set forth herein and
subject to the approval of the Court.

14. Assuming approval by the Court, the Settlement will become effective upon the
Court’s entry of a final judgment
approving the Settlement that is (i) either not appealed or affirmed on appeal and
(ii) no longer subject to review because
the time for the filing of any appeals therefrom has expired with no appeal having
been taken (the “Effective Date”). If any
such appeal is taken, then the Effective Date of the Settlement will occur upon
the expiration of three days after the final
determination, not subject to further review, appeal or petition for rehearing, of
any such appeal by the highest court
before which appellate review is or could be sought.

15. If the Settlement does not become effective or if the Stipulation is
terminated pursuant to its terms, unless the
parties agree otherwise, then the Actions shall revert forthwith to their status
prior to the Settlement and shall proceed in
all material respects as if this Stipulation and related orders and papers had not
been executed, and those papers shall not
be used for any purpose except in connection with the enforcement of the terms of
this Stipulation.

16. If the Settlement is approved by the Court and becomes effective, the Net
Settlement Fund will be paid to Class
Members whose claims, filed in accordance with Part VIII of this Settlement
Notice, are allowed by the Court. The “Net
Settlement Fund” means the Settlement Fund less amounts paid or reserved for
payment of Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and
costs, expenses incurred in giving notice to the Class of, and administering, the
Settlement, taxes, and other expenses as
allowed by the Court.

17. Under the Settlement, each Class Member wishing to share in the Net Settlement
Fund shall be required to file a
Proof of Claim and Release form, itemizing all purchases and sales of Nextel
Common Stock during the Class Period and
their holdings of Nextel Common Stock at the beginning and end of the Class
Period.

18. The Net Settlement Fund shall be allocated among all Authorized Claimants
(meaning all Settlement Class Members
who submit an approved Proof of Claim and Release form) in the following manner:

(a) ”Recognized Loss” for each claimant shall be calculated as follows:

(i) In the case of Nextel Common Stock purchased and sold during the Class Period,
Recognized Loss is equal
to (1) the amount by which the market price of Nextel Common Stock was allegedly
inflated at the time of purchase, as
calculated in a damages analysis performed by Plaintiffs’ market and damages
expert (the “Damages Analysis”); minus (2)
the amount by which the market price of Nextel Common Stock was allegedly inflated
at the time of sale, as calculated in
the Damages Analysis, with the resulting difference (3) multiplied by the number
of affected shares. In computing the
amount by which the market price of Nextel Common Stock was allegedly inflated,
both the purchase price and the realized
sales price are exclusive of any commissions, taxes and other charges. If the
inflation at the time of sale is equal to, or
greater than, the inflation at the time of purchase, the Recognized Loss is zero.

(ii) In the case of Nextel Common Stock purchased during the Class Period and held
until after January 10,
1995, Recognized Loss equals the amount by which the Nextel Common Stock was
allegedly inflated at the time of
purchase, as calculated in the Damages Analysis, multiplied by the number of
affected shares. The purchase price is
exclusive of any commissions, taxes and other charges.

(iii) The date of purchase or sale shall be deemed to be the trade date, and not
the settlement date. The date of
covering any “short sale” shall be deemed to be a date of purchase. The date of a
“short sale” shall be deemed to be a
date of sale.

(iv) Each Proof of Claim must show the number of shares of Nextel Common Stock
held, if any, as of the end of
the trading day on July 21, 1993, all purchases and sales of Nextel Common Stock
made from July 22, 1993 to January 10,
1995, the dates thereof, and the prices paid or received therefor, and the number
of shares of Nextel Common Stock held, if
any, as of the end of the trading day on January 10, 1995. In processing Proofs of
Claim, the first-in, first-out basis
(“FIFO”) will be applied to both purchases and sales. The sales and the holdings
at the end of the Class Period of Nextel
Common Stock will be matched in chronological order first against the shares held
as of the close of business on July 21,
1993 and then against the earliest-in-time purchases of Nextel Common Stock during
the Class Period.

(b) The amount of alleged inflation determined for purposes of this Settlement, as
set forth in the Damages Analysis,
reflects Plaintiffs’ market and damages expert’s estimate of the amount by which
Nextel Common Stock traded above the
price at which it would have traded absent the alleged misstatements pleaded in
the Complaint. The amount of alleged
inflation varies depending upon the date on which Nextel Common Stock was
purchased and/or sold. The alleged actual
value of a share of Nextel Common Stock for each trading day during the Class
Period, as estimated by Plaintiffs’ market
and damages expert, is attached to the Proof of Claim provided herewith. For
purposes of this determination, Plaintiffs’
expert assumed that all of Plaintiffs’ allegations concerning each of the alleged
misstatements and omissions by
Defendants, Defendants’ liability, and causation of damages, were true.

(c) A percentage (the “Percentage”) shall be calculated by dividing the Net
Settlement Fund (as of the date the Court
approves the distribution thereof) by the Gross Damage Amount. The “Gross Damage
Amount” is $372 million, which
represents the total damages estimated by plaintiffs’ market and damages expert to
have been sustained as a result of the
purchase of Nextel Common Stock during the Class Period, assuming plaintiffs’
allegations were proven.

(d) A “Recognized Claim” shall be calculated for each Authorized Claimant equal to
the Authorized Claimant’s
Recognized Loss times the Percentage.

(e) In the event that the Net Settlement Fund is insufficient to pay the aggregate
of all Recognized Claims, payments
of Recognized Claims shall be made pro rata based upon the ratio of the Net
Settlement Fund to the aggregate of such
Recognized Claims.

(f) Defendants and National Union have no obligation to pay any amount in excess
of the Settlement Fund. Any
sums remaining after payment of all Recognized Claims shall be remitted to Nextel,
Motorola and National Union.

19. Payment in the manner set forth above shall be deemed conclusive as to all
Class Members. All Class Members
who do not submit timely Proofs of Claim against the Settlement Fund or whose
Proofs of Claim are not approved shall be
barred from participating in distributions from the Settlement Fund, but otherwise
shall be bound by all of the terms of the
Stipulation, including the terms of any judgment entered in the Actions, unless
they request exclusion from the Class in
the manner explained in Paragraph 39 below. All Class Members who do not cash the
checks representing payment on
their Recognized Claims within 180 days following the mailing of said checks shall
be deemed to have forfeited their
claims, and said monies shall be returned to Nextel, Motorola and National Union
pursuant to the terms of the Stipulation.

20. Plaintiffs will request that the Court approve an award of attorneys’ fees in
an amount not to exceed one-third of the
Settlement Fund and the reimbursement of litigation expenses incurred by
Plaintiffs’ counsel in the prosecution of the
Actions, which, together with the costs of printing and disseminating notice of
the Settlement to the Class, shall not
exceed the amount of $1 million (the “Fee and Expense Award”). Defendants have
agreed not to oppose Plaintiffs’
application for the Fee and Expense Award.

21. Upon entry of the Order authorizing dissemination of this Notice, the sum of
One Hundred Thousand Dollars
($100,000.00) was advanced by Nextel, Motorola and National Union to cover the
costs of notice to the Class. In the event
that this Settlement is approved, those monies shall be included in the expenses
for which Plaintiffs request
reimbursement and will be charged against any sum awarded by the Court to
Plaintiffs’ counsel for the reimbursement of
expenses. If the Settlement is not approved, the costs of notice and any claims
administration already expended will be
borne by Nextel, Motorola and National Union.

22. If the Court does not approve the Settlement between Plaintiffs and
Defendants, or if the Settlement is otherwise
terminated in accordance with its terms, then the rights and duties of the parties
will revert to their status as of February 3,
2000.

PART IV
REASONS FOR SETTLEMENT

23. Plaintiffs’ counsel have engaged in extensive factual and legal investigation
in the prosecution of the Actions.
Plaintiffs’ counsel have also engaged in intensive and protracted arm’s length
negotiations with counsel for Defendants
with respect to the Settlement. In addition, Plaintiffs’ expert and Defendants’
experts widely disagreed on the maximum
damages in the Actions in the event that Plaintiffs prevailed at trial on all of
their claims. Against this backdrop, Plaintiffs’
counsel believe that the Settlement that has been negotiated is an excellent
result for the Class.

24. Plaintiffs face certain risks in proving their allegations if the Actions
proceed to trial. These risks include the
following:

(a) The allegations in the Actions center on the commercial viability of a complex
wireless technology developed by
Motorola (“MIRS technology”) and ultimately deployed by Nextel in its nationwide
digital mobile network. MIRS
technology represented an advanced “state of the art” technology. The complexity
of the technical issues would likely
entail a “battle of the experts” and require an extended trial.

(b) Nextel announced the activation of its first digital mobile network in Los
Angeles on August 31, 1993. At that
time, Nextel stated that it would not begin general marketing of its services
until after the completion of an optimization
period expected to last between two to four months. In December 1993, Nextel
announced that additional work was
required before optimization was complete and made no prediction as to when that
would occur, and Nextel did not
announce the availability of full commercial service in Los Angeles until May 18,
1994. Defendants have asserted that, at
all times during the Class Period, they made timely and appropriate disclosures of
all material facts. In addition,
Defendants have asserted that, during this first portion of the Class Period, the
market was not misled as to the
commercial viability of MIRS technology because the market knew that MIRS
technology was in the early stages of its
development and was not commercially available. Defendants have asserted that,
through most of the alleged Class
Period, any investor or securities analyst interested in MIRS technology could try
Nextel’s wireless units in Los Angeles
(and, later in the Class Period, in other markets) and reach his or her own
conclusions as to the commercial viability of
MIRS technology, and that many investors and securities analysts availed
themselves of this opportunity. Defendants
contend that, as a result, any performance issues relating to the Nextel system
and MIRS technology were not concealed
from the investing public.

(c) In this connection, Defendants have relied upon a series of published reports
by securities analysts, as well as
other public disclosures by Nextel and others, discussing the performance of MIRS
technology during the Class Period.
Prior to the Settlement, Defendants’ counsel indicated, on a preliminary basis,
that they planned to move the Court for
summary judgment dismissing the Actions. Even if summary judgment were denied, in
order to prevail at trial, Plaintiffs
would have to prove that, notwithstanding these disclosures, the market was
unaware of other material facts concerning
the Nextel technology and that the “total mix” of information available in the
marketplace resulted in investors being
misled concerning Nextel. There is no assurance that Plaintiffs would be able to
sustain this burden at trial.

(d) With respect to the commercial viability of MIRS technology, Defendants have
asserted that many of the
performance issues encountered in Nextel’s initial digital mobile network during
the Class Period were attributable not to
inherent technological defects, but to deployment issues and to software “bugs”
characteristic of the development of any
new digital wireless system. Defendants have also asserted that the performance of
Nextel’s digital mobile networks
improved over time as deployment issues were addressed and software improvements
were made. In particular,
Defendants have argued that the current performance of Nextel, as well as the
performance of other companies that have
deployed MIRS technology, demonstrate that Defendants had reasonable grounds for
believing during the Class Period
that MIRS would prove to be a commercially viable technology.

(e) If Plaintiffs prevailed at trial on certain of their claims and the entire
Class was certified, there is no assurance that
Plaintiffs would be able to prove that there were misrepresentations and omissions
during the entire Class Period or the
entire amount of Plaintiffs’ alleged damages.

25. In pursuing this case, Plaintiffs’ counsel engaged in a substantial
investigation of the Class’s claims; successfully
opposed Defendants’ motions to dismiss; conducted the depositions of over thirty
witnesses; served document
requests, interrogatories and other discovery requests; and reviewed hundreds of
thousands of pages of documents
produced by Defendants and third parties. Many of these documents, as well as the
issues in the case, were of a complex
and highly technical nature. Plaintiffs’ counsel engaged technical, financial and
damages experts to assist in evaluating
the case’s merits.

26. Plaintiffs’ counsel have evaluated the expense and length of time necessary to
try the Actions, taking into account
the uncertainties of predicting the outcome of such complex litigation, including
the possibility that the Court might
summarily dismiss the Actions, the uncertain outcome on the merits, and the
possibility of lengthy and costly appeals. On
the basis of their appraisal of all these factors, Plaintiffs’ counsel have
concluded that the Settlement is fair, reasonable,
adequate and in the best interests of the Class to settle all of the Class’s
claims against Defendants on the terms and
conditions described herein.

PART V
DESCRIPTION OF THE LITIGATION

History of the Litigation

27. During the Class Period, Nextel was developing and beginning to market a
nationwide digital wireless
communications service that provided integrated cellular, dispatch, paging and
data services. The service utilized a
technology being developed by Motorola, then known as “MIRS.” Nextel announced on
August 31, 1993 that it had
activated its digital mobile network using MIRS in the Los Angeles area for
purposes of further “optimization” and
testing, and announced on May 18, 1994, that the Los Angeles network had become
commercially available. On
September 22, 1994, Nextel announced the commercial launch of its digital mobile
network throughout most of California.

28. Beginning on or about August 30, 1994, lawsuits were filed in the Court on
behalf of purchasers of Nextel Common
Stock alleging violations of the federal securities laws by Nextel and others. By
an order of the Court in May 1995, the
Actions were consolidated.

29. On or about July 10, 1995, the Complaint was filed in the Actions on behalf of
purchasers of Nextel Common Stock
during the period from July 22, 1993 through January 10, 1995, inclusive. The
Complaint alleged violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and common law fraud.
The Complaint alleges generally, that, during the Class Period, contrary to
Defendants’ representations, MIRS technology
and Nextel’s digital mobile networks were plagued by fundamental functional and
quality defects such that they were not
commercially viable.

30. In October 1995, Defendants served motions to dismiss the Complaint, which
Plaintiffs opposed. On or about July
23, 1997, the Court granted Defendants’ motions in part and denied their motions
in part.

31. On or about October 17, 1995, Plaintiffs moved for class certification.
Defendants opposed the motion in part. To
date, the Court has not finally ruled on Plaintiffs’ motion.

32. Plaintiffs’ counsel have conducted substantial pre-trial discovery. Defendants
and third parties have produced
hundreds of thousands of pages of documents, which have been extensively reviewed
and analyzed by Plaintiffs’
counsel; Plaintiffs have conducted depositions of over thirty witnesses around the
United States; Plaintiffs’ and
Defendants’ counsel have served and responded to document requests,
interrogatories and other discovery requests;
and Plaintiffs’ counsel have consulted technical experts as well as their market
and damages expert. There have been
numerous Court conferences, various disputes between the parties concerning
discovery issues, and an exchange of
preliminary expert reports on damages. All of these efforts culminated in
prolonged and lengthy arm’s-length settlement
negotiations, and ultimately in the proposed Settlement.

Defendants’ Denial of All Wrongdoing

33. Defendants have denied all allegations of wrongdoing made in the Actions or
otherwise. Defendants contend that,
if established at trial, their affirmative defenses would result in the dismissal
of the Actions or a substantial diminution of
Defendants’ liability for the damages claimed by Plaintiffs on behalf of the
Class. Defendants consider it desirable that the
Actions be settled in order to put an end to the burden, inconvenience and expense
associated with the defense of
complex litigation of this sort.

34. BY AUTHORIZING THE SENDING OF THIS NOTICE OR OTHERWISE, THE COURT HAS NOT
EXPRESSED ANY
OPINION AS TO THE MERITS OF ANY OF PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS OR ALLEGATIONS, OR ANY OF
DEFENDANTS’
DENIALS OR DEFENSES. THIS NOTICE SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED AS THE COURT EXPRESSING
ANY SUCH
OPINION BUT IS PROVIDED ONLY SO THAT YOU MAY DECIDE WHAT STEPS, IF ANY, TO TAKE IN
RELATION
TO THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT.

PART VI
NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT HEARING AND RIGHT TO OBJECT TO THE SETTLEMENT OR TO REQUEST
EXCLUSION FROM THE CLASS

35. The Court has ordered that a hearing (the “Settlement Hearing”) be held before
the Honorable Stanley R. Chesler in
Courtroom 9 of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey,
U.S. Post Office and Courthouse Building,
Federal Square, Newark, New Jersey 07101-0999 on June 15, 2000, at 1 p.m. to
consider whether the Actions satisfy the
prerequisites for maintaining a class action and may properly be maintained as
such on behalf of the Class; whether the
Settlement is fair, reasonable, adequate and in the best interests of the Class;
and, assuming the Class is certified and the
Settlement is approved, whether to grant Plaintiffs’ application for the Fee and
Expense Award.

36. If you are a Class Member, you may appear personally, or by counsel, and be
heard at the Settlement Hearing, and
may object to, or express your views regarding, the Settlement and/or Plaintiffs’
application for the Fee and Expense
Award. However, you will not be heard or entitled to contest the approval of the
Settlement or the Fee and Expense
Award UNLESS, ON OR BEFORE JUNE 1, 2000, you file a notice of intention to appear,
including the documentation
described in the next paragraph, with the Clerk of the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey, Martin
Luther King Federal Building and Courthouse, 50 Walnut Street, Newark, New Jersey
07101-0999, together with all other
papers to be submitted to the Court at the Settlement Hearing, and, ON OR BEFORE
THAT DATE, such papers must also
be SERVED ON, AND RECEIVED BY, ALL OF THE FOLLOWING:

Peter S. Pearlman, Esq.
Cohn Lifland Pearlman Herrmann & Knopf LLP
Park 80 Plaza West-One
Saddle Brook, New Jersey 07663
Herbert E. Milstein, Esq
Daniel S. Sommers, Esq.
Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.
1100 New York Avenue N.W.
West Tower, Suite 500
Washington, D.C. 20005-2113
Arthur N. Abbey, Esq.
Stephen T. Rodd, Esq.
Abbey, Gardy & Squitieri, LLP
212 East 39th Street
New York, New York 10016
John W. Edwards II, Esq
Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue
901 Lakeside Avenue
Cleveland, Ohio 44114-1190
Samuel P. Sporn, Esq.
Christopher S. Lometti, Esq
Schoengold & Sporn, P.C.
233 Broadway
New York, New York 10279
Eric M. Roth, Esq
Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz
51 West 52nd Street
New York, New York 10019
Alan E. Kraus, Esq.
Riker, Danzig, Scherer, Hyland & Peretti, LLP
One Speedwell Plaza
Morristown, New Jersey 07963
David J. Sheehan, Esq.
Michael Quinn, Esq.
Gibbons, Del Deo, Dolan, Griffinger & Vecchione
One Riverfront Plaza
Newark, New Jersey 07012

37. Any notice to appear must be supported at least by the following documents,
which are timely served and filed in
accordance with the preceding paragraph: (a) a written statement signed by you
setting forth (i) your name, address and
telephone number; (ii) each purchase and/or sale of shares of Nextel Common Stock
by you during the Class Period, and,
for each such purchase or sale, the date of the purchase or sale, the number of
shares bought or sold, and the amount
paid or received and (iii) the reason you are objecting or commenting; and (b)
documentary proof of your membership in
the Class.

38. Any Class Member who does not object in the manner provided for herein shall
be deemed to have waived such
objection and shall forever be foreclosed from making any objection to the
fairness or adequacy of the proposed
Settlement as set forth in the Stipulation, unless otherwise ordered by the Court.

39. If you do not want to remain a member of the Class, you may request exclusion
from the Class by mailing, first class
mail, a written request for exclusion to the following counsel: Arthur N. Abbey,
Esq., of Abbey, Gardy & Squitieri, LLP,
212 East 39th Street, New York, New York 10016; Herbert E. Milstein, Esq., of
Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.,
1100 New York Avenue, N.W., West Tower, Suite 500, Washington, D.C. 20005-2113;
and Samuel P. Sporn, Esq., of
Schoengold & Sporn, P.C., 233 Broadway, New York, New York 10279. Such written
notice must include the full name of
the beneficial owner of the shares of Nextel Common Stock, the number of shares
purchased during the Class Period, the
price paid for such shares, and the dates of purchase, and must be postmarked ON
OR BEFORE MAY 31, 2000. Any Class
Member who requests exclusion will not be eligible to file a claim to share in the
Settlement proceeds and will not be
bound by the terms of the Settlement, if approved by the Court. If you purchased
Nextel Common Stock during the Class
Period, are not one of the persons specifically excepted as a member of the Class,
and if you do not file a request for
exclusion, then you are a Class Member, and you are bound by the terms of the
Settlement, if approved by the Court,
even if you do not file a Proof of Claim.

40. Subject to the Court’s approval of the Settlement, counsel for Plaintiffs in
the Actions will apply to the Court at the
conclusion of the Settlement Hearing described above for an award of attorneys’
fees in an amount not to exceed $9
million, and the reimbursement of litigation expenses incurred by Plaintiffs’
counsel in the prosecution of the Actions,
which, together with the costs of notice to the Class, are not to exceed $1
million.

41. Any order or proceeding relating to Plaintiffs’ application for the Fee and
Expense Award shall not operate to
terminate or cancel the Stipulation or affect its finality.

PART VII
NOTICE TO BANKS, BROKERS AND OTHER NOMINEES

42. Pursuant to an order of the Court, each bank, brokerage firm, and other
nominee for any of the following beneficial
purchasers shall either forward this Notice to such beneficial purchasers or send
a list of the names and addresses of their
beneficial purchasers to Class Counsel within ten (10) days of receipt of this
Notice and the Proof of Claim and Release
form:

“Persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Common Stock of Nextel
Communications, Inc. during the period from July 22, 1993 through January 10,
1995,
inclusive.”

Additional copies of this Notice and of the Proof of Claim and Release may be
obtained, without charge, by any such
nominee by written request to the Nextel Securities Litigation, Claims
Administrator, P.O. Box 9356, Garden City, New
York, 15530-9356. Upon the receipt of a list of names and addresses of persons for
whom nominees hold Nextel Common
Stock, Class Counsel shall mail a copy of this Notice and a copy of the Proof of
Claim and Release form to such persons.
Alternatively, Class Counsel will pay from the Settlement Fund the reasonable cost
of forwarding notice to beneficial
owners in those cases where a nominee elects to forward notice rather than to
provide a list of names and addresses to
the Clerk of the Court as set forth above. Nominees shall be entitled to
reimbursement of their reasonable costs in
performing either of the above-described activities.

PART VIII
FILING OF PROOFS OF CLAIM

43. Any Class Member who wishes to share in the proceeds of the Settlement
described in this Notice must submit a
Proof of Claim and Release form no later than September 28, 2000, regardless of
whether or not such person has filed and
served any objections pursuant to this Notice. Any Class Member who fails to
submit a valid and timely Proof of Claim
and Release form will be barred from sharing in the distribution of proceeds of
the Settlement described herein.

44. A Proof of Claim and Release filed by mail shall be deemed to have been filed
when postmarked, if mailed by first
class mail, or registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, and addressed in
accordance with the instructions given on the
Proof of Claim and Release form, or when sent, if served by an overnight delivery
service that requires signature upon
receipt. All other Proof of Claim and Release forms shall be deemed to have been
filed at the time they are actually
received by the Claims Administrator.

IMPORTANT

45. If you did not receive a Proof of Claim and Release form in the mail with this
Notice, you may obtain a Proof of Claim
and Release form by written request addressed to Nextel Securities Litigation,
Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 9356, Garden
City, New York, 15530-9356. In your written request, you must include your name
and your current address.

46. You may read or receive more than one copy of this Notice. Regardless of how
many copies of this Notice you read
or receive, you should submit only one Proof of Claim and Release form.

PART IX
FURTHER INFORMATION

47. This Notice is not all-inclusive. For the full details of the matters
disclosed in this Notice, including the Settlement
described above, and for further information concerning the Actions, you may
desire to refer to the pleadings and other
papers, including the documents reflecting the Settlement, filed with the Court in
the Actions, all of which may be
inspected at the office of the Clerk of the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey, United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey, Martin Luther King Federal Building and
Courthouse, 50 Walnut Street, Newark, New
Jersey 07101-0999, during normal business hours. You may also obtain such
information and any further information
regarding this Notice, the Actions or the proposed Settlement by contacting, in
writing:

Arthur N. Abbey, Esq.
Stephen T. Rodd, Esq.
Abbey, Gardy & Squitieri, LLP
212 East 39th Street
New York, New York 10016
or
Samuel P. Sporn, Esq.
Christopher S. Lometti, Esq.
Schoengold & Sporn, P.C.
233 Broadway
New York, New York 10279
Herbert E. Milstein, Esq.
Daniel S. Sommers, Esq.
Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.
1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
West Tower, Suite 500
Washington, D.C. 20005-2113
or
Peter S. Pearlman, Esq.
Cohn Lifland Pearlman Herrmann & Knopf, LLP
Park 80 Plaza West-One
Saddle Brook, New Jersey 07663

PLEASE DO NOT CALL OR WRITE THE COURT OR THE CLERK’S OFFICE FOR SUCH INFORMATION.

Dated: March 27, 2000

BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

http://www.spornlaw.com/notices.html

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada.
http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/61FxlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/