Urging the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. to dismiss lawsuits filed by Sprint Nextel and C-Spire Wireless (formerly Cellular South) against AT&T’s proposed $39 billion acquisition of T-Mobile USA, AT&T and T-Mobile told the court that, because both carriers are competitors and not customers who may be harmed, they lack the standing to challenge the merger on antitrust grounds pursuant to the Clayton Act. Wayne Watts, the senior executive vice president of AT&T, characterized the Sprint and C-Spire complaints as “an obvious attempt to use the court to improve their own strategic interests,” as he emphasized that his company is “working on parallel paths—seeking a solution that addresses the [Department of Justice’s] concerns while simultaneously preparing for trial.” Although Sprint and C-Spire have voiced expectations that the court will consolidate their respective lawsuits with the pending Justice Department complaint, U.S. District Court Judge Ellen Huvelle is said to be considering the carriers’ standing to participate in the case, which is scheduled to go to trial on February 13. Declaring that Sprint “seeks to manufacture standing by arguing that the transaction will somehow impair its access to several categories of inputs it needs to provide service,” AT&T and T-Mobile advised the court that “these input arguments. . . are implausible on their face and will fail the applicable pleading standards.” AT&T and T-Mobile further maintained that, because “Sprint knows that competition will be enhanced, not harmed by the combination,” Sprint thus “has everything to gain from the reduction in competition in wireless services that its complaint alleges.” With respect to C-Spire, AT&T cited an e-mail exchange between Cellular South (now C-Spire) CEO Hu Meena and AT&T Mobility President Ralph de la Vega in which “Cellular South suggested that it would not oppose the merger if AT&T would agree not to engage in facilities-based competition in Mississippi.” Although AT&T told the court that the exchange “confirms that what Cellular South fears is competition, not a lack of competition,” a C-Spire official retorted that AT&T’s accusations “flatly distort the record,” as he denied that Cellular South ever “suggested that AT&T not compete in Mississippi or anywhere else.”