Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 03/31/2006 (Other)

Filing Date: April 06, 2004

According to a press release dated April 1, 2006, on March 31, 2006, Judge Kenneth M. Karas of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted Nokia Corporation's Motion to Dismiss all claims made in the class action securities litigation filed against Nokia Corporation and several of its executives in April 2004. Judge Karas dismissed with prejudice each and every claim against Nokia Corporation and the individual defendants. In a 77-page opinion, Judge Karas carefully reviewed each of the plaintiffs' allegations and found none of them to be substantiated by fact. By dismissing the claims with prejudice, Judge Karas has denied the plaintiffs the opportunity to raise them again. In addition, he has denied the plaintiffs the right to file an amended complaint, finding that continued pursuit of the case would be futile.

As previously reported by the Company’s FORM 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005, on April 6, 2004, Irving Greenfeld filed suit against Nokia and certain individuals in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of Nokia's stock between January 8, 2004 and April 6, 2004. Subsequently, six individuals, Marc Abrams, Emery Chu, Zoe Myerson, Thomas Pflugbeil, Michael Devine and Donald L. Siefert, filed related actions, each alleging that Nokia's January 8, 2004 earnings guidance was materially misleading, as allegedly revealed in Nokia's April 6, 2004 press release. In addition, the complaints allege that Nokia's senior executives possessed material adverse information about the success of Nokia's reorganization and fraudulently failed to disclose this information. In September 2004, the court appointed Generic Trading, Martin Bergljung and Gerald Hoberman as lead plaintiffs and Milberg Weiss and Entwistle & Capucci as lead counsel. On January 7, 2005, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint (the "Consolidated Complaint"), on behalf of all purchasers "worldwide" of Nokia securities during the class period. The Consolidated Complaint expanded the original class period (January 8, 2004 through April 6, 2004) to October 16, 2003 through April 15, 2004. The Consolidated Complaint also added two new defendants in addition to the four individual defendants named in the initial complaint. The Consolidated Complaint alleges principally that Nokia's positive statements about its product portfolio and the projections based thereon were false and misleading because Nokia knew that there were substantial weaknesses in the product portfolio. The Consolidated Complaint also alleges that Nokia employed accounting and inventory techniques that were allegedly used to improperly manipulate sales figures.

The original complaint alleges that defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the securities exchange act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market between January 8, 2004 and April 6, 2004. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, the Company represented that sales growth in the first-quarter of 2004 would be between 3% and 7%, that the Company expected market growth to continue, and that the Company had a strong position in the market for mobile phones.

The complaint further alleges that on April 6, 2004, Nokia announced in a press release that first-quarter 2004 net sales would not increase by 3-7%, as previously stated but would decrease by 2%, that the Company had been unable to respond to changing trends in demand for mobile phones and that it was losing market share to its competitors. On this news, Nokia ADRs, which had closed at $21.15 on April 5, 2004, fell 16% to $17.73% in midday trading on volume in excess of 71 million shares.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Communications Equipment
Headquarters: Finland

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: NOK
Company Market: New York SE
Market Status: Public (Listed)

About the Company & Securities Data


"Company" information provides the industry and sector classification and headquarters state for the primary company-defendant in the litigation. In general, "Securities" information provides the ticker symbol, market, and market status for the underlying securities at issue in the litigation.

In most cases, the primary company-defendant actually issued the securities that are the subject of the litigation, and the securities information and company information relate to the same entity. In a small subset of cases, however, the primary company-defendant is not the issuer (for example, cases against third party brokers/dealers), and the securities information and company information do not relate to the same entity.
COURT: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 04-CV-2646
JUDGE: Hon. Richard M. Berman
DATE FILED: 04/06/2004
CLASS PERIOD START: 01/08/2004
CLASS PERIOD END: 04/06/2004
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP (New York)
    200 Broadhollow, Suite 406, Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP (New York), NY 11747
    631.367.7100 631.367.1173 ·
  2. Faruqi & Faruqi LLP (New York) (former)
    320 East 39th Street, Faruqi & Faruqi LLP (New York) (former), NY 10016
    212.983.9330 212.983.9331 · Nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
  3. Geller Rudman, PLLC.
    197 South Federal Highway, Suite 200, Geller Rudman, PLLC., FL 33432
    561.750.3000 888.262.3131 · info@geller-rudman.com
  4. Glancy Binkow & GoldBerg LLP
    1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Glancy Binkow & GoldBerg LLP, CA 90067
    310-201-9150 · info@glancylaw.com
  5. Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A.
    World Trade Center-Baltimore,401 East Pratt Suite 2525, Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A., MD 21202
    410.332.0030 · pivenlaw@erols.com
  6. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (New York, NY)
    One Pennsylvania Plaza, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (New York, NY), NY 10119-1065
    212.594.5300 ·
  7. Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP
    275 Madison Ave 34th Flr, Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP, NY 10016
    212.682.1818 212.682.1892 · email@murrayfrank.com
  8. Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
    3 Bala Plaza E, Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, PA 19004
    610.667.7706 610.667.7056 · info@sbclasslaw.com
  9. Wechsler Harwood LLP
    488 Madison Avenue 8th Floor, Wechsler Harwood LLP, NY 10022
    212.935.7400 · info@whhf.com
  10. Weiss & Yourman (New York, NY)
    The French Building, 551 Fifth Ave., Suite 1600, Weiss & Yourman (New York, NY), NY 10126
    212.682.3025 212.682.3010 · info@wyca.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 04-CV-2646
JUDGE: Hon. Richard M. Berman
DATE FILED: 01/10/2005
CLASS PERIOD START: 10/16/2003
CLASS PERIOD END: 04/15/2004
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Entwistle & Cappucci LLP
    299 Park Avenue, 14th Floor, Entwistle & Cappucci LLP, NY 10171
    212.894.7200 212.894.7272 · info@entwistle-law.com
  2. Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (New York)
    One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (New York), NY 10119
    212.594.5300 212.868.1229 · info@milbergweiss.com
  3. Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP
    275 Madison Ave 34th Flr, Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP, NY 10016
    212.682.1818 212.682.1892 · email@murrayfrank.com
  4. Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
    3 Bala Plaza E, Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, PA 19004
    610.667.7706 610.667.7056 · info@sbclasslaw.com
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date