Processing your request


please wait...

Case Page

 

Case Status:    ONGOING    
On or around 10/30/2019 (Date of last review)

Filing Date: April 19, 2019

According to the Complaint, Nokia is a network and technology company that provides hardware, software, and services for telecommunications operators and enterprises and provides fixed networking solutions. In November 2016, Nokia closed its acquisition of Alcatel-Lucent, a company that offers fixed, IP, optical applications and analytics technologies. Nokia and Alcatel-Lucent have been operating as a combined company since January 2016.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Complaint alleges Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that Alcatel-Lucent had certain compliance issues; (2) that, as a result, the Company would be subject to regulatory scrutiny; (3) that, as a result, the Company was reasonably likely to face penalties and fines; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On June 27, 2019, the Court issued an Order consolidating cases. On July 16, the Court issued an Order appointing Lead Plaintiff and Counsel. Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated amended Complaint on October 30.

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 #: 19-CV-03509
JUDGE: Hon. Andrew L. Carter, Jr.
DATE FILED: 04/19/2019
CLASS PERIOD START: 10/25/2018
CLASS PERIOD END: 03/21/2019
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP (New York)
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 19-CV-03509
JUDGE: Hon. Andrew L. Carter, Jr.
DATE FILED: 10/30/2019
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/27/2017
CLASS PERIOD END: 03/21/2019
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (NY)
    125 Park Ave, 25th Floor, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (NY), NY 10017
    212.791.0567 ·
  2. The Schall Law Firm
    1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, The Schall Law Firm, CA 90067
    424.303.1964 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
—Related District Court Filings Data is not available