ORN Lawsuit; ORN Class Action

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces NOK Lawsuit; NOK Class Action

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

May 2, 2019

Tom v. Nokia Corporation et al 1:19-cv-03509-ALC — On April 19, 2019, investors sued Nokia Corporation (“Nokia” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs in the NOK class action allege that they acquired the Company’s American Depository Shares (ADS) at artificially inflated prices between October 25, 2018 and March 21, 2019 (the “Class Period”). They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. For more information on the NOK lawsuit, please contact us today!

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

Nokia (NYSE:NOK) is a “network and technology company” engaged in the provision of hardware, software and related services for “telecommunications operators” and businesses. It is also engaged in the provision of “fixed networking solutions.”

The Company’s history dates to 1865, when it was founded as a single paper mill operation. Throughout its existence, the Company has adapted and provided products and services ranging from cable, paper products, rubber boots, tires, to televisions and mobile phones.

According to the Company’s website, Nokia didn’t devote its efforts to telecommunications until the 1990s. The benchmark of its success in the mobile phone sector occurred by 1998, when Nokia became “the best-selling mobile phone brand in the world.” Five years later, Nokia brought the first camera phone to the market. However, increased competition from other tech giants soon forced Nokia to team up with Microsoft. In 2014 Nokia sold its mobile and devices division to Microsoft.

Prior to that, in 2013, he Company adapted once again, laying the groundwork for its reemergence as a provider of network hardware and software by creating Nokia Networks. The Company also claims that its “2015 acquisition of Franco-American telecommunications equipment provider Alcatel-Lucent greatly broadened the scope” of its “portfolio and customer base.”

Nokia’s claims and/or lack of disclosures about that acquisition are at the crux of the April 19 complaint.

Summary of Facts

Nokia and two of its senior officers (the “Individual Defendants”) are now accused of deceiving investors by lying and/or withholding critical information about the Company’s business practices and prospects during the Class Period.

Specifically, they are accused of omitting truthful information about its acquisition of Alcatel-Lucent from SEC filings and related material. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused Nokia ADS to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth came out in an Annual Report that the Company filed with the SEC on March 21, 2019. In it, Nokia said in pertinent part: “During the course of the ongoing integration process, we have been made aware of certain practices relating to compliance issues at the former Alcatel-Lucent business that have raised concerns. We have initiated an internal investigation and voluntarily reported the matter to the relevant regulatory authorities, with whom we are cooperating with a view to resolving the matter.”

A closer look…

As alleged in the April 19 complaint, the Company and/or Individual Defendants repeatedly made false and misleading public statements during the Class Period.

For example, in a press release issued at the beginning of the Class Period, the Company said in pertinent part: “We expect to end 2018 with a strong financial position, based on strong seasonality in Q4.”

Then, in another press release issued on January 31, 2019, Nokia stated in relevant part: “”Our robust topline performance reflects strong competitiveness across our portfolio and that our strategy execution is tracking well.”

What the Company allegedly failed to disclose, however, was that Alcatel-Lucent had certain compliance issues that were potentially detrimental for various reasons.

Impact of the Alleged Fraud on Nokia’s ADS Price and Market Capitalization

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$6.26
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$5.88
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

6.07%

The following chart illustrates the stock price during the class period:

 NOK Class Action, NOK Lawsuit

Actions You May Take

If you have purchased shares during the Class Period, you may join the class action as a lead plaintiff, remain a passive class member, or opt out of this litigation and pursue individual claims that may not be available to the class as a whole.

NOTE: The deadline to file for lead plaintiff in this class action is June 18, 2019. You must file an application to be appointed lead plaintiff prior to this deadline in order to be considered by the Court. Typically, the plaintiff or plaintiffs with the largest losses are appointed lead plaintiff.

In order to identify your potential exposure to the alleged fraud during the time in question, you may wish to perform an analysis of your transactions in Nokia ADS using court approved loss calculation methods.

Recently Filed Cases

Listed below are recently filed securities class action cases being monitored by us, along with the class period and the deadline to file a motion to be appointed as the Lead Plaintiff in the action.  Please contact us if you would like an LK report for any of these cases:

NOK Class Action, NOK Lawsuit

About Us

Levi & Korsinsky is a leading securities litigation firm with a hard-earned reputation for protecting investors’ rights and recovering losses arising from fraud, mismanagement and corporate abuse.  With thirty attorneys and offices in New York, Connecticut, California and Washington D.C., the firm is able to litigate cases in various jurisdictions in the U.S., England, and in other international jurisdictions.

Levi & Korsinsky provides portfolio monitoring services for high-net worth investors and institutional clients.  Our firm also assists investors in evaluating whether to opt-out of large securities class actions to pursue individual claims.

For additional information about this case or our institutional services, please contact us.