Nokia 2012 Annual Report Download - page 181

On September 19, 2012, a class action based on the US Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(“ERISA”) entitled Romero v. Nokia was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York. The complaint named Nokia Corporation, certain Nokia Corporation Board members,
Fidelity Management Trust Co., The Nokia Retirement Savings & Investment Plan Committee and the
Plan Administrator, as well as certain individuals from the Nokia Retirement Savings & Investment Plan
Committee. The complaint claimed to represent all persons who were participants in or beneficiaries of
the Nokia Retirement Savings and Investment Plan (the “Plan”) who participated in the Plan between
January 19, 2012 and the present and whose accounts invested in the Nokia Stock Fund. The
complaint alleged that the named individuals breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things,
permitting the plan to offer the fund as an investment option, permitting the plan to invest in the fund
and permitting the fund to invest in and remain invested in American Depository Receipts of Nokia
Corporation when the defendants allegedly knew the fund and Nokia’s shares were extremely risky
investments. On December 10, 2012 the Plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss the complaint against all
defendants without prejudice and filed a new complaint in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, naming as defendants Nokia Inc., the Nokia Retirement Savings and
Investment Plan Committee, and several individuals alleged to be plan fiduciaries, claiming to
represent all persons who were participants in or beneficiaries of the Nokia Retirement Savings and
Investment Plan (the “Plan”) who participated in the Plan between January 19, 2012 and the present
and whose accounts invested in the Nokia Stock Fund. The complaint alleges that named individuals
breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, permitting the plan to offer the fund as an
investment option, permitting the plan to invest in the fund and permitting the fund to invest in and
remain invested in American Depository Receipts of Nokia Corporation when the defendants allegedly
knew the fund and Nokia’s shares were extremely risky investments. We believe that the allegations
are without merit, and we will continue to defend ourselves against this action.
Agreement Related Litigation
We were involved in arbitrations and several lawsuits with Basari Elektronik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S.
(“Basari Elektronik”) and Basari Teknik Servis Hizmetleri Ticaret A.S. regarding claims associated with
the expiration of a product distribution agreement and the termination of a product service agreement.
Those matters have been before various courts and arbitral tribunals in Turkey and Finland. Basari
Elektronik claimed that it was entitled to compensation for goodwill it generated on behalf of Nokia
during the term of the agreement and for Nokia’s alleged actions in connection with the termination of
the agreement. The compensation claim was dismissed by the Turkish courts, and Basari Elektronik
filed for arbitration in Helsinki and Turkey. In October 2009, Basari Elektronik withdrew from the
arbitration in Helsinki and Nokia was awarded all costs in that matter. In 2011, the arbitration panel in
Istanbul, Turkey unanimously ruled in favor of Nokia and denied Basari Elektronik any relief. In May
2012, all claims were settled by way of a settlement agreement.
Product Related Litigation
Nokia and several other mobile device manufacturers, distributors and network operators were named
as defendants in a series of class action suits filed in various US jurisdictions. The actions were
brought on behalf of a purported class of persons in the US as a whole, consisting of all individuals that
purchased mobile devices without a headset. In general, the complaints allege that handheld cellular
telephone use causes and creates a risk of cell level injury and claim the defendants should have
included a headset with every hand-held mobile telephone as a means of reducing any potential health
risk associated with the telephone’s use. All of these cases have been withdrawn or dismissed.
We have also been named as a defendant along with several other mobile device manufacturers and
network operators in twelve lawsuits by individual plaintiffs who allege that the radio emissions from
mobile devices caused or contributed to each plaintiff’s brain tumor and other adverse health effects.
180