Nokia 2013 Annual Report Download - page 69

67
NOTES TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
tiff s’ motion for leave to amend their complaint a second time
and entered judgment in favor of Nokia. On October , ,
the plaintiff s fi led an appeal of the District Court’s order grant-
ing judgment in favor of Nokia. On June , , the Second
Circuit upheld the earlier decision of the US District Court for
the Southern District of New York from September ,  to
dismiss all claims made in the ERISA claim fi led against defend-
ants including Nokia Inc. and the Nokia Inc. Retirement Plan by
Javad Majad and Ryan Sharif. The Plaintiff had until September
,  to appeal the Second Circuit decision by fi ling a cert
petition to the US Supreme Court. The Plaintiff did not appeal
and the case is closed.
On September , , a class action based on the US
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) entitled
Romero v. Nokia was fi led 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 Linda Fonteneaux as well
as certain individuals from the Nokia Retirement Savings &
Investment Plan Committee whose identity is not known to the
plaintiff s as defendants. The complaint claimed to represent
all persons who were participants in or benefi ciaries of the
Nokia Retirement Savings and Investment Plan (the “Plan”)
who participated in the Plan between January ,  and the
present and whose accounts invested in the Nokia Stock Fund
(“the Fund”). The complaint alleged that the named individu-
als breached their fi duciary duties by, among other things,
permitting the plan to off er 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 invest-
ments. Plaintiff was provided plan documents and informed
that it had incorrectly identifi ed the proper defendants in its
complaint. On December ,  Plaintiff fi led a motion to
dismiss the complaint against all defendants, without preju-
dice and indicated it would refi le in California where the Nokia
Retirement Savings and Investment Plan is currently adminis-
tered.
Romero fi led a new complaint on December ,  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 sev-
eral individuals alleged to be plan fi duciaries, claiming to rep-
resent all persons who were participants in or benefi ciaries of
the Nokia Retirement Savings and Investment Plan (the “Plan”)
who participated in the Plan between January ,  and
the present and whose accounts invested in the Nokia Stock
Fund (“the Fund”). The complaint alleges that named individu-
als breached their fi duciary duties by, among other things,
permitting the plan to off er 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 invest-
ments. On May , , Nokia and the Named Defendants fi led
a motion to dismiss all claims against the defendants and are
awaiting the Court’s decision. On October ,  the court
granted Nokia and the Named Defendants motion to dismiss
all claims with prejudice. Plaintiff did not appeal and this mat-
ter is closed.
Antitrust Litigation
LCD AND CRT CARTEL CLAIMS
In November , Nokia Corporation fi led two lawsuits, one
in the United Kingdom’s High Court of Justice and the other in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, joined by Nokia Inc., against certain manufactur-
ers of liquid crystal displays (“LCDs”). Both suits concerned
the same underlying allegations: namely, that the defendants
violated the relevant antitrust or competition laws by entering
into a worldwide conspiracy to raise and/or stabilize the prices
of LCDs, among other anticompetitive conduct, from approxi-
mately January  to December  (the “Cartel Period”).
Defendants Sharp Corporation, LG Display Co. Ltd., Chunghwa
Picture Tubes, Ltd., Hitachi Displays Ltd. and Epson Imaging
Devices Corporation, as well as non-defendant Chi Mei Opto-
electronics, and Hannstar Display Corporation, have pleaded
guilty in the United States to participating in a conspiracy to
fi x certain LCD prices and have agreed to pay fi nes totaling
approximately USD  million. Further, the United States De-
partment of Justice has indicted AU Optronics Corporation and
its American subsidiary, AU Optronics Corporation America,
for participation in the conspiracy to fi x the prices of TFT-LCD
panels sold worldwide from September ,  to December
, .
Also in November , Nokia Corporation fi led a lawsuit
in the United Kingdom’s High Court of Justice against certain
manufacturers of cathode rays tubes (“CRTs”). In this law-
suit, Nokia alleges that the defendants violated the relevant
antitrust or competition laws by entering into a worldwide
conspiracy to raise and/or stabilize the prices of CRTs, among
other anticompetitive conduct, from no later than March 
to around November .
All of the defendants have now settled Nokia’s claims
against them on confi dential terms.
We are also party to other routine litigation, as well as
indemnity claims involving customers or suppliers, which are
incidental to the normal conduct of our business. Based upon
the information currently available, our management does not
believe that liabilities related to those proceedings are likely to
be material to our fi nancial condition or results of operations.