Ontario lawsuit. The plaintiffs in two of these proceedings in Quebec obtained court approval for discontinuances of their proceedings on January 17, 2002. The motion to dismiss and/or stay the third proceeding was heard on November 6, 2001 and the court deferred any determination on the motion to the judge who will hear the application for authorization to commence a class proceeding. On December 6, 2001, the defendants filed a motion seeking leave to appeal that decision. The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed on March 11, 2002. On October 16, 2001, an order in the Southern District of New York was filed consolidating
A class action lawsuit against Nortel Networks was also filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of shareholders who acquired the securities of JDS between January 18, 2001 and February 15, 2001, alleging violations of the same U.S. federal securities laws as the
On April 1, 2002, Nortel Networks filed a motion to dismiss both the above consolidated U.S. shareholder class action and the above JDS shareholder class action complaints on the grounds that they failed to state a cause of action under U.S. federal securities laws. With respect to the JDS shareholder class action complaint, Nortel Networks also moved to dismiss on the separate basis that JDS shareholders lacked standing to sue Nortel Networks. On January 3, 2003, the District Court granted the motion to dismiss the JDS shareholder class action complaint and denied the motion to dismiss the consolidated U.S. class action complaint. Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of the JDS shareholder class action complaint. On November 19, 2003, oral argument was held before the Second Circuit on the JDS shareholders’ appeal of the dismissal of their complaint. On May 19, 2004, the Second Circuit issued an opinion affirming the dismissal of the JDS shareholder class action complaint and on July 14, 2004 the Second Circuit denied plaintiffs’ motion for rehearing. On October 12, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court. On November 12, 2004, the defendants filed Brief for the Respondents in Opposition, and on November 22, 2004, the plaintiffs filed Reply to Brief in Opposition. With respect to the consolidated U.S. shareholder class action, the plaintiffs served a motion for class certification on March 21, 2003. On May 30, 2003, the defendants served an opposition to the motion for class certification. Plaintiffs’ reply was served on August 1, 2003. The District Court held oral arguments on September 3, 2003 and issued an order granting class certification on September 5, 2003. On September 23, 2003, the defendants filed a motion in the Second Circuit for permission to appeal the class certification decision. The plaintiffs’ opposition to the motion was filed on October 2, 2003. On November 24, 2003, the Second Circuit denied the motion. On March 10, 2004, the District Court approved the form of notice to the class which was published and mailed.
On July 17, 2002, a new purported class action lawsuit (the “Ontario Claim”) was filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Commercial List, naming Nortel Networks, certain of its current and former officers and directors and its auditors as defendants. The factual allegations in the Ontario Claim are substantially similar to the allegations in the consolidated amended complaint filed in the U.S. District Court described above. The Ontario Claim is on behalf of all Canadian residents who purchased Nortel Networks Corporation securities (including options on Nortel Networks Corporation securities) between October 24, 2000 and February 15, 2001. The plaintiffs claim damages of Canadian $5,000, plus punitive damages in the amount of Canadian $1,000, prejudgment and postjudgment interest and costs of the action. On September 23, 2003, the Court issued an order allowing the plaintiffs to proceed to amend the Ontario Claim and requiring that the plaintiffs serve class certification materials by December 15, 2003. On September 24, 2003, the plaintiffs filed a notice of discontinuance of the original action filed in Ontario. On December 12, 2003, plaintiffs’ counsel requested an extension of time to January 21, 2004 to deliver class certification materials. On January 21, 2004, plaintiffs’ counsel advised the Court that the two representative plaintiffs in the action no longer wished to proceed, but counsel was prepared to deliver draft certification materials pending the replacement of the representative plaintiffs. On February 19, 2004, the plaintiffs’ counsel advised the Court of a potential new representative plaintiff. On February 26, 2004, the defendants requested the Court to direct the plaintiffs’ counsel to bring a motion to permit the withdrawal of the current representative plaintiffs and to substitute the proposed representative plaintiff. On June 8, 2004, the Court signed an order allowing a Second Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim that substituted one new representative plaintiff, but did not change the substance of the prior claim.
A purported class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on December 21, 2001, on behalf of participants and beneficiaries of the Nortel Networks
