Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP Files Class Action Suit Against Nokia Corporation

Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (“Coughlin Stoia”) ( http://www.csgrr.com/cases/nokia/) today announced that a class action has been commenced on behalf of an institutional investor in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the American Depository Shares (“ADSs”) of Nokia Corporation (“Nokia” or the “Company”) (NYSE:NOK) between January 24, 2008 and September 5, 2008, inclusive (the “Class Period”), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”).

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from today. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff’s counsel, Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld of Coughlin Stoia at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at [e-mail]. If you are a member of this Class, you can view a copy of the complaint as filed or join this class action online at http://www.csgrr.com/cases/nokia/. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

The complaint charges Nokia and certain of its officers and executives with violations of the Exchange Act. Nokia manufactures mobile devices, and provides Internet services and digital map information worldwide.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s true financial condition, business and prospects. Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose: (i) that the positive statements about Nokia’s new product launches were without reasonable basis given the component supply shortages and manufacturing problems Nokia was then encountering; (ii) that the Company was losing market share due to intense price cuts by competitors; and (iii) that while defendants stated they expected the overall industry average selling price (“ASP”) to decline in 2008, they failed to disclose Nokia had dramatically slashed its ASPs to maintain its market share due to severe price competition.