SEC May Pursue Former Lucent Execs

A report in today's Wall Street Journal says the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) may seek civil action against former Lucent Technologies Inc. (NYSE: LU) sales executives Nina Aversano and William Plunkett.

The report says Aversano and Plunkett received Wells notices, which indicate the SEC may pursue civil charges against the recipients. Aversano's notice supposedly requests details on Lucent's dealings with distributors, while Plunkett's supposedly relates to a $125 million credit offered to a wireless customer.

The SEC had previously investigated Lucent's accounting practices, a case that stemmed from the company's admission of a $679 million accounting discrepancy (see SEC Knocking on Lucent's Door). That case was settled in principle in February. Should the SEC approve the settlement, Lucent will pay no fines and will not have to restate its financial reports (see Lucent to Settle With SEC).

Lucent and SEC representatives both declined comment on the Journal story.

Aversano previously made headlines with a "whistleblower" lawsuit against Lucent, claiming she'd been fired in 2000 for criticizing then-CEO Richard McGinn. That suit was settled in January (see Lucent Puts Aversano Suit to Rest).

— Craig Matsumoto, Senior Editor, Light Reading

materialgirl 12/4/2012 | 11:55:01 PM
re: SEC May Pursue Former Lucent Execs Rot at the top again. McGinn caused alot of damage with his economic deception. What he gets for it is a $55k/mo pension instead of jail time.
jgh 12/4/2012 | 11:55:01 PM
re: SEC May Pursue Former Lucent Execs Hopefully, this SEC suit will find other Lucent executives, but its a start.
Nina Aversano wasn't fired because she criticized McGinn, who didn't criticize him at the end of his Lucent term, but because she didn't meet her numnbers and told him. Guess what, if you worked for Nina and told her you couldn't make your numbers, you were fired. What comes around, goes around.
BobbyMax 12/4/2012 | 11:54:47 PM
re: SEC May Pursue Former Lucent Execs It is hard to understand why Lucent should settle the cases of Nina Aversano. Nina did not want to perform her responsibilities and MCGinn had ample reason to file her. I believe Mr. William Plunkett
case needs to be carefully examined. I do not think it was withinP lunketts power to offer a customer $125 million dollar in credit. Did he receive a healthy kickback. Exactly what did he do.

Lucent is so battered that it should close down the company. There is no point to stay in business so that mabagement employes can be paid without having to produce anything. Recent bonuses awarded to Pat Russo and other employees who brought down the company with no products to sell.

It is of concern to me that Lucent has joined the company of Xerox, Novell, Motorola, 3Com, and Unisys is certainly remarkable. In spite of no bright future and the stock prices down to $1.50 from $75.00, Lucent has been bonuses and stock options.

Lucent has not been attepting to bring fresh blood. The old guard is still there who just want to live of very meagre earnings of the company.
Sign In