Exhibit 99.1

Memorandum of Understanding

WHEREAS, (a) plaintiffs Bryce Nakoa and Tom Turberg (together, “Plaintiffs,” and each a “Plaintiff”); (b) defendant Mavenir Systems, Inc. (“Mavenir”); (c) defendants Mitel Networks Corporation and Roadster Subsidiary Corporation (together, “Mitel”); (d) defendants Pardeep Kohli, Benjamin L. Scott, Venu Shamapant, Jeffrey P. McCarthy, Ammar H. Hanafi, Vivek Mehra, and Hubert Depesquidoux (collectively, the “Mavenir Directors”); and (e) defendant Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC (“Morgan Stanley,” and collectively with Mavenir, Mitel, and the Mavenir Directors, “Defendants,” and each a “Defendant”), have reached an agreement providing for the settlement of the consolidated class action captioned In re Mavenir Systems, Inc. Stockholders Litigation, Consol. C.A. 10757-VCP (the “Consolidated Action”), pending in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the “Court of Chancery”), on the terms and conditions set forth herein;

WHEREAS, on March 2, 2015, Mavenir and Mitel announced that they had entered into a definitive merger agreement (the “Merger Agreement”) pursuant to which Mitel will acquire all of the outstanding shares of Mavenir common stock in a cash and stock deal valued at approximately $560 million (the “Merger”);

WHEREAS, pursuant to the Merger Agreement, Mavenir stockholders are entitled to elect to receive either all-cash or all-stock consideration for each share of Mavenir common stock that they own, subject to proration, in either case with a value of $11.08 plus 0.675 of a Mitel common share (the “Merger Consideration”);

WHEREAS, on March 5, 2015, Plaintiff Nakoa filed a complaint in the Court of Chancery against Mitel, Mavenir, and the Mavenir Directors, which complaint is captioned Nakoa v. Kohli, et al., C.A. No. 10757-VCP (filed on March 5, 2015), alleging, among other things, that the Mavenir Directors breached their fiduciary duties, that Mitel aided and abetted these alleged fiduciary breaches, that the Merger Consideration is unfair, that the sales process leading up to the Merger and the Merger Agreement was flawed, and that the deal-protection provisions of the Merger Agreement are unreasonable and unduly preclusive;

WHEREAS, on March 11, 2015, Plaintiff Turberg filed a complaint in the Court of Chancery against Mitel, the Mavenir Directors, and Morgan Stanley, which complaint is captioned Turberg v. Kohli, et al., C.A. No. 10779-VCP (filed on March 11, 2015), alleging, among other things, that the Mavenir Directors breached their fiduciary duties, that Mitel and Morgan Stanley aided and abetted these alleged fiduciary breaches, that the Merger Consideration is unfair, that the sales process leading up to the Merger and the Merger Agreement was flawed, that the deal-protection provisions of the Merger Agreement are unreasonable and unduly preclusive, and that Morgan Stanley was a conflicted financial advisor to Mavenir as a result of, among other things, certain affiliates of Morgan Stanley’s beneficial ownership of roughly 3.9% of Mitel’s outstanding stock (as reflected in a Schedule 13D filed by Morgan Stanley with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) on February 4, 2014);

- 1 -

WHEREAS, on March 23, 2015, the Court of Chancery entered an Order for Consolidation of Related Actions and Appointment of Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel, which order, among other things, (a) consolidated the two complaints filed as of that date into the Consolidated Action; (b) designated Plaintiff Turberg as Lead Plaintiff (“Lead Plaintiff”); (c) appointed the law firm of Faruqi & Faruqi LLP as Lead Counsel for Plaintiff in the Consolidated Action (“Lead Counsel”); and (d) appointed the law firm of Levi & Korsinsky LLP as Additional Counsel for Plaintiff in the Consolidated Action;

WHEREAS, on April 1, 2015, Mitel (a) commenced a tender offer for shares of Mavenir common stock by filing a Tender Offer Statement on Schedule TO and Offer to Purchase (together with all amendments thereto, the “Offer”) with the SEC; and (b) filed a Registration Statement on Form S-4 (the “Registration Statement”) with the SEC, of which the Offer forms a part;

WHEREAS, also on April 1, 2015, Mavenir filed a Solicitation/Recommendation Statement on Schedule 14D-9 (together with all amendments thereto, the “Schedule 14D-9”) with the SEC;

WHEREAS, on April 7, 2015, Lead Plaintiff filed a Verified Amended Class Action Complaint for Breach of Fiduciary Duties (the “Amended Complaint”) in the Consolidated Action, against Defendants, which, among other things, restates certain of the allegations in the two original complaints and adds new claims that the Schedule 14D-9 omits material information;

WHEREAS, beginning on April 8, 2015, Lead Counsel and counsel to Defendants began discussing the potential scope of expedited document and deposition discovery in connection with the Consolidated Action;

WHEREAS, on April 10, 2015, Mavenir filed Amendment No. 1 to the Schedule 14D-9;

WHEREAS, beginning on April 13, 2015, Defendants produced confidential documents, including board minutes, bankers books, board packages, and emails;

WHEREAS, on April 16, 2015, Lead Plaintiff filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction, and the Court of Chancery scheduled a hearing on that motion for Friday, April 24, 2015;

WHEREAS, also on April 16, 2015, Lead Counsel took the deposition of Defendant Jeff Hoffmeister, a Managing Director of Morgan Stanley;

WHEREAS, also on April 16, 2015, Mavenir filed Amendment No. 2 to the Schedule 14D-9;

WHEREAS, on April 17, 2015, Lead Counsel took the deposition of Defendant Jeff McCarthy, one of the members of the Mavenir board of directors;

- 2 -

WHEREAS, on April 20, 2015, Plaintiffs and Defendants (together, the “Parties,” and each a “Party”) executed a Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Governing the Production and Exchange of Confidential and Highly Confidential Information;

WHEREAS, counsel for the Parties have engaged in arms’ length discussions and negotiations concerning the potential resolution of the Consolidated Action;

WHEREAS, during these discussions and negotiations, and prior to entry into this Memorandum of Understanding (the “MOU”), the Parties did not discuss the appropriateness or amount of any award of attorneys’ fees and expenses to be paid to Plaintiffs’ counsel;

WHEREAS, Defendants state that they have denied, and continue to deny, all allegations of wrongdoing, fault, liability, or damage to Plaintiffs or the Class (as defined below), deny that they engaged in any wrongdoing, deny that they committed any violation of law, deny that the public disclosures were in any way deficient, deny that the processes by which the Merger Agreement, the Offer, or the Merger were negotiated were insufficient in any way, deny that the price to be paid to Mavenir stockholders in connection with the Offer or the Merger is insufficient in any way, deny that they acted improperly in any way, believe that they acted properly at all times, believe the Consolidated Action has no merit, and maintain that they have committed no disclosure violations or any other breach of duty whatsoever, but wish to enter into the Settlement (as defined below) solely because they consider it desirable that the Consolidated Action be settled and dismissed with prejudice in order to, among other things, (i) eliminate the burden, inconvenience, expense, risk, and distraction of further litigation; and (ii) finally resolve and terminate all of the claims that were or could have been asserted against Defendants in the litigation;

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs represent that they brought their claims in good faith and continue to believe that their claims have legal merit, and that the entry by Plaintiffs into the MOU is not an admission as to the lack of any merit of any claims asserted; and

WHEREAS, subject to the additional discovery as agreed to herein, Plaintiffs’ counsel believe that the terms contained in this MOU are fair, reasonable, and adequate to Mavenir’s stockholders and the Class (as defined below).

NOW THEREFORE, the Parties have reached the following agreement, which is intended to be a full and final resolution of the Consolidated Action and the claims released (the “Settlement”). The Parties contemplate that the Settlement will be reflected in greater detail in a definitive settlement agreement (together, with the exhibits thereto, the “Stipulation”), which will provide for and encompass the following and other customary terms:

- 3 -

- 4 -

- 5 -

judgment is final and no longer subject to further appeal or review, whether by affirmance on or exhaustion of any possible appeal or review, lapse of time, or otherwise; provided, however, and notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in this MOU, Final Court Approval shall not include (and the Settlement is expressly not conditioned on) the award of attorneys’ fees and the reimbursement of expenses as provided in paragraph 9 below, and any appeal related thereto. The Parties also agree to use their best efforts to prevent, stay, seek dismissal of, or oppose entry of any interim or final relief in favor of any member of the Class in any other litigation against any Party that asserts any Released Claim (as defined below).

a) for the full and complete discharge, dismissal with prejudice, settlement and release of, and a permanent injunction barring, any and all manner of claims, demands, rights, liabilities, losses, obligations, duties, costs, debts, expenses, interest, penalties, sanctions, fees, attorneys’ fees, actions, potential actions, causes of action, suits, agreements, judgments, decrees, matters, issues and controversies of any kind, nature or description whatsoever, whether known or unknown, disclosed or undisclosed, accrued or unaccrued, apparent or not apparent, foreseen or unforeseen, matured or not matured, suspected or unsuspected, liquidated or not liquidated, fixed or contingent, including unknown claims, which Plaintiffs or any or all other members of the Class ever had, now have, or may have, whether direct, derivative, individual, class, representative, legal, equitable or of any other type, or in any other capacity, based on his, her, or its ownership of Mavenir stock during the Class Period, against any of the Released Parties (defined below), whether based on state, local, foreign, federal, statutory, regulatory, common or other law or rule (including, but not limited to, any claims under federal securities laws or state disclosure law or any claims that could be asserted derivatively on behalf of Mavenir), which, now or hereafter, are based upon, arise out of, relate in any way to, or involve, directly or indirectly, any of the actions, transactions, occurrences, statements, representations, misrepresentations, omissions, allegations, facts, claims or any other matters, that were, could have been, or in the future can or might be alleged, asserted, or claimed, directly or indirectly, in the Consolidated Action, or the subject matter thereof in any court, tribunal, forum, or proceeding, including, without limitation, any and all claims which are based upon, arise out of, relate in any way to, or involve, directly or indirectly, (i) the Offer, the Merger, the Merger Agreement, or the Tender Support Agreements; (ii) any deliberations or negotiations in connection with the Offer, the Merger, the Merger Agreement, or the Tender Support Agreements; (iii) the consideration to be received by Class members or any other person in connection with the Offer or the Merger; (iv) the Schedule 14D-9, the Registration Statement, or any other disclosures made available or filed relating to the Offer, the Merger, the Merger Agreement, or the Tender Support Agreements; (v) the statutory or fiduciary obligations, if any, of the Released Parties (defined below) in connection with the Offer, the Merger, the Merger Agreement, or the Tender Support Agreements; and/or (vi) any of the allegations in any complaint or amendment(s) thereto filed in the Consolidated Action (collectively, the “Released Claims”); provided, however, for the avoidance of doubt, the

- 6 -

Released Claims shall not include (i) the right to enforce this MOU or the Settlement; (ii) the right of any member of the Class to pursue any properly perfected claims for appraisal pursuant to 8 Del. C. § 262; or (iii) any claims for any material misrepresentations or omission of fact made by Mitel unrelated to (a) the Offer, the Merger, the Merger Agreement, or the Tender Support Agreements; (b) any deliberations or negotiations in connection with the Offer, the Merger, the Merger Agreement, or the Tender Support Agreements; (c) the consideration to be received by Class members or any other person in connection with the Offer or the Merger; (d) the Schedule 14D-9, the Registration Statement, or any other disclosures made available or filed relating to the Offer, the Merger, the Merger Agreement, or the Tender Support Agreements; (e) the statutory or fiduciary obligations, if any, of the Released Parties (defined below) in connection with the Offer, the Merger, the Merger Agreement, or the Tender Support Agreements; and/or (f) any of the allegations in any complaint or amendment(s) thereto filed in the Consolidated Action;

b) that Defendants release Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ counsel from all claims, complaints, petitions, or sanctions arising out of the investigation, commencement, prosecution, settlement, or resolution of the Consolidated Action, and shall be barred from asserting the same; provided, however, that such releases will not include a release of the right to enforce this MOU or the Settlement;

c) whether or not each or all of the following persons or entities were named, served with process, or appeared in the Consolidated Action, the term “Released Parties” means Mavenir Systems, Inc., Mitel Networks Corporation, Roadster Subsidiary Corporation, Pardeep Kohli, Benjamin L. Scott, Venu Shamapant, Jeffrey P. McCarthy, Ammar H. Hanafi, Vivek Mehra, Hubert Depesquidoux, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, and each of their respective past or present family members, spouses, heirs, trusts, trustees, executors, estates, administrators, beneficiaries, distributees, foundations, agents, employees, fiduciaries, partners, control persons, partnerships, general or limited partners or partnerships, joint ventures, member firms, limited liability companies, corporations, parents, subsidiaries, divisions, affiliates, associated entities, stockholders, principals, officers, managers, directors, managing directors, members, managing members, managing agents, insurers, predecessors, predecessors-in-interest, successors, successors-in-interest, assigns, financial or investment advisors, advisors, consultants, investment bankers, entities providing any fairness opinion, underwriters, brokers, dealers, lenders, commercial bankers, attorneys, personal or legal representatives, accountants, insurers, co-insurers, reinsurers, and associates, of each and all of the foregoing;

d) that, upon Final Court Approval of the Settlement, any party providing a release (a “Releasing Person”) shall waive and relinquish, to the fullest extent permitted by law, the provisions, rights and benefits of any state, federal, or foreign law or principle of common law, which may have the effect of limiting the release set forth above. This shall include a waiver by the Releasing Persons of any rights pursuant to section 1542 of the California Civil Code (or any similar, comparable, or equivalent provision of any federal, state, or foreign law, or principle of common law), which provides:

- 7 -

A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO CLAIMS WHICH THE CREDITOR DOES NOT KNOW OR SUSPECT TO EXIST IN HIS OR HER FAVOR AT THE TIME OF EXECUTING THE RELEASE, WHICH IF KNOWN BY HIM OR HER MUST HAVE MATERIALLY AFFECTED HIS OR HER SETTLEMENT WITH THE DEBTOR.

The Stipulation shall further provide that Plaintiffs acknowledge, and the members of the Class shall be deemed by operation of the entry of a final order and judgment approving the Settlement to have acknowledged, that the foregoing waiver was separately bargained for, is an integral element of the Settlement, and was relied upon by each and all of the Defendants in entering into the Settlement;

e) that Defendants have denied, and continue to deny, any wrongdoing or liability with respect to all claims asserted in the Consolidated Action, including claims that they have committed any violations of law, that they have acted improperly in any way, that they have any liability or owe any damages of any kind to Plaintiffs and/or the Class, and that any additional disclosures (including the additional disclosures made in the Supplemental Disclosures) are or were required under any applicable rule, regulation, statute, or law, but entered into this MOU and executed the Stipulation solely because they considered it desirable that the litigation be settled and dismissed with prejudice in order to, among other things, (i) eliminate the burden, inconvenience, expense, risk, and distraction of further litigation; and (ii) finally resolve and terminate all the claims that were or could have been asserted against Defendants in the litigation;

f) that Plaintiffs and their counsel believe that the claims they have asserted in the Consolidated Action have legal merit, and that their claims were brought in good faith, but that they are entering into this MOU and will execute the Stipulation because they believe the Settlement provides substantial benefits to the stockholders of Mavenir and is fair, reasonable, and adequate;

g) for the Parties to request the entry of a final and binding judgment dismissing the Consolidated Action with prejudice (whether voluntary or involuntary) and, except as set forth in paragraphs 8 and 9 herein, without costs to any Party; and

h) that Defendants shall have the right to withdraw from the Settlement in the event that (i) any court permanently or temporarily enjoins or otherwise precludes the Offer or the Merger; or (ii) any Released Claim is commenced or prosecuted against any of the Released Parties in any court prior to Final Court Approval of the Settlement, and (following a motion by any Defendant) any such claim is not dismissed with prejudice or stayed in contemplation of dismissal with prejudice following Final Court Approval. In the event that any such claim is commenced or prosecuted against any of the Released Parties, the Parties shall cooperate and use their best efforts to secure the dismissal with prejudice thereof (or a stay thereof in contemplation of dismissal with prejudice following Final Court Approval of the Settlement).

- 8 -

- 9 -

- 10 -

Dated: April 20, 2015

- 11 -

[Signatures Appear On The Following Pages]

- 12 -

- 13 -

- 14 -