Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 03/16/2006 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: December 10, 2004

By the Order signed by U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald on March 14, 2006, the Court grants the defendants’ motion to dismiss in its entirety. The court has concluded that further amendments would be futile. The dismissal is granted without leave to amend the complaint. On March 16, 2006, the Court entered Judgment.

On May 2, 2005, the Court entered the Order consolidating the two cases and designating 04-CV-9472 as lead case. The City of Westland Police & Fire Retirement System was appointed lead plaintiff and Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP was approved as lead counsel. On July 11, 2005, a Consolidated Amended Complaint was filed, and the defendants responded by filing a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint.

The complaint charges VimpelCom, its CEO and CFO with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them: (1) that VimpelCom was passing fifty percent (50%) of its revenues from its Moscow operations to its wholly owned subsidiary KB Impuls, thereby improperly deducting fifty percent (50%) of Moscow revenues as expenses to VimpelCom; (2) as such, VimpelCom was only paying taxes on fifty percent (50%) of the Moscow revenues rather than on all revenues from its Moscow operations, including revenues passed onto KB Impuls; (3) that this improper deduction caused VimpelCom to artificially inflate its financial results by at least US$534 million for fiscal years 2001-2003; (4) that as a result of this, the Company's financial results were in violation of generally accepted accounting principles ("GAAP"); (5) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls; and (6) that as a result of the above, the Company's financial results were materially inflated at all relevant times.

The complaint further alleges that on December 8, 2004, VimpelCom announced that it had received an act with preliminary conclusions of the review of VimpelCom's 2001 tax filing by its tax inspectorate, stating that the Company owed an additional 2.5 billion rubles which is approximately US$90 million in tax (plus 1.9 billion rubles or approximately US$67 million in fines and penalties). A large portion of this amount related to the deductibility of expenses incurred by VimpelCom in connection with the agency relationship between VimpelCom and its wholly owned subsidiary, KB Impuls, which held the GSM license for the city of Moscow and the Moscow region. News of this shocked the market. Shares of VimpelCom fell $8.38 per share, or 21.78 percent, to close at $30.10 per share on unusually high trading volume.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Services
Industry: Communications Services
Headquarters: Russian

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: VIP
Company Market: New York SE
Market Status: Public (Listed)

About the Company & Securities Data


"Company" information provides the industry and sector classification and headquarters state for the primary company-defendant in the litigation. In general, "Securities" information provides the ticker symbol, market, and market status for the underlying securities at issue in the litigation.

In most cases, the primary company-defendant actually issued the securities that are the subject of the litigation, and the securities information and company information relate to the same entity. In a small subset of cases, however, the primary company-defendant is not the issuer (for example, cases against third party brokers/dealers), and the securities information and company information do not relate to the same entity.
COURT: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 04-CV-9742
JUDGE: Hon. Naomi Reice Buchwald
DATE FILED: 12/10/2004
CLASS PERIOD START: 03/25/2004
CLASS PERIOD END: 12/07/2004
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A.
    World Trade Center-Baltimore,401 East Pratt Suite 2525, Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A., MD 21202
    410.332.0030 · pivenlaw@erols.com
  2. Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (New York)
    One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (New York), NY 10119
    212.594.5300 212.868.1229 · info@milbergweiss.com
  3. Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP
    275 Madison Ave 34th Flr, Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP, NY 10016
    212.682.1818 212.682.1892 · email@murrayfrank.com
  4. Schatz & Nobel, P.C.
    330 Main Street, Schatz & Nobel, P.C., CT 06106
    800.797.5499 860.493.6290 · sn06106@AOL.com
  5. Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
    3 Bala Plaza E, Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, PA 19004
    610.667.7706 610.667.7056 · info@sbclasslaw.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 04-CV-9742
JUDGE: Hon. Naomi Reice Buchwald
DATE FILED: 07/11/2005
CLASS PERIOD START: 08/26/2004
CLASS PERIOD END: 12/08/2004
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A.
    World Trade Center-Baltimore,401 East Pratt Suite 2525, Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A., MD 21202
    410.332.0030 · pivenlaw@erols.com
  2. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Melville)
    58 South Service Road, Suite 200, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Melville), NY 11747
    631.367.7100 631.367.1173 ·
  3. Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
    3 Bala Plaza E, Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, PA 19004
    610.667.7706 610.667.7056 · info@sbclasslaw.com
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date