According to the law firm press release, VimpelCom Ltd. provides telecommunications services under various brand names in Italy, Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Armenia, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Algeria, Bangladesh, and Pakistan. The Company offers voice and data services through a range of traditional and broadband mobile and fixed line technologies. The Company offers mobile telecommunications services under contract and prepaid plans for both corporate and consumer segments; value-added and call completion services; national and international roaming services; wireless Internet access; mobile financial services; and mobile bundles. It also provides fixed-line telecommunication services, such as voice, data, and Internet services to corporations, operators, and consumers.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business, operations and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) VimpelCom had paid tens of millions of dollars to a company controlled by Gulnara Karimova (“Karimova”), daughter of the president of Uzbekistan; (ii) the payments to Karimova were unlawful bribes intended to secure VimpelCom’s access to Uzbekistan’s telecommunications market; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ statements about VimpelCom’s business, operations, and prospects were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On April 27, 2016, the Court issued an Order appointing Lead Plaintiff and approving Lead Counsel. Lead Plaintiff filed an amended Complaint on December 9.

On September 19, 2017, the Court issued an Order granting in part and denying in part Defendant's motion to dismiss.

On April 16, 2018, Lead Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed one of the Individual Defendants. On August 30, 2018, the Court issued an Order dismissing the claims against the Individual Defendants. Lead Plaintiff filed a second amended Complaint on April 14, 2020. Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss on May 15. On March 11, 2021, the Court issued an Order granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and dismissed the case without prejudice. On the same date, the Court reopened the Lead Plaintiff appointment process.

On April 29, 2022, the Court issued an Order appointing Lead Plaintiff and Counsel. Lead Plaintiff filed a third amended Complaint on March 1, 2023. Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the third amended Complaint on May 12. On September 29, 2024, the Court issued an Order granting in part and denying in part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.