Processing your request

please wait...

Case Page


Case Status:    ONGOING    
On or around 05/15/2020 (Date of last review)

Filing Date: November 04, 2015

According to the law firm press release, VimpelCom 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, operational 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.


Sector: Technology
Industry: Communications Equipment
Headquarters: Netherlands


Ticker Symbol: VIP
Company Market: NASDAQ
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 #: 15-CV-08672
JUDGE: Hon. Andrew L. Carter, Jr
DATE FILED: 11/04/2015
CLASS PERIOD END: 11/02/2015
  1. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC (New York)
  2. Pomerantz LLP (New York)
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 15-CV-08672
JUDGE: Hon. Andrew L. Carter, Jr
DATE FILED: 04/14/2020
CLASS PERIOD END: 11/03/2015
  1. Gainey McKenna & Egleston (NY)
No Document Title Filing Date
—Related District Court Filings Data is not available