(Fornebu, Norway, and Tyumen, Russia - 30 September 2009) The Federal Arbitrazh (Business) Court of the West Siberia District, Tyumen, today adjourned until 24 March 2010 the hearing of Telenor East Invest AS's appeal of the ruling of the Eighth Arbitrazh Appellate Court in Omsk holding Telenor East Invest AS liable for $1.73 billion in damages as a result of a claim by Farimex Products Inc., the holder of ADRs equal to 0.002 per cent of VimpelCom shares.
At the beginning of today's hearing, Farimex filed a motion requesting that the Court delay the hearing until a case brought by Telenor East Invest AS against Farimex in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York has been heard. The Court granted that motion. Telenor's New York proceeding seeks to require Farimex to arbitrate its claims against Telenor East Invest AS in Geneva, Switzerland under the arbitration provisions of the VimpelCom Shareholders Agreement.
Telenor's appeal of the Omsk ruling of 2 March 2009 was originally scheduled to be heard in Tyumen on 26 May of this year, but was first adjourned until 10 June on the grounds that third parties had not been duly notified, and then again to 30 September. The reason given by the Court for the second adjournment was Farimex's purported need to review the documents filed in the Farimex case in New York.
At the beginning of today's hearing, Farimex filed a motion requesting that the Court delay the hearing until a case brought by Telenor East Invest AS against Farimex in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York has been heard. The Court granted that motion. Telenor's New York proceeding seeks to require Farimex to arbitrate its claims against Telenor East Invest AS in Geneva, Switzerland under the arbitration provisions of the VimpelCom Shareholders Agreement.
Telenor's appeal of the Omsk ruling of 2 March 2009 was originally scheduled to be heard in Tyumen on 26 May of this year, but was first adjourned until 10 June on the grounds that third parties had not been duly notified, and then again to 30 September. The reason given by the Court for the second adjournment was Farimex's purported need to review the documents filed in the Farimex case in New York.
