Unformatted text preview: ding penalties. The basis for the claim is the fact that revenue share paid by DTAC to CAT is made after deduction of excise tax. DTAC’s opinion is that it was entitled to do so by virtue of the resolutions made by the
Thai Council of Ministers in February 2003 and a letter issued by CAT allowing such deduction. Furthermore, on 20 October 2008, CAT filed a petition for amending the dispute requesting for additional value added tax (VAT) at the rate
of 7%. As such, the total claim amounts to NOK 4.4 billion. Currently, the dispute is still in the arbitration process, as DTAC in August 2008 did
not accept CAT’s proposal for the chairman of the tribunal. The process of resolving these matters could take several years. The management
believes, based on advice from legal counsel, that the arbitral award would not have a material adverse effect on the financial position of
On 31 August 2011, CAT filed a lawsuit with the Arbitration Institute requesting DTAC to pay additional revenue sharing on interconnection
charge for the concession year 16th (16 September 2006–15 September 2007) in the amount of NOK 761 million, with penalty at the rate of 15% p.a. from 16 December 2007 based on the ground that DTAC has no right to deduct any interconnect expenses from its revenue and has
no right to exclude interconnect revenue into its revenue to be calculated for the revenue sharing (payment of concession fee) to CAT under
the Concession Agreement. The management believes based on advice from legal counsel that the outcome of the dispute would not have a
material adverse effect on the financial position of DTAC.
3) Foreign ownership issue One of DTACs competitors, True Move made a number of complaints to the Thai Police and the Thai Ministry of Commerce early in 2011 that
DTAC is in breach of the Foreign Business Act (FBA) limiting foreign ownership to 49% of the company without special permission. In addition, /page 76/
telenor annual report 2011
notes to the financial statements / telenor group on 22 September 2011, one of DTAC’s minority shareholders (holding 100 shares in DTAC) filed a complaint against state agency, National
Broadcasting and Telecommunication Commission (NBTC), with the Central Administrative Court alleging that NBTC (as an administrative
agency) has negligently not performed its duties by allowing DTAC to operate telecom business. Therefore, the Central Administrative Court
has issued a summon requesting DTAC to be a co-defendant to this case. The management is of the opinion that the Telenor’s ownership
structure in DTAC was established, and is, in accordance with Thai law as well as the established practices in Thailand.
Arbitration in london to protect Telenor’s pre-emptive rights in the context of VimpelCom’s proposed acquisition of Wind Telecom s.p.A. On 28 January 2011, Telenor commenced an arbitration proceeding in London against Altimo Holdings & Investments Ltd., Altimo Cooperatief
u.A. (collectively, “Altimo”) and VimpelCom Ltd. in which Telenor claimed that it is entitled to exercise its pre-emptive rights in the context of
VimpelCom’s proposed acquisition of Wind Telecom S.p.A. On 15 February 2012, Telenor purchased 234,000,000 VimpelCom preferred shares from Weather Investments II S.a.r.l. (“Weather”), for NOK
2.2 billion, thereby increasing Telenor’s voting share in VimpelCom Ltd. to 36.36%. At the same time, Telenor and Weather entered into an
option agreement, granting Weather a put-option on Telenor for the remaining 71,000,000 preference shares in VimpelCom at the same
price per share as in the first transaction. Telenor has in addition certain situational call-options, amongst other related to the remaining
In connection with the transaction, Telenor has withdrawn all its claims against Altimo Holdings & Investments Ltd., Altimo Cooperatief u.A.
and VimpelCom Ltd. in the arbitration proceeding mentioned above. Telenor’s withdrawal of its claims will result in the termination of the
VimpelCom shareholders agreement.
1) In India, unitech Wireless (uninor) and many other telecom operators as well as the federal government through the Department of
Telecommunications and the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (“TRAI”), were named as respondents in public interest petitions filed
before the Supreme Court by the Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL), a non-governmental organisation and Dr. Subramanian Swamy.
These petitions sought the cancellation of the licenses granted by the government in January 2008 to such operators, an imposition or
punitive damages on grounds of alleged irregularities in granting the licenses, failure to meet eligibility requirements and delays in meeting
roll out obligations. On 2 February 2012 the Indian Supreme Court delivered its judgment on the public interest petition, in which it quashed all 122 licenses,
including those granted to uninor. The quashing is effective...
View Full Document
This document was uploaded on 03/21/2014.
- Spring '14