WIMM BILL DANN FOODS OJSC (WBD)

Increased domestic production by our foreign competitors could reduce our competitive advantages against them, which would have a material adverse effect on our market share and results of operations.

A number of our foreign competitors, such as Danone, Parmalat, Lactalis, Campina, Ehrmann, Onken and Pascuale, have been investing and continue to invest in domestic production facilities, while others, such as Coca-Cola and Pepsi, have acquired domestic producers. These investments and acquisitions reduce the competitive advantages that we have over foreign competitors without domestic production capability. A continuation of this trend may result in increased competition for qualified personnel and higher labor costs, and would have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations. See “Item 4. Information on Our Company—B. Business Overview” for a further description of the recent investments by some of our foreign competitors in Russian production facilities.

If the Federal Antimonopoly Service were to conclude that we acquired or created a new company in contravention of antimonopoly legislation, it could impose administrative sanctions and require the unwinding of such transactions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

Our business has grown substantially through the acquisition and founding of companies, many of which required the prior approval or subsequent notification of the Federal Antimonopoly Service, or FAS, or its predecessor agencies. In part, relevant legislation restricts the acquisition or founding of companies by groups of companies or individuals acting in concert without this approval or notification. While we believe that we have complied with the applicable legislation for our acquisitions and founding of new companies, this legislation is sometimes vague and subject to varying interpretations. Additionally, although the common ownership by our shareholders of a number of companies which are now our subsidiaries was generally made known to FAS and its predecessors, the existence of the shareholders’ agreement among our current shareholders was not disclosed. If FAS were to conclude that an acquisition or creation of a new company was done in contravention of applicable legislation, it could impose administrative sanctions and require the divestiture of this company or other assets, which could have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

Further restrictions on our business which is categorized as a monopoly, the extension of monopoly status to our other businesses, or a finding that we or our distributors have violated antimonopoly laws could result in the regulation of our prices and restriction of our commercial activities.

Under Russian legislation, FAS may categorize a company as a dominant force in a market. Our baby food business is categorized as a monopoly in Moscow and the Moscow region, placing restrictions on our ability to increase our profit margins for that business. Any ruling that any of our other businesses are a monopoly could result in the regulation of our prices and restrictions on our commercial activities.

Following sudden and, in some cases, substantial increases in food prices in 2007, FAS initiated inspections of food producers, distributors and retail chains throughout Russia in order to determine whether these price increases were caused by price collusion among producers and retailers. While we strongly believe that we have not violated and are not currently violating any antimonopoly regulations, it is possible that FAS and its regional divisions will nonetheless determine otherwise. To date, the regional divisions of FAS have undertaken inspections of our operations in Omsk, Voronezh and St. Petersburg.  In Omsk, FAS ceased its investigation after finding no violations. In Voronezh, the regional division of FAS found us to be in violation of antimonopoly legislation and assessed us with a fine, although no factual or legal basis was given for this finding. We successfully appealed this decision to the higher FAS body and, as a result, this decision was declared invalid and a new

20

Increased domestic production by our foreign competitors could reduce our competitive advantages against them, which would have a material adverse effect on our market share and results of operations.

A number of our foreign competitors, such as Danone, Parmalat, Lactalis, Campina, Ehrmann, Onken and Pascuale, have been investing and continue to invest in domestic production facilities, while others, such as Coca-Cola, have acquired domestic producers. These investments and acquisitions reduce the competitive advantages that we have over foreign competitors without domestic production capability. A continuation of this trend may result in increased competition for qualified personnel and higher labor costs, and would have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations. See “Item 4. Information on Our Company—B. Business Overview” for a further description of the recent investments by some of our foreign competitors in Russian production facilities.

If the Federal Antimonopoly Service were to conclude that we acquired or created a new company in contravention of antimonopoly legislation, it could impose administrative sanctions and require the unwinding of such transactions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

Our business has grown substantially through the acquisition and founding of companies, many of which required the prior approval or subsequent notification of the Federal Antimonopoly Service or its predecessor agencies. In part, relevant legislation restricts the acquisition or founding of companies by groups of companies or individuals acting in concert without this approval or notification. While we believe that we have complied with the applicable legislation for our acquisitions and founding of new companies, this legislation is sometimes vague and subject to varying interpretations. Additionally, although the common ownership by our shareholders of a number of companies which are now our subsidiaries was generally made known to the Federal Antimonopoly Service and its predecessors, the existence of the shareholders’ agreement among our current shareholders was not disclosed. If the Federal Antimonopoly Service were to conclude that an acquisition or creation of a new company was done in contravention of applicable legislation, it could impose administrative sanctions and require the divestiture of this company or other assets, which could have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

19

Further restrictions on our business which is categorized as a monopoly, or the extension of monopoly status to our other businesses, could result in the regulation of our prices and restriction of our commercial activities, materially adversely affecting our results of operations.

Under Russian legislation, the Federal Antimonopoly Service may categorize a company as a dominant force in a market. Our baby food business is categorized as a monopoly in Moscow and the Moscow region, placing restrictions on our ability to increase our profit margins for that business. Any ruling that any of our other businesses are a monopoly could result in the regulation of our prices and restrictions on our commercial activities. The imposition of government-determined prices could, in turn, result in competitive disadvantages and a significant decline in revenues. Additionally, restrictions on expansion or government-mandated withdrawal from regions or markets would adversely affect our plans for expansion and could reduce our market share.

In the event that our minority shareholders or minority shareholders of our subsidiaries were to challenge successfully past or future interested party transactions, or do not approve interested party transactions or other matters in the future, the invalidation of such transactions or failure to approve such matters could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations or prospects or the value of the shares and ADSs.

We own less than 100% of the equity interests in some of our subsidiaries. In addition, certain of our wholly owned subsidiaries have had other shareholders in the past. We and our subsidiaries in the past have carried out, and continue to carry out, transactions which may be considered to be “interested party transactions” under Russian law, requiring approval by disinterested directors, disinterested independent directors or disinterested shareholders depending on the nature of the transaction and parties involved. See “Item 10. Additional Information—B. Charter and Certain Requirements of Russian Legislation—Interested Party Transactions.” The provisions of Russian law defining which transactions must be approved as “interested party transactions” are subject to different interpretations. We cannot assure you that our and our subsidiaries’ applications of these concepts will not be subject to challenge by former and current shareholders. Any such challenges, if successful, could result in the invalidation of transactions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations or prospects and the value of the shares and ADSs.

In addition, Russian law requires a three-quarters majority vote of the holders of voting stock present at a shareholders’ meeting to approve certain transactions and other matters, including, for example, charter amendments, major transactions involving assets in excess of 50% of the assets of the company, repurchase by the company of shares and certain share issuances. In some cases, minority shareholders may not approve interested party transactions requiring their approval or other matters requiring approval of minority shareholders or supermajority approval. In the event that these minority shareholders were to challenge successfully past interested party transactions, or do not approve interested party transactions or other matters in the future, we could be limited in our operational flexibility and our business, financial condition, results of operations or prospects could be materially adversely affected.

Over the past several years, we have sought and continue to seek to acquire minority stakes in our subsidiaries with the aim of acquiring 100% interests in each of our key subsidiaries. For example, in January 2006, we acquired 20% of Moscow Baby Food Plant OJSC, a subsidiary, from minority shareholders for cash consideration of $7.0 million increasing our beneficial ownership to 97.34%. In January 2005, we acquired a 10% stake in our subsidiary Siberian Dairy Plant from minority shareholders for a cash consideration of $1.1 million increasing our beneficial ownership to 87.1%. In March and April 2004, we acquired a total of an additional 6.2% of our subsidiary Tsaritsino Dairy Plant from our minority shareholders for a cash consideration of $3.4 million increasing our beneficial ownership to 97.6%. In addition, we acquired a 47.7% interest in our subsidiary Ufa Dairy Plant in September 2003

20

from minority shareholders for a cash consideration of $3.1 million increasing our beneficial ownership to 96.5%.

We are in the process of consolidating our businesses and merging certain subsidiaries into Wimm-Bill-Dann (formerly Moscow-based Lianozovsky Dairy Plant). In this context, we are re-organizing our legal entities, which may trigger a legal requirement that we redeem shares on shareholders’ demand. According to amendments to the Federal Law on Joint Stock Companies, which came into effect on July 1, 2006, a holder of more than 95% of shares in an open joint stock company has the right to buy out the remaining shares from the minority shareholders for a cash consideration equal to the amount determined by an independent appraiser. The new amendments also require a person purchasing 30%, 50%, 75% or more shares in an open joint stock company to offer to other shareholders of this entity to sell their shares at a price not less than the acquisition price of the respective stake. Pursuant to this requirement, in 2007 we bought a 4.66% stake in Ochakovo Dairy Plant for a cash consideration of $3.2 million and 0.60% of ordinary shares and 1.16% of preferred shares in Nazarovo Dairy Plant for a cash consideration of approximately $0.1 million for both stakes. While no additional demands have been made for us to buy out minority shareholders, we may face additional buy-out demands in the future.

Increased domestic production by our foreign competitors could reduce our competitive advantages against them, which would have a material adverse effect on our market share and results of operations.

A number of our foreign competitors, such as Danone, Parmalat, Lactalis, Campina, Ehrmann, Onken and Pascuale, have begun to invest in domestic production facilities, while others, such as Coca-Cola, have acquired domestic producers. These investments and acquisitions reduce the competitive advantages that we have over foreign competitors without domestic production capability. A continuation of this trend may result in increased competition for qualified personnel and higher labor costs, and would have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations. See “Item 4. Information on Our Company—B. Business Overview” for further description of the recent investments by some of our foreign competitors in Russian production facilities.

If the Federal Antimonopoly Service were to conclude that we acquired or created a new company in contravention of antimonopoly legislation, it could impose administrative sanctions and require the unwinding of such transactions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

Our business has grown substantially through the acquisition and founding of companies, many of which required the prior approval or subsequent notification of the Federal Antimonopoly Service or its predecessor agencies. In part, relevant legislation restricts the acquisition or founding of companies by groups of companies or individuals acting in concert without this approval or notification. While we believe that we have complied with the applicable legislation for our acquisitions and founding of new companies, this legislation is sometimes vague and subject to varying interpretations. Additionally, although the common ownership by our shareholders of a number of companies which are now our subsidiaries was generally made known to the Federal Antimonopoly Service and its predecessors, the existence of the shareholders’ agreement among our current shareholders was not disclosed. If the Federal Antimonopoly Service were to conclude that an acquisition or creation of a new company was done in contravention of applicable legislation, it could impose administrative sanctions and require the divestiture of this company or other assets, which could have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

Further restrictions on our business which is categorized as a monopoly, or the extension of monopoly status to other of our businesses, could result in the regulation of our prices and restriction of our commercial activities, materially adversely affecting our results of operations.

Under Russian legislation, the Federal Antimonopoly Service may categorize a company as a dominant force in a market. Our baby food business is categorized as a monopoly in Moscow and the Moscow region, placing restrictions on our ability to increase our profit margins for that business. Any

17

ruling that any of our other businesses is a monopoly could result in the regulation of our prices and restrictions on our commercial activities. The imposition of government-determined prices could, in turn, result in competitive disadvantages and a significant decline in revenues. Additionally, restrictions on expansion or government-mandated withdrawal from regions or markets would adversely affect our plans for expansion and could reduce our market share.

In the event that our minority shareholders or minority shareholders of our subsidiaries were to challenge successfully past or future interested party transactions, or do not approve interested party transactions or other matters in the future, the invalidation of such transactions or failure to approve such matters could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations or prospects or the value of the shares and ADSs.

We own less than 100% of the equity interests in some of our subsidiaries. In addition, certain of our wholly owned subsidiaries have had other shareholders in the past. We and our subsidiaries in the past have carried out, and continue to carry out, transactions which may be considered to be “interested party transactions” under Russian law, requiring approval by disinterested directors, disinterested independent directors or disinterested shareholders depending on the nature of the transaction and parties involved. See “Item 10. Additional Information—B. Charter and Certain Requirements of Russian Legislation—Interested Party Transactions.” The provisions of Russian law defining which transactions must be approved as “interested party transactions” are subject to different interpretations. We cannot assure you that our and our subsidiaries’ applications of these concepts will not be subject to challenge by former and current shareholders. Any such challenges, if successful, could result in the invalidation of transactions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations or prospects and the value of the shares and ADSs.

In addition, Russian law requires a three-quarters majority vote of the holders of voting stock present at a shareholders’ meeting to approve certain transactions and other matters, including, for example, charter amendments, major transactions involving assets in excess of 50% of the assets of the company, repurchase by the company of shares and certain share issuances. In some cases, minority shareholders may not approve interested party transactions requiring their approval or other matters requiring approval of minority shareholders or supermajority approval. In the event that these minority shareholders were to challenge successfully past interested party transactions, or do not approve interested party transactions or other matters in the future, we could be limited in our operational flexibility and our business, financial condition, results of operations or prospects could be materially adversely affected.

Over the past several years, we have sought and continue to seek to purchase minority stakes in our subsidiaries with the aim of acquiring 100% interests in each of our key subsidiaries. For example, in January 2005, we acquired a 10% stake in our subsidiary Siberian Dairy Plant from minority shareholders for a cash consideration of $1.1 million increasing our beneficial ownership to 87.1%. In March and April 2004, we acquired a total of an additional 6.2% of our subsidiary Tsaritsino Dairy Plant from our minority shareholders for a cash consideration of $3.4 million increasing our beneficial ownership to 97.6%. In addition, we acquired a 47.7% interest in our subsidiary Ufa Dairy Plant in September 2003 from minority shareholders for a cash consideration of $3.1 million increasing our beneficial ownership to 96.5%. In the future, minority shareholders may elect not to sell their shares to us, and thereby impede our efforts in acquiring 100% ownership interests in our subsidiaries.

18

Increased domestic production by our foreign competitors could reduce our competitive advantages against them, which would have a material adverse effect on our market share and results of operations.

A number of our foreign competitors, such as Danone, Parmalat, Campina, Ehrmann, Onken, and Pascuale, have begun to invest in domestic production facilities, while others, such as Coca-Cola, have acquired domestic producers. These investments and acquisitions reduce the competitive advantages that we have over foreign competitors without domestic production capability. A continuation of this trend may result in increased competition for qualified personnel and higher labor costs, and would have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

17

Increased domestic production by our foreign competitors could reduce our competitive advantages against them, which would have a material adverse effect on our market share and results of operations.

        A number of our foreign competitors, such as Danone, Parmalat, Campina, Ehrmann, Onken, and Pascuale, have begun to invest in domestic production facilities, while others, such as Coca-Cola, have acquired domestic producers. These investments and acquisitions reduce the competitive advantages that we have over foreign competitors without domestic production capability. A continuation of this trend may result in increased competition for qualified personnel and higher labor costs, and would have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations. See "Item 4. Information on Our Company—B. Business Overview" for further description of the recent investments by some of our foreign competitors in Russian production facilities.

17

A number of our foreign competitors, such as Danone, Parmalat, Campina, Ehrmann, Onken, and Pascuale, have begun to invest in domestic production facilities, reducing the competitive advantages that we have over foreign competitors without domestic production capability. A continuation of this trend may result in increased competition for qualified personnel and higher labor costs, and would have a material adverse effect on our market share and results of operations.

16