Attached files

Intellectual Property

        We rely heavily upon the rights we obtain through license agreements with programming providers for the content we broadcast.

        We have registered trademarks for the "CTC", "Domashny", "DTV" and "CTC Media" name and logo in the Russian Federation. In addition we have registered trademarks for the "CTC Media" name and logo in Australia, Singapore, Great Britain, Denmark, Norway, Ireland, Georgia, Cyprus, Hungary, Benelux, Armenia, Kazakhstan and Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea in accordance with the international trademark registration procedure under the Madrid Protocol.

Employees

        The following table sets forth the number of our employees as of December 31, 2009, and a breakdown by function.

Financial Information by Operating Segment

        For financial information by operating segment, see "Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data—Note 16, Segment Information".

13

AVAILABLE INFORMATION

        We file reports, proxy statements and other documents with the Securities and Exchange Commission, or the SEC, which are available on the SEC's Internet site at http://www.sec.gov. You may also read and copy any document we file at the SEC Public Reference Room at 100 F Street, NE, Washington, D.C. 20549. You should call 1-800-SEC-0330 for more information on the public reference room.

        Our internet address is www.ctcmedia.ru. We are not including the information contained in our website as part of, or incorporating it by reference into, this Annual Report on Form 10-K. We make available free of charge through our website our annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and amendments to these reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such materials with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Item 1A.    Risk Factors.

        Investing in our common stock involves a high degree of risk. You should carefully consider the following risk factors and all other information contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K before purchasing our common stock. The risks and uncertainties described below are not the only ones that we face. Additional risks and uncertainties of which we are unaware, or that we currently deem immaterial, may also become important factors that affect us. There may be risks that a particular investor views differently from us, and our analysis of the risks we face might be wrong. If any of the risks that we face actually occur, our business, financial condition and operating results could be materially adversely affected and could differ materially from any possible results suggested by any forward-looking statements that we have made or might make. In such case, the trading price of our common stock could decline, and you could lose some or all of your investment. We expressly disclaim any obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as required by law.

Risks relating to our business and industry

Recent changes in Russian law may fundamentally change the way in which we sell advertising, which could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

        In December 2009, the "Law on Advertising" was amended (effective in 2011) to prohibit federal TV broadcasters from signing agency agreements with media sales houses that hold a TV advertising market share greater than 35%. The Russian Federal Anti-monopoly Service has the authority to seek the termination of agreements that allegedly violate these provisions. Video International, the media sales house that sells all of our national advertising and substantially all of our regional advertising, currently controls more than 35% of the Russian TV advertising market.

        As a result of this amendment, we anticipate that the structure of the Russian TV advertising market will change and that the number of sales houses will increase. In addition, it is possible that a greater portion of TV advertising sales will be made directly by broadcasters' in-house sales teams, rather than through sales houses.

        The amended law contains some provisions that are difficult to interpret and uses terminology that falls outside common industry practice. As of yet, it is unclear if any official interpretive guidance will be issued. In light of these ambiguities and lack of clarity, further amendments to the law are possible.

        The amended law may require us to change how we sell advertising. We may be unsuccessful, especially in the short-term, in transitioning to a new system of advertising sales that produces the same revenues, at the same margins, as we have enjoyed historically. The amended law could therefore have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

14

We currently rely on a single television advertising sales house for substantially all of our revenues, and therefore our operating results could be materially adversely affected if our relationship with this sales house were to be disrupted or if it were to fail to sell advertising on our behalf effectively.

        National television advertising in Russia and other CIS countries has historically not been placed directly with broadcasters, but rather through so-called "sales houses". In Russia, Video International currently controls the placement of a large portion of our national television advertising, and also places local advertising for our regional television stations. Revenues generated through Video International accounted for approximately 95% of our total operating revenues in 2007, 96% in 2008 and 94% in 2009.

        The length of our agreements with Video International varies, with the agreements relating to our CTC, Domashny and DTV Television Station Groups expiring at the end of December 2010 and the agreement relating to our CTC Network expiring at the end of December 2012. Agreements relating to our Domashny and DTV Networks expire at the end of December 2014. Our current agreements with Video International are terminable upon 180 days' notice by either party, and we cannot guarantee that the Video International agreements will not be terminated prior to the scheduled expiration, or that if they are terminated we will be able to conclude replacement agreements that provide us with the same level of advertising revenues or other benefits as the current agreements.

        Video International, typically in consultation with us, determines advertising prices, agrees the terms of sales contracts between it and advertisers and oversees the collection of advertising sales revenue. Video International typically consults with us on general budgeting matters, including average selling prices, the total number of gross rating points (GRPs) expected over the year, the allocation of GRPs across the year and similar matters. We do not have any direct input into the evaluation of the creditworthiness of potential new advertisers or direct control over collection of advertising sales revenues, and Video International could act unilaterally should it choose to do so when setting advertising prices and allocating GRPs.

        Early termination of our agreements with Video International, its inability or failure to continue to forward advertising fees to us, its failure to achieve targeted levels of advertising sales and any other disruption in our relationship with Video International resulting from the recent amendment to the Russian advertising law or otherwise would likely have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. See "—Recent changes in Russian law may fundamentally change the way in which we sell advertising, which could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations".

A reduction in our audience shares and ratings would likely result in a reduction in our advertising revenues.

        The level of advertising revenues that we receive is directly tied to our audience shares and ratings. If our audience shares or ratings were to fall as a result, for example, of competitive pressures, the underperformance of key programs, the failure to renew licenses, or a change in the method of measuring television audiences, this would likely result in a decrease in our advertising revenues, which could be material. In particular, from time to time we air one or two "hit" series during primetime that contribute disproportionately to our overall audience share, resulting in an overall audience share that we may not be able to sustain once that "hit" series is discontinued or loses popularity. Moreover, because we continue to rely on third-party production companies for a large portion of our programming and our programming library is not as extensive as those of some of our competitors, we may be unable to quickly substitute new programming for underperforming programming. If we do not consistently select programs or obtain rights to programs that achieve particularly high audience shares in key time slots, our overall audience share and, therefore, our revenues will be adversely affected.

15

We derive almost all of our revenues from the sale of advertising, which is sensitive to broader economic conditions. Our revenues may substantially decrease if the current economic instability in Russia and certain of the other CIS countries in which we operate continues or if those economies experience further deterioration.

        We generate substantially all of our revenues from advertising. In general, expenditures by advertisers tend to be cyclical, reflecting overall economic conditions and buying patterns. Since the introduction of commercial television advertising in Russia following the fall of the Soviet Union, advertising spending has fluctuated substantially, generally increasing during periods of economic growth and decreasing during downturns. For example, in August 1998 the Russian government defaulted on certain of its outstanding financial obligations and the Central Bank of Russia stopped its support of the ruble, leading to a steep devaluation. During the ensuing economic crisis, total spending on television advertising in Russia declined significantly, falling from a pre-crisis high of $550 million in 1997 to a low of $190 million in 1999. Economic recovery following the crisis was slow, and spending on Russian television advertising did not exceed the 1997 figure in US dollar terms until 2002. As a result, our revenues declined significantly after the 1998 economic crisis.

        More recently, the Russian economy had exhibited positive trends, such as an increase in gross domestic product and a stable and strengthening currency. During these years, total spending on television advertising increased significantly, from $2,330 million in 2005, to $3,160 million in 2006, $4,397 million in 2007 and $5,506 million in 2008. Beginning in the second half of 2008, however, Russia, like many other countries, began to experience economic instability, characterized by a steep decline in the value of shares traded on its stock exchanges, devaluation of its currency, capital flight and a decline in gross domestic product in 2009. Additionally, because Russia produces and exports large amounts of oil, its economy is particularly vulnerable to fluctuations in the price of oil on the world market and recent decreases in international oil prices have adversely affected and may continue to adversely affect its economy. Total television advertising spending in Russia has been adversely affected by this economic instability and, as a result, our operating results for 2009 were materially adversely affected. If the economic instability continues, it may continue to have a material negative impact on Russian advertising spending which, in turn, may adversely affect our operating results for 2010.

        Like Russia, Kazakhstan has also been experiencing economic instability. As a result, total television advertising spending in 2009 was negatively impacted and we currently expect advertising spending in 2010 to continue to be adversely affected. Moreover, during 2009 the Kazakh tenge depreciated approximately 18.6% against the US dollar. Both of these factors negatively impacted operating results for our Kazakh network in 2009. A further reduction in advertising spending in Kazakhstan or further devaluation of the tenge will negatively impact our operating results.

Recent declines in the value of the Russian ruble against the US dollar have negatively impacted our reported revenues and operating results. If the ruble depreciates further against the US dollar, our revenues and our operating results, both as reported in US dollars, will be adversely affected.

        Although our reporting currency is the US dollar, we generate almost all of our revenues through the sale of advertising, which in Russia is sold primarily in rubles. The ruble is also the functional currency of our principal operating subsidiaries. As a result, our reported revenues and results of operations are impacted by fluctuations in the exchange rate between the US dollar and the Russian ruble. In August 2008, the value of the Russian ruble began to depreciate against the US dollar. The overall depreciation of the Russian ruble for 2008 amounted to approximately 16.5%. The Russian ruble depreciated a further 2.9% against the US dollar during 2009 and, as a result, the average exchange rate of the ruble against the US dollar was 22% lower in 2009 than in 2008. This depreciation had a material negative impact on our reported results of operations for 2009.

16

        Additionally, given that substantially all of our revenues are generated in rubles, we face exchange rate risk relating to payments that we must make in currencies other than the ruble. We generally pay for non-Russian produced programming in US dollars. Moreover, as of December 31, 2009 we had $28.3 million in outstanding principal and accrued interest under our Credit Facility Agreement. Although we have and may continue to enter into hedging transactions in an effort to reduce some of our foreign exchange risk, we continue to be negatively impacted by the depreciation of the ruble.

        If the exchange rate between the ruble and the US dollar depreciates further, our revenues and operating results for 2010, as reported in US dollars, will be adversely affected.

Changes in the method of measuring television audiences have at times in the past resulted, and may again in the future result, in decreases in our audience share and ratings.

        The system of audience measurement in Russia, currently run by TNS Gallup Media, has been evolving as the advertising market has matured and in response to changing Russian demographics.

        Effective January 1, 2009, the audience measurement system was modified in response to an updated census that demonstrated changes in Russia's demographics. This census showed that the relative percentage of children, particularly teenagers, in the overall population decreased significantly due to the effect of a material drop in the birth rate in Russia from 1990 to 1995. We currently estimate that the modification in the audience measurement system decreases CTC's target audience share by up to 0.7 percentage points compared with the system that was in place prior to 2009, which negatively affects CTC's advertising revenues.

        Starting from July 2009, TNS Gallup Media weights the panel of measured cities based on broadcasters' technical penetration in a larger group of 125 cities. Following this change, our audience share could be negatively affected if we were to lose an affiliate in one of that larger group of cities, or if our technical penetration in those additional cities were to be lower than our average technical penetration.

        In January 2010, the size of the panel itself was increased from 65 to 72 cities. Each of our Russian networks broadcast in these additional cities, mostly through cable or independent affiliates. In addition, TNS Gallup Media made changes to the relative weighting of the cities in the panel. Although this re-weighting did not have a negative effect on our revenues on a consolidated basis, it did result in an impairment of some of our affected broadcasting licenses on a stand-alone basis. See "—A significant portion of our total assets are intangibles assets with indefinite lives. If events or changes in circumstances require us to further reduce the fair value of those assets, we may be required to record impairment losses that can materially adversely impact our net income."

        When changes to the system of audience measurement occur, we attempt to take steps when possible in respect of our programming and distribution to counteract the effects of such changes. We cannot ensure you that these steps will be adequate or effective, or that any further changes in the measurement systems will not result in a decrease in our audience share and therefore a material decrease in our advertising revenues.

A significant portion of our total assets are intangibles assets with indefinite lives that we do not amortize. If events or changes in circumstances require us to further reduce the fair value of those assets, we may be required to record impairment losses that can materially adversely impact our net income.

        We have intangible assets recorded on our consolidated balance sheet, such as broadcasting licenses, trade names and goodwill, that have indefinite lives and represent a significant portion of our total assets. Because these assets have indefinite lives, we do not amortize them but instead perform impairment tests on them annually or when events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying value of the assets may not be recoverable. If we determine that our estimate of the current

17

value of an asset is below the recorded value of that asset on our balance sheet, we record an impairment loss for the difference.

        As a result of the economic instability that arose in the second half of 2008, we recorded a noncash impairment losses that had a net effect on our 2008 net income of $153.7 million. This loss related to intangible assets and goodwill that we acquired in connection with acquisitions completed in 2008, including broadcasting licenses of DTV Television Station Group, trade names of DTV Network, broadcasting licenses and goodwill of Channel 31 in Kazakhstan, and the broadcasting license of our broadcasting group in Moldova.

        More recently, a change in the weighting given to panel cities by TNS Gallup Media required us to re-assess the carrying value of our broadcasting licenses in certain panel cities and, as a result, we recorded impairment losses that had a net effect on our net income of $15.0 million in the fourth quarter of 2009.

        In the future, events and changes in circumstances may again impact the carrying value of our intangible assets and require us to record additional impairment losses that could have a material adverse impact on our net income.

Loss of key personnel could affect our growth and future success.

        We believe that our growth and our future success will depend in large part upon our ability to attract and retain highly skilled senior management, production talent and finance personnel. We have recently lost several key personnel, including several important content, production, legal and finance personnel. In addition, we believe that certain competitors are aggressively courting some of our personnel. The competition is intense in Russia for qualified personnel who are familiar with the Russian television industry and/or who are knowledgeable about US accounting and legal practices. We cannot assure you that we will be able to hire replacements and/or retain other qualified personnel on reasonable terms or at all.

Restrictions on direct or indirect foreign ownership of Russian television companies could limit our ability to grow our business through acquisitions.

        In May 2008, the law "On foreign investments in economic entities that have strategic importance for defense and security of the state" (the "Ownership Law") came into effect in Russia. The Ownership Law imposes restrictions on direct or indirect non-Russian ownership in "strategically important" industries, including television broadcasters that broadcast to more than 50% of the population of a relevant constituent entity of the Russian Federation. Among other things, the Ownership Law requires prior approval from the Commission for Control Over Foreign Investments, and potentially from the Federal Security Bureau, for the acquisition by a non-Russian entity of an interest above a certain ownership threshold in a company operating in a strategically significant sector. It is anticipated that such approval will generally require at least six months.

        The Ownership Law contains a "grandfathering" provision with respect to pre-existing holdings in affected companies that requires notification of such pre-existing holdings but no approval requirement. We therefore believe that neither CTC Media's pre-existing ownership of its Russian operating subsidiaries, nor the pre-existing ownership of shares of CTC Media by non-Russian stockholders, will violate the Ownership Law or require any approval. We do believe, however, that we will be required to obtain approval under the Ownership Law for any acquisition of an affiliate television station that broadcasts to more than 50% of the population of a relevant constituent entity of the Russian Federation, or any acquisition of another Russian network. Such approval process is likely to be time-consuming and may in any event ultimately result in a rejection of a proposed transaction. As a result, we may lose out on acquisition opportunities to competitors, and our ability to grow our business through acquisitions in Russia may be limited. Even if the authorities approve such a

18

transaction, they may do so subject to conditions regarding the operation of the company—including, for example, the composition of its management—that may limit our effective control and operational flexibility.

Restrictions on foreign involvement in the television business in Russia could potentially be amended or interpreted in such a way as to result in our loss of necessary licenses or to require us to divest majority control of our Russian operating subsidiaries.

        In addition to the Ownership Law discussed above, the law "On Mass Media" (the "Mass Media Law") also restricts direct (but not indirect) foreign involvement in Russian television businesses. Following adoption of these provisions in 2002, we implemented a restructuring plan pursuant to which we created a holding company structure and reduced CTC Media's direct ownership in the CTC Network and each of our owned-and-operated stations below 50%. CTC Media's direct ownership of Domashny and the DTV Group, which were acquired subsequent to the adoption of these restrictions, is also below 50%. This restructuring was completed prior to the August 2002 deadline with respect to all entities in our group, other than our CTC-Moscow station; the restructuring of the ownership of that station was completed in December 2002. To date, no Russian governmental authorities have taken any action against our CTC-Moscow station for its failure to comply with the restrictions on foreign legal ownership by the deadline. Because CTC Media does not broadcast or distribute television programming in the Russian Federation, we believe that CTC Media itself does not fall under the definition of a "founder of a television or video program" for purposes of the Mass Media Law, and that CTC Media does not violate the foreign involvement restrictions of that law.

        The Mass Media Law could in the future be interpreted by Russian governmental authorities or a court to extend to, and to prohibit, indirect foreign ownership of or control over Russian broadcasters of television or video programs. In addition, the Ownership Law described above could be implemented or interpreted to apply in some respects to foreign holdings existing at the time of adoption of the law. In either case, it is possible that Russian governmental authorities could suspend or revoke broadcasting licenses or permits held by our networks and our owned-and-operated stations, or fail to renew any such licenses. If any law were to be adopted or interpreted to restrict indirect foreign ownership and control of Russian television broadcasters, and did not contain a "grandfather" clause with respect to existing holdings, CTC Media could be obliged to restructure its group in order to comply with such requirements, including by divesting a controlling stake in our networks and our owned-and-operated stations. If we failed to comply in a timely manner, the authorities could suspend, revoke or fail to renew broadcasting licenses or permits held by our networks or our owned-and-operated stations, or could take other actions against us that could limit our ability to operate.

Restrictions on foreign involvement in the television business in Kazakhstan could be amended or interpreted in such a way as to result in our loss of necessary licenses or to require us to divest control of our Kazakh operating subsidiaries.

        The Mass Media Law in Kazakhstan restricts direct and indirect foreign ownership of any Kazakh television broadcaster to no more than 20%. In February 2008, we acquired a 20% interest in the Kazakh television broadcast company Channel 31, and established two subsidiaries that provide the programming content and advertising sales functions to Channel 31 on an exclusive basis (together, the "Channel 31 Group"). Together, these interests provide us with a 60% economic interest in the Channel 31 Group as a whole. If the existing 20% limit were to be interpreted to restrict effective or economic control, rather than just direct ownership, or if the law were to be changed or interpreted to impose further restrictions or limitations on foreign ownership of Kazakh television broadcasters, we could be obliged to restructure this group in order to comply with such requirements or could be required to divest all or a portion of our interest in the Channel 31 Group. If we failed to comply in a

19

timely manner, the authorities could suspend or revoke Channel 31's broadcasting licenses or could take other actions that could limit our ability to operate the Channel 31 Group.

We recently completed several significant acquisitions, and continue to seek opportunities to acquire other stations, networks, production companies and other complementary media companies. We may encounter difficulties integrating our recently acquired businesses, and if we fail to identify additional suitable targets our growth may be impeded.

        We completed several significant acquisitions in 2008, including our third national Russian network, DTV; a majority economic interest in the Kazakh network Channel 31; a majority economic interest in a broadcasting group in Moldova; and two Russian production companies. In addition, in 2009, we acquired several regional stations. While these acquisitions represent important achievements in our growth strategy, the integration of these businesses and any additional businesses poses significant risks to our existing operations, including:

•

additional and significant demands placed on our senior management, who are also responsible for managing our existing operations;



•

increased overall operating complexity of our business, requiring greater personnel and other resources;



•

difficulties of expanding beyond our core expertise;



•

significant initial cash expenditures to acquire and integrate new businesses;



•

contingent liabilities associated with acquired businesses; and



•

incurrence of debt to finance acquisitions and high debt service costs related thereto.

        Additionally, the integration of new businesses may be difficult for a variety of reasons, including differing cultures or management styles, legal restrictions in the target's jurisdiction, poor target records or internal controls and an inability to establish control over cash flows. Furthermore, even if we are successful in integrating new businesses, expected synergies and cost savings may not materialize, resulting in lower than expected profit margins.

        As part of our growth strategy, we intend to continue to evaluate potential acquisitions that we believe are commercially attractive in light of the current economic environment. As a US public company, we are subject to securities laws and regulations requiring that we file with the SEC audited historical financial statements for businesses we acquire that exceed certain materiality thresholds. Given financial reporting practices in Russia and other CIS countries, such financial statements are often not readily available or not capable of being audited to the standards required by US securities regulations. As a result, we may be prevented from pursuing acquisition opportunities that our competitors and other financial and strategic investors are able to pursue.

A change in Russian law further limiting the amount of advertising time permitted on television could materially adversely affect our results of operations.

        Current Russian law limits the amount of time that a broadcaster may devote to advertising to no more than 15% of any broadcasting hour. From time to time, there are discussions in the Russian government regarding imposing additional restrictions on television advertising, such as limiting the types of products that may be advertised, limiting the number of advertising breaks allowed in certain programs or requiring channels to devote more broadcast time to public service announcements. If legislation were introduced to further limit our ability to broadcast paid advertising, we cannot guarantee that increases in advertising prices, if any, or any other steps we would be able to take to mitigate the impact of such further limitation would be sufficient to compensate for the loss of advertising time.

20

If free-to-air television does not continue to constitute a significant advertising forum in Russia, our revenues could be materially reduced.

        We generate substantially all our revenues from the sale of television advertising in Russia, which constituted approximately half of all advertising expenditures in Russia in 2009, having increased from 25% in 1999. In the broader advertising market, television competes with various other advertising media, such as print, radio, the internet and outdoor advertising. While television currently constitutes the single largest component of all advertising spending in Russia, there can be no assurance that television will maintain its current position among advertising media or that changes in the regulatory environment will not favor other advertising media or other television broadcasters. Increases in competition arising from the development of new forms of advertising media could have an adverse effect on our ability to maintain and develop our advertising revenues and, as a result, on our results of operations. Television viewership is generally declining in Russia. That decline is more pronounced in our networks' target demographics. Continued decline in the appeal of television generally and, in particular, in our key demographics, whether as a result of the growth in popularity of other forms of media or other forms of entertainment, could adversely affect the attractiveness of television as an advertising medium, which, in turn, could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations.

Competition for quality programming in Russia is intense and any failure to secure a steady supply of popular programming may negatively affect our audience shares, which in turn could have a material adverse affect on our results of operations.

        Our ability to attract and retain viewers depends primarily on our success in offering programming that appeals to our target audiences. Russian viewer preferences have been changing in recent years, with increasing demand for programming produced in Russia. There is currently a limited supply of Russian-produced programming and strong competition among the Russian networks and channels for such programming, as well as for popular foreign programming.

        If we are unable to produce or secure a steady supply of high-quality programming, or if we fail to anticipate, identify or react appropriately to changes in Russian viewer tastes by providing appropriate programming, our audience shares could be negatively affected, which would adversely affect our advertising revenues. Moreover, if any of the programming we produce, commission or license does not achieve the audience share levels we anticipate, we may be required to write-off all or a portion of the carrying cost of such programming, or we could be forced to broadcast more expensive programming to maintain audience share, either of which could have a material adverse impact on our results of operations.

The loss of licenses, or the failure to comply with the terms of licenses, could have an adverse affect on our business.

        All broadcast television stations in Russia are required to have broadcast and other operating licenses, which generally have renewable terms of five years. Only a limited number of such licenses are available in each locality. In addition, Russian law could be interpreted as requiring cable television operators to have broadcast and other operating licenses for each of the channels or networks they transmit on their cable systems. Most of the independent cable television operators that currently carry our networks do not possess such licenses. The issuance of a license, as well as the terms and conditions of any license, are often subject to the exercise of broad discretion by governmental authorities.

        The broadcasting licenses of our affiliate stations also contain various restrictions and obligations, including requirements with respect to the minimum amount of Russian-produced programming (usually requiring at least 50%) as well as locally-produced programming. Our affiliates have not always been in full compliance with all requirements of their licenses or obtained all the licenses necessary for

21

broadcasting. If the terms of a license are not complied with, or if a television station otherwise violates applicable Russian legislation or regulations, the license may be suspended or terminated (which decision may be appealed in court). If an affiliate were to broadcast without all the necessary licenses, broadcasting may be terminated and fines could be imposed.

        The broadcasting license of Channel 31 in Kazakhstan contains various restrictions and obligations. Recently, the Kazakh government enacted a law that requires that broadcasters broadcast at least 50% of their programming in the Kazakh language during every six-hour slot. Channel 31 has not always been in full compliance with these requirements. If the terms of a license are not complied with, or if Channel 31 violates applicable legislation or regulations, the license may be suspended or terminated.

        The loss of an existing broadcasting license, or the failure to obtain a broadcasting license in a new market, could reduce or limit the coverage of our networks and result in a loss of audience share and a fall in ratings, which could materially adversely affect our advertising revenues and business.

The inability of our affiliates to renew existing licenses upon expiration of their terms could result in the loss of audience share.

        The renewal of existing licenses is often subject to the exercise of broad discretion by governmental authorities. At any given time, several of our owned-and-operated stations and many of our independent affiliates are operating pursuant to broadcasting licenses that have expired and/or are in the process of being renewed, modified or extended. The inability to renew an existing broadcasting license, particularly in a significant market, could reduce or limit the coverage of our networks and result in a loss of audience share and a fall in ratings, which could materially adversely affect our advertising revenues and business.

The loss of independent affiliates could result in a loss of audience shares.

        We seek to enter into formal agreements with our independent affiliate stations that govern various aspects of the broadcast of our network programming. These agreements generally provide each party with the right to terminate the agreement on 60 or 90 days' notice without penalty. In certain instances, particularly in smaller cities and towns and with local cable networks, our arrangements are governed by letters of understanding that provide us with only limited recourse in the event of a disagreement. If an independent affiliate in a larger market, particularly in a city where audiences are measured and in which we do not own and operate a station, were to terminate its agreement with us, sell itself to a competing network or lose the ability to broadcast our signal, it could result in a decrease in our audience share.

We rely on third parties for the production of some of our original Russian programming, and our business could be adversely affected if we are unable to continue such relationships on acceptable terms.

        Although we produce an increasing percentage of our original programming in-house, we continue to rely on third-party production houses to produce a portion of our original programs. If we are unable to continue our close working relationships with the production houses we use or to develop new relationships, our ability to air premium new Russian content may be impeded, which would likely result in a loss of audience share and therefore a reduction in our share of the television advertising market.

We rely on third parties to provide us with re-transmission capabilities in certain locations, and our business would be adversely affected if such parties terminated or adversely changed the terms of those relationships.

        In certain locations, we depend on cable operators or other third parties to carry our signal. In Moscow, for example, television signals are transmitted from a central tower to roof antennas located on buildings throughout the city, and then amplified for retransmission within the buildings. The

22

original system, which was introduced in the 1960's, carried only six VHF channels. Mostelecom, the local provider, upgraded a number of roof antenna systems from 1997 to 2004 to add capacity for a limited number of additional channels. We collaborated with Mostelecom in this project, paying an amount per additional household connected, in order to help ensure that our CTC Network has allocated access on Mostelecom's systems where capacity was increased.

        We have entered into contracts with Mostelecom to secure the right of our CTC and Domashny Moscow stations to be connected by cable to additional households in Moscow. DTV also has a number of agreements with Mostelecom for cable connections to households in Moscow. These contracts do not, however, grant us the right to be connected to all households in Moscow for all of our networks. We continue to evaluate, from a cost benefit analysis, whether to enter into additional contracts with Mostelecom regarding other households. A second cable operator carries our networks' signals to approximately 15% of the Moscow households covered by our networks' signals. We pay this cable operator an annual fee for transmission to these households. A cable system similar to that provided by Mostelecom is in place in St. Petersburg and is operated by the local provider; there we currently have no binding contractual right of access to the system.

        In April 2007, the Russian Ministry of Telecommunications requested evidence of the legal basis pursuant to which some cable television operators, including those carrying the signals of our networks, carry certain broadcasters' signals over their systems. As a result of this request, some of our cable television operators, including Mostelecom, which is the primary carrier of our networks' signals in Moscow, indicated that they might be required to begin charging us transmission fees for carrying our signals on their networks. We and representatives of other Russian broadcasters met with the Russian Ministry of Telecommunications in the second quarter of 2007 to understand the ramifications of this inquiry. It was agreed that the broadcasters and cable television operators should try to resolve this issue independently, without involvement of the Russian Ministry of Telecommunications, by the end of 2007. While discussions continue on resolving this matter, to date, no resolution has been reached and no further actions have been taken.

        If we were to be denied continued access to the cable systems that carry our networks' signals in Moscow or St. Petersburg, our technical penetration would be materially adversely affected which would, in turn, have a material adverse effect on our audience shares. Moreover, if we were required to pay transmission fees to these cable operators, our operating costs would be increased, possibly materially.

We may not be able to compete successfully against other television channels and networks that may have broader coverage, greater name recognition, larger market share, wider programming content or access to more funding than we do, or with newer niche channels or pay-television services offering competitive programming formats.

        The Russian television broadcasting business is highly competitive. Our networks compete for audience share with other national television networks and channels and with local stations, as well as with niche broadcasters. We compete on the basis of both the actual and anticipated size of our audiences for specific time slots, as well as the demographic characteristics of our viewers.

        On a national level, CTC competes directly with other national broadcast networks and channels, including Channel One, Rossiya and NTV, as well as with the smaller networks REN-TV and TNT. Domashny and DTV compete for advertising revenues primarily with other smaller channels such as TV-3 and TVC, although they also compete with the national broadcast networks and channels for viewers within their target demographic groups. On a local level, our owned-and-operated stations compete with other stations for local advertising.

        Channel One and Rossiya were established as state television channels during the Soviet period and they remain under Russian state control. As a result, we understand that these channels receive

23

state benefits not generally available to private companies, including free signal transmission (in the case of Channel One), direct state budget subsidies (in the case of Rossiya) and preferences in licensing. Moreover, nearly every viewing household in Russia can receive the broadcast signals of Channel One and Rossiya, while only a more limited viewing audience can currently receive our network signals. The much broader coverage and name recognition of Channel One and Rossiya, coupled with programming geared toward a broader demographic group, help them to attract large audience shares. NTV, which is indirectly controlled by the state through Gazprom, the state-controlled energy company, also has a broader coverage than our networks, and we believe also benefits from free signal transmission. During 2008, Channel One had an average audience share of 20.9%, while Rossiya's was 17.3% and NTV's was 13.3%. During 2009, Channel One had an average audience share of 18.9%, while Rossiya's was 17.2% and NTV's was 14.1%. CTC's average audience share during both 2008 and 2009 was 9.0%. We believe that the strong audience shares of Channel One, Rossiya and NTV may give these broadcasters added leverage in negotiations with advertisers, advertising agencies and sales houses.

        Moreover, as we focus on entertainment programming, we are unable to compete with other broadcasters for audiences for news and sporting programs, some of which have among the highest audience shares and ratings in their time slots.

        In addition to competing with other free-to-air broadcasters, we compete with pay-television services that offer multiple channels to subscribers for a regular subscription fee, and that typically do not generate a significant portion of their revenues from advertising. As a percentage of the overall viewing market, the pay-television market in Russia is smaller than in the United States and Western European countries. Audience share for Russian pay-television is, however, increasing. In other countries, such as the United States, growth in pay-television services has often resulted in a fragmentation of the market and a corresponding decrease in the audience share of large national networks and channels. If pay-television services continue to grow their customer base in Russia, our audience shares and ratings could be negatively affected, which would adversely affect our advertising revenues.

We may face additional expenses and increased competition in connection with the planned transition from analog to digital broadcasting in Russia.

        In late 2009, the Russian government announced plans to introduce digital broadcasting throughout Russia by 2015. The specific terms of the transition are not yet known. Depending on the terms of the transition, we may face competition from other parties for digital frequencies or other access, and are likely to face additional costs in connection with requirements for new equipment and added staffing. We may also face increased competition from other broadcasters that may make the transition to digital broadcasting more quickly or efficiently than we do, or that are more successful in taking advantage of the new digital platform to introduce a better programming offering.

We have substantial future programming commitments that we may not be able to vary in response to a decline in advertising revenues, and as a result could experience material reductions in operating margins.

        Programming represents our most significant expense, and at any given time we generally have substantial fixed commitments for the succeeding two to three years. For example, as of December 31, 2009 we had contractual commitments for the acquisition of approximately $105.9 million in programming rights through 2010 and $65.5 million in 2011-2012. Given the size of these commitments at any time, a reduction in our advertising revenues could adversely affect our operating margins and results of operations. We would have only limited ability to reduce our costs in the short-run in response to such developments.

24

Our relationships with the co-owners of our television stations may limit our ability to implement our business plans and strategy.

        Over half of our owned-and-operated stations are 100% owned by CTC Media. Other investors own between less than 1% and 50% of each of the remaining owned-and-operated stations. In some cases, we depend to a significant extent on our local partners for their familiarity with the local business environment and public authorities, and we understand that some of our local partners are also minority shareholders in the local Video International subsidiary that sells local advertising for our owned-and-operated stations. Moreover, we may in the future similarly rely on joint-owners as we acquire additional stations. Any significant disruption in our relationship with these parties could make it more difficult for us to operate our existing stations.

        Russian law and some of the agreements governing these stations grant protective rights to our co-owners that enable them to block certain significant corporate actions. Under Russian company law, significant corporate decisions, such as declaring and paying dividends and entering into substantial transactions, require the consent of the holders of two-thirds or three-quarters of the voting interests of the company, depending on the subject matter and the legal structure of the company. In addition, unanimous shareholder approval is required in limited instances, which could further affect our control over certain actions. For example, approval of a joint stock company's initial charter and reorganization of a joint stock company into a non-commercial partnership require 100% approval of shareholders and, in the case of a limited liability company, increases in charter capital, amendments to a limited liability company's charter, and liquidation, among other actions, require 100% approval of the holders of participation interests.

        As a result, we are often required to obtain the consent of our co-owners when making significant corporate decisions. Although we are not aware of any specific transaction in which we failed to obtain the requisite approval of the co-owners of our stations, due to the formalistic nature of Russian law and the large number of corporate actions that are taken annually by our co-owned stations, we believe it is likely that, from time to time, not all necessary minority shareholder consents have been obtained. As a result, we cannot guarantee that co-owners of our stations will not bring claims against us for failure to obtain these necessary consents, which, if successful, could result in the transaction in question being voided. Moreover, even if not technically required by law or contract, we generally prefer to obtain the consent and support of our co-owners before undertaking significant corporate actions. If this consent cannot be obtained, we may decide to forego a transaction that is commercially favorable to us in an effort to preserve goodwill with our co-owners.

A systems failure could prevent us from transmitting our network signal and lead to a loss of viewers, damage to our reputation and a reduction in our advertising revenues.

        Our networks signals originate in Moscow and are uplinked to multiple separate satellite systems that transmit our networks signals to our affiliate stations and unmanned repeater transmitters. Despite our back-up systems, from time to time we experience signal failures. Prolonged or repeated disruptions in our signals could lead to a loss of viewers, damage to our reputation and a reduction in our advertising revenues. We do not carry business interruption insurance to protect us in the event of a catastrophe or termination of our ability to transmit our signals, even though such an event could have a significant negative impact on our business.

One of our principal stockholders owns a 50% interest in a Russian pay television network, and its interests may conflict with ours.

        One of our principal stockholders, MTG Russia AB, an affiliate of the publicly listed Modern Times Group MTG AB ("MTG"), acquired a 50% interest in Raduga Holdings in February 2010. Raduga is the sole owner of LCC DaoGeoCom, which operates Raduga TV, a nationwide Russian

25

digital satellite pay-TV platform. Hans-Holger Albrecht, the President and CEO of MTG, is a Co-Chairman of our board of directors; Mathias Hermansson, Chief Financial Officer of MTG, and Irina Gofman, Chief Executive Officer of MTG Russia AB, are members of our board of directors. All of our Russian networks are currently carried by Raduga TV.

        Although we do not currently operate in the pay-TV market, and do not currently compete with Raduga TV, MTG's interest in another Russian television business may result in conflicts of interest among MTG, our company and our other stockholders in circumstances in which our interests are not aligned. We can provide no assurance that any such conflicts will be resolved in our favor.

We do not carry all of the insurance coverage customary in many countries for a business of our size and nature, and as a result could experience substantial loss or disruption.

        The insurance industry is less developed in Russia than in other developed countries, and many forms of insurance protection common in other countries are not yet available in Russia on comparable terms, including coverage for business interruption. At present, we have no coverage for business interruption or loss of key management personnel. We do not maintain separate funds or otherwise set aside reserves for these types of losses. Any such loss may cause substantial disruption and may have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Risks relating to doing business and investing in Russia

The Russian banking system remains underdeveloped, and another banking crisis could place severe liquidity constraints on our business.

        Russia's banking and other financial systems are less developed and regulated than those of many other developed countries, and Russian legislation relating to banks and bank accounts is subject to varying interpretations and inconsistent application. Many Russian banks do not meet international banking standards, and the transparency of the Russian banking sector still lags far behind internationally accepted norms. Furthermore, Russian bank deposits made by corporate entities generally are not insured.

        The recent disruption in the world credit markets has also negatively impacted the banking sector in Russia. There are currently a limited number of creditworthy Russian banks, most of which are located in Moscow and the largest of which are state-owned. We generally hold a large majority of our cash balance in Russian banks (such as Alfa Bank, which is an affiliate of one of our principal stockholders), including subsidiaries of foreign banks. Of that balance, a significant portion is held in ruble-denominated accounts. There are few, if any, safe ruble-denominated instruments in which we may invest our excess ruble cash. A banking crisis or the bankruptcy or insolvency of the banks from which we receive or with which we hold our funds could result in the loss of our deposits or affect our ability to complete banking transactions in Russia, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial conditions and results of operations.

Businesses in Russia, especially media companies, can be subject to politically motivated actions, which could materially adversely affect our operations.

        The Russian government has taken various actions in recent years against business people and companies operating in Russia that have been perceived as having been politically motivated, including actions for technical violations of law or violations of laws that have been applied retroactively, including violations of tax laws. These actions have on occasion resulted in significant fluctuations in the market prices of the securities of businesses operating in Russia, a weakening of investor confidence in Russia and doubts about the progress of market and political reforms in Russia.

26

        Media businesses can be particularly vulnerable to politically motivated actions. NTV, TV-6 and TVS have all experienced what could be characterized as politically motivated actions, including efforts to effect changes of control. As a result of these actions, TV-6, which became TVS, is no longer broadcasting. We believe that our focus on entertainment, and the fact that we broadcast entertainment and celebrity news, but do not offer "hard" news, commentary or analysis on our national networks, could lessen the risk of provoking politically motivated actions. However, we do not restrict the ability of our independent affiliates to broadcast local news in local broadcasting windows, and approximately 17% of our independent affiliates, as well as two of our owned-and-operated CTC stations, broadcast local political news, generally with the approval of our local partners and the local authorities. Any politically motivated action against us, our networks, our independent affiliates, or any of our principal stockholders, including Alfa Group, which is active in many industries in Russia, could materially adversely affect our operations.

The Russian legal system can create an uncertain environment for investment and business activity, which could have a material adverse effect on our business and the value of our common stock.

        The legal framework to support a market economy remains new and in flux in Russia and, as a result, the Russian legal system can be characterized by:

•

inconsistencies between and among laws and governmental, ministerial and local regulations, orders, decisions, resolutions and other acts;



•

substantial gaps in the regulatory structure resulting from the delay in adoption or absence of implementing regulations;



•

limited judicial and administrative guidance on interpreting Russian legislation;



•

the relative inexperience of judges and courts in interpreting relatively new commercial legislation;



•

a lack of judicial independence from political, social and commercial forces;



•

under-funding and under-staffing of the court system;



•

a high degree of discretion on the part of the judiciary and governmental authorities; and



•

poorly developed bankruptcy procedures that are subject to abuse.

        As is true of civil law systems, judicial precedents generally have no binding effect on subsequent decisions. Not all Russian legislation and court decisions are readily available to the public or organized in a manner that facilitates understanding. The Russian judicial system can be slow, and enforcement of court orders can in practice be very difficult. All of these factors make judicial decisions in Russia difficult to predict and effective redress uncertain. Additionally, court claims and governmental prosecutions are sometimes used in furtherance of political aims.

        In addition, several key Russian laws, including the amendment to the Law on Advertising and the Ownership Law (both discussed above), have only recently been enacted or have been subject to only limited interpretation to date. The untested nature of much of recent Russian legislation, the lack of consensus about the scope, content and pace of economic and political reform and the rapid evolution of the Russian legal system in ways that may not always coincide with market developments may place the enforceability and underlying constitutionality of laws in doubt and result in ambiguities, inconsistencies and anomalies in the Russian legal system. Any of these weaknesses could affect our ability to enforce our rights under our licenses and under our contracts, or to defend ourselves against claims by others. Furthermore, we cannot assure you that regulators, judicial authorities or third parties will not challenge our compliance with applicable laws, decrees and regulations.

27

Selective or arbitrary government action may have an adverse effect on our business and the value of our common stock.

        Government authorities have a high degree of discretion in Russia and have at times exercised their discretion selectively or arbitrarily, without hearing or prior notice, and sometimes in a manner that is influenced by political or commercial considerations. The government also has the power, in certain circumstances, to interfere with the performance of, nullify or terminate contracts. Selective or arbitrary actions have included withdrawal of licenses, sudden and unexpected tax audits, criminal prosecutions and civil actions. Federal and local government entities have also used common defects in documentation as pretexts for court claims and other demands to invalidate and/or to void transactions, apparently for political purposes. We cannot assure you that regulators, judicial authorities or third parties will not challenge our compliance (including that of our subsidiaries) with applicable laws, decrees and regulations in Russia. Selective or arbitrary government action could have a material adverse effect on our business and on the value of our common stock.

If the Russian Federal Anti-monopoly Service were to conclude that we acquired or created a new company in contravention of anti-monopoly legislation, it could impose fines or administrative sanctions and could require the divestiture of such company or other assets.

        Our business has grown in part through the acquisition and establishment of companies, many of which transactions required the prior approval of or subsequent notification to the Russian Federal Anti-monopoly Service or its predecessor agencies (the "FAS"). The relevant legislation restricts the acquisition or establishment of companies by groups of companies or individuals acting in concert without the required approval or notification. This legislation is vague in parts and subject to varying interpretations. If the Federal Anti-monopoly Service were to conclude that an acquisition or establishment of a new company had been effected in contravention of applicable legislation and competition has been reduced as a result, it could impose administrative sanctions and require the divestiture of such company or other assets, adversely affecting our business strategy and our results of operations.

Russian law requires the approval of certain transactions by the minority shareholders of our subsidiaries, including many of our own-and-operated television stations, and failure to receive this approval could adversely affect our business and results of operations.

        We own less than 100% of many of our owned-and-operated stations. Under Russian law, certain transactions defined as "interested party transactions" require approval by disinterested members of the board of directors or disinterested shareholders of the companies involved. Our owned-and-operated stations that have other shareholders engage in numerous transactions with us that require interested party transaction approvals in accordance with Russian law. These transactions have not always been properly approved, and therefore may be contested by minority shareholders. In the event that these other shareholders were successfully to contest past interested party transactions, or prevent the approval of such transactions in the future, our flexibility in operating these television stations could be limited and our results of operations could be adversely affected.

        Certain transactions between members of our consolidated corporate group may constitute interested party transactions under Russian law even when the companies involved are wholly owned by us. Although we generally endeavor to obtain all corporate approvals required under Russian law to consummate these transactions, we have not always applied special approval procedures in connection with our consummation of transactions with or between our subsidiaries. In the event that a claim is filed in relation to certain transactions with or between our subsidiaries, such transactions are found to have been interested party transactions, and we are found to have failed to obtain the appropriate approvals, such transactions may be declared invalid. The unwinding of any transactions concluded with or between our subsidiaries may have a negative impact on our business and results of operations.

28

If one of our principal subsidiaries is forced into liquidation due to negative net assets, our results of operations could suffer.

        If at the end of any fiscal year a Russian company's net assets as determined in accordance with Russian accounting regulations are below the minimum amount of charter capital required by Russian law, the company is required to convene a shareholders meeting to adopt a decision to liquidate. If it fails to do so within a "reasonable period," the company's creditors may request early termination or acceleration of the company's obligations to them, as well as damages, and governmental authorities may seek to cause the involuntary liquidation of the company. Under an earlier version of this law, the company's shareholders could also bring an action to force the liquidation of the company. It is unclear under Russian law whether a historical violation of this requirement may be retroactively cured, even if a company later comes into compliance with the requirement. On occasion, Russian courts have ordered the involuntary liquidation of a company for having negative net assets even if the company has continued to fulfill its obligations and had net assets in excess of the minimum amount at the time of liquidation.

        Certain of our regional subsidiaries have had, and continue to have, negative equity as reported in their respective Russian statutory financial statements. None of these companies has applied for voluntary liquidation. We are currently considering the steps that can be taken to remedy the negative net asset value of these subsidiaries, but we have not included it as a contingency in our financial statements because we believe that, so long as these subsidiaries continue to fulfill their obligations, the risk of their forced liquidation is remote.

        There has been no judicial or other official interpretation of what constitutes a "reasonable period" within which a company must act to liquidate. If any of our subsidiaries were to be liquidated involuntarily, we would be forced to reorganize the operations we currently conduct through that subsidiary. The liquidation of any of the subsidiaries within our Television Station Groups would result in the termination of their existing broadcast and other licenses, and we cannot assure you that we would be able to secure new licenses needed for these stations to continue to operate. Accordingly, any liquidation could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Shareholder liability under Russian legislation could cause us to become liable for the obligations of our subsidiaries.

        The Russian Civil Code, the Law on Joint Stock Companies and the Law on Limited Liability Companies generally provide that shareholders in a Russian joint stock company or limited liability company are not liable for the obligations of the company and bear only the risk of loss of their investment. This may not be the case, however, when one person (an "effective parent") is capable of determining decisions made by another (an "effective subsidiary"). The effective parent bears joint and several responsibility for transactions concluded by the effective subsidiary in carrying out these decisions in certain circumstances.

        In addition, an effective parent is secondarily liable for an effective subsidiary's debts if an effective subsidiary becomes insolvent or bankrupt as a result of the action or inaction of an effective parent. This is the case no matter how the effective parent's capability to determine decisions of the effective subsidiary arises. For example, this liability could arise through ownership of voting securities or by contract. In these instances, other shareholders of the effective subsidiary may claim compensation for the effective subsidiary's losses from the effective parent that caused the effective subsidiary to act or fail to act, knowing that such action or inaction would result in losses. Accordingly, in CTC Media's position as an effective parent, it could be liable in some cases for the debts of its effective subsidiaries. Although the total indebtedness of CTC Media's effective subsidiaries is currently immaterial, it is possible that CTC Media could face material liability in this regard in the future, which could materially adversely affect our business and our results of operations.

29

Changes in the Russian tax system or arbitrary or unforeseen application of existing rules could materially adversely affect our financial condition.

        Our tax burden may become greater than the estimated amount that we have expensed to date and paid or accrued on our balance sheets. Russian tax authorities have often been arbitrary and aggressive in their interpretation of tax laws and their many ambiguities, as well as in their enforcement and collection activities. Many companies are often forced to negotiate their tax bills with tax inspectors who may demand higher taxes than applicable law appears to provide. Any additional tax liability, as well as any unforeseen changes in Russian tax laws, could have a material adverse effect on our future results of operations or cash flows in a particular period. We have at times accrued substantial amounts for contingent tax liabilities, a substantial portion of which accruals we have reversed as contingencies have been resolved favorably or changes in circumstances have occurred. The amounts currently accrued for tax contingencies may not be sufficient to meet any liability we may ultimately face. From time to time, we also identify tax contingencies for which we have not provided an accrual. Such unaccrued tax contingencies could materialize and require us to pay additional amounts of tax.

        Under Russian accounting and tax principles, financial statements of Russian companies are not consolidated for tax purposes. As a result, each Russian-registered entity in our group pays its own Russian taxes and we cannot offset the profits or losses in any single entity against the profits and losses of any other entity. Consequently, our overall effective tax rate may increase as we expand our operations, unless we are able to implement an effective corporate structure that minimizes the effect of these Russian accounting and tax norms.

        The Russian tax system imposes additional burdens and costs on our operations in Russia, and complicates our tax planning and related business decisions. The uncertainty involved potentially exposes us to significant fines, penalties and enforcement measures despite our best efforts at compliance, which could result in a greater than expected tax burden on our subsidiaries. These factors raise the risk of a sudden imposition of arbitrary or onerous taxes on our operations in Russia. This could adversely affect our business and the value of our common stock.

Any US or other foreign judgments that may be obtained against us may be difficult to enforce against us in Russia.

        Although CTC Media is a Delaware corporation, subject to suit in US federal and other courts, we have no operations in the United States, most of our assets are located in Russia, and most of our directors and their assets are located outside the United States. Although arbitration awards are generally enforceable in Russia, judgments obtained in the United States or in other foreign courts, including those with respect to US federal securities law claims, may not be enforceable in Russia. There is no mutual recognition treaty between the United States and the Russian Federation, and no Russian federal law provides for the recognition and enforcement of foreign court judgments. Therefore, it may be difficult to enforce any US or other foreign court judgment obtained against our company, any of our operating subsidiaries or any of our directors in Russia.

Risks relating to doing business elsewhere in the CIS

We face similar risks in other countries of the CIS.

        In addition to Russia, we currently have operations in other countries in the CIS, including Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Moldova. We may acquire additional operations in other countries of the CIS. In many respects, the risks inherent in transacting business in these countries are similar to those in Russia, especially those risks set out above in "—Risks relating to doing business and investing in Russia".

30

Emerging markets such as Russia and other CIS countries are subject to greater risks than more developed markets, including legal, economic and political risks.

        Investors in emerging markets such as Russia and other CIS countries should be aware that these markets are subject to greater risk than more developed markets, including in some cases legal, economic and political risks. Investors should also note that emerging economies, such as the economies of Russia and Kazakhstan, are subject to rapid change and that the information set out herein may become outdated relatively quickly. Furthermore, in doing business in various countries of the CIS, we face risks similar to (and sometimes greater than) those that we face in Russia. Accordingly, investors should exercise care in evaluating the risks involved and must decide for themselves whether, in light of those risks, their investment is appropriate. Generally, investment in emerging markets is only suitable for sophisticated investors who fully appreciate the significance of the risks involved and investors are urged to consult with their own legal and financial advisors before making an investment in our shares.

Risks relating to our stock

The price of our common stock has recently experienced significant volatility and may continue to be volatile.

        Our stock price has recently experienced significant volatility and is likely to be volatile in the future. The stock market in general and, in particular, the market for companies whose operations are in emerging markets, like Russia, have experienced extreme volatility that has often been unrelated to the operating performance of particular companies. This volatility has been more pronounced in recent periods due to the turmoil in world financial markets. As a result of this volatility, investors may not be able to sell their shares of our common stock at or above the price at which they purchase it. The market price for our common stock may be influenced by many factors, including:

•

fluctuations in our quarterly financial results or the quarterly financial results of companies perceived to be similar to us;



•

changes in estimates of our financial results or recommendations by securities analysts;



•

changes in market valuations of similar companies;



•

changes in general economic, political and market conditions in Russia and globally;



•

changes in the audience shares of our networks;



•

public announcements by industry experts regarding trends in advertising spending in Russia and globally; and



•

announcements regarding our acquisition activities, if any.

        Moreover, only a relatively small number of shares of our common stock are currently actively traded in the public market. As of February 24, 2010, approximately 35% of our outstanding common stock was held by parties other than our directors, executive officers and principal stockholders and their respective affiliates. The limited liquidity of our common stock may have a material adverse effect on the price of our common stock.

        In the past, following periods of volatility in the market price of a company's securities, stockholders have often instituted class action securities litigation against those companies. Such litigation, if instituted, could result in substantial costs and diversion of management attention and resources, which could significantly harm our profitability and reputation.

31

If equity research analysts do not publish research or reports about our business or if they issue unfavorable commentary or downgrade our common stock, the price of our common stock could decline.

        The trading market for our common stock relies in part on the research and reports that equity research analysts publish about us and our business. We do not control these analysts. The price of our stock could decline if one or more equity research analysts downgrade our stock or if those analysts issue other unfavorable commentary or cease publishing reports about us or our business.

Insiders continue to have substantial control over us and could delay or prevent a change in corporate control.

        As of February 24, 2010, our directors, executive officers and principal stockholders, and their respective affiliates, beneficially owned, in the aggregate, over 65% of our outstanding common stock. As a result, these stockholders, if acting together, may have the ability to determine the outcome of matters submitted to our stockholders for approval, including the election and removal of directors and any merger, consolidation or sale of all or substantially all of our assets. In addition, these persons, acting together, may have the ability to control the management and affairs of our company. In particular, our principal stockholders have entered into a voting arrangement that determines the composition of our board of directors.

Anti-takeover provisions in our charter documents and under Delaware law could prevent or delay change-of-control transactions.

        Anti-takeover provisions of Delaware law and our charter documents may make a change in control of our company more difficult. For example:

•

Stockholders' meetings may only be called by one of the Co-Chairmen of our board of directors, our Chief Executive Officer or the majority of the board of directors.



•

Our stockholders may not take action by written consent.



•

We have a classified board of directors, which means that our directors serve for staggered three-year terms and no more than four of our ten directors are elected each year. This structure may make it more difficult for an acquirer to take control of our company, which may make our company a less desirable acquisition target.

        Delaware law also prohibits a corporation from engaging in a business combination with any holder of 15% or more of its capital stock until the holder has held the stock for three years unless, among other possibilities, the board of directors approves the transaction. Our board of directors may use this provision to prevent changes in our management. Under applicable Delaware law, our board of directors may adopt additional anti-takeover measures in the future.

        In addition, we are party to a stockholders' agreement with our two largest stockholders pursuant to which each of these stockholders has agreed not to acquire additional shares of our capital stock to the extent that such acquisition would cause its beneficial ownership to exceed 50% of the voting power of our outstanding shares without making a tender offer for all of our outstanding shares in compliance with the tender offer rules under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, unless it reaches this ownership level through the exercise of rights of first offer set forth in the stockholders' agreement.

If there are substantial sales of our common stock in the market by our existing stockholders, our stock price could decline.

        If our existing stockholders sell a large number of shares of our common stock or the public market perceives that existing stockholders might sell shares of common stock, the market price of our common stock could decline significantly. The holders of over 65% of our common stock have the right

32

under specified circumstances to require us to register their shares for resale to the public or participate in a registration of shares by us.

Item 1B.    Unresolved Staff Comments.

        None.

Item 2.    Properties.

        We own a building in Moscow with office and production space of approximately 3,300 square meters. We also lease approximately 5,700 square meters of office and operations space in Moscow under leases that expire during 2010. The fiber optic cable that transmits our network signals to the satellite transmission center originates at our leased facilities.

        We are currently in negotiations to lease a new office facility in Moscow. If these negotiations are successful, this new facility would serve as our principal office location in Moscow.

        Some of our owned-and-operated stations own real estate, none of which represents a material portion of our consolidated assets.

Item 3.    Legal Proceedings.

        We are not currently party to any legal proceedings, the outcome of which could have a material adverse effect on our financial results or operations.

Item 4.    Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders.

        No matter was submitted to a vote of our stockholders, through the solicitation of proxies or otherwise, during the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2009.

33

PART II

Item 5.    Market for Registrant's Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities.

        Our common stock is traded on The NASDAQ Global Select Market under the symbol CTCM. The following table sets forth, for the periods indicated, the high and low sale prices of our common stock, as quoted on The NASDAQ Global Select Market.

        As of December 31, 2009, there were approximately four holders of record of our common stock. Because many of our shares are held by brokers and other institutions on behalf of stockholders, we are unable to estimate the total number of beneficial owners represented by these holders of record.

        The closing price for our common stock on December 31, 2009, which is the last business day of our most recently completed fiscal year, was $14.90.

        To date, we have never paid cash dividends on our common stock. On February 24, 2010, our board of directors declared a dividend of $0.065 per outstanding share of common stock, or $10,024,803.49 in aggregate (assuming no further exercises of stock options prior to the record date), to our stockholders of record as of March 10, 2010. The payment date of this dividend will be March 31, 2010. Our board of directors has also announced its current intention to declare and pay additional dividends of approximately $10 million in each of June, September and December 2010. While it is our board's current intention to declare and pay these three future dividends, there can be no assurance that they will in fact be declared and paid. Any such declaration is at the discretion of our board and will depend upon factors such as our earnings, financial position and cash requirements during 2010.

        Our dividend policy going forward is subject to review and revision by our board of directors and any future payments, other than the dividend to be paid on March 31, 2010, will depend upon our earnings, financial position and cash requirements and any other factors that our board of directors may deem relevant.

        We did not purchase any shares of our common stock in 2009.

Item 6.    Selected Financial Data.

        You should read the following consolidated financial data in conjunction with our consolidated financial statements, including the related notes, and "Item 7—Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations." The results shown herein are not necessarily indicative of the results to be expected for any future periods.

34

SELECTED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL DATA

35