Total gets pleasant surprise from plaintiff's witness<\/p>\n
Fabiola Desy Unidjaja, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta<\/p>\n
Total E&P Indonesie's defense in a controversial bankruptcy case
\nbrought against it by former contractors received a boost today
\nwhen a witness testified there were no signed agreements between
\nthe subsidiary and a subcontractor.<\/p>\n
A witness from the Development Finance Comptroller (BPKP) told
\nthe Commercial Court hearing on Thursday there were no
\ncontractual relations between Total and subcontractor PT Istana
\nKarang Laut (IKL).<\/p>\n
Witness Leonardo Hutahuruk said the contract to construct
\nplatforms and a gas processing plant in Tunu field, East
\nKalimantan, was made between Total and contractor PT Sanggar
\nKaltim Jaya (SKJ).<\/p>\n
\"Total knew that IKL was the subcontractor for the project
\nsince both contractors had a different scope of work,\" the
\nwitness told the hearing.<\/p>\n
IKL is the first plaintiff of the bankruptcy petition case
\nwhile SKJ is the second plaintiff despite its former position as
\nTotal's main contractor for the project.<\/p>\n
Leonardo was a member of the BPKP team assigned to audit the
\nTunu oil field project, which is the subject of the dispute
\nbetween Total and its two contractors.<\/p>\n
In his testimony, Leonardo said that based on the BPKP's
\nconclusion, Total was obligated to pay some US$3.952 million
\ncompensation to SKJ and $3.178 million to IKL.<\/p>\n
Total -- a local affiliation of the world's second largest gas
\nproducer Total SA -- has refused to pay the claims. In the
\nprevious trial, the company asked the court to reject the asset
\npreservation order as requested by both contractors.<\/p>\n
The order would have stopped Total from selling any of its
\nassets in the country.<\/p>\n
Answering Total lawyer's questions on Total's contractual
\nrelations with IKL, Leonardo said he never saw invoices from the
\nsubcontractor addressed to Total.<\/p>\n
However, he insisted that during the audit the BPKP team
\nidentified there were certain parts of the project constructed by
\nIKL.<\/p>\n
\"Both plaintiffs original demand (of compensation) was $18
\nmillion but our findings revealed that the compensation is only
\nworth $7.131 million,\" he said.<\/p>\n
Lawyer Lelyana Santoso disclosed a number of letters from
\nTotal addressed to the Oil and Gas Upstream Regulatory Agency (BP
\nMigas), objecting to the audit result since some of the documents
\nwere disputed during the audit.<\/p>\n
The documents showed SKJ had failed to complete the project by
\nthe due time and, according to the main contract, should be
\npenalized for the delay.<\/p>\n
\"If there were any documents that could change the amount of
\nthe claim, they should have been taken into account,\" Leonardo
\nsaid.<\/p>\n
In their defense, the contractors' lawyer OC Kaligis said that
\nhis clients had been invited by Total as separate units during
\nthe out-of-court settlement to end the dispute before the case
\nwas finally submitted to the court.<\/p>\n
Total signed a $19 million contract in 2001 with the
\ncontractors. It had paid a total of $25 million in 2003 for
\nseveral adjustments made during the construction, or $6 million
\nmore than the amount originally agreed upon.<\/p>\n
The case is the first bankruptcy petition against an oil
\ncompany in Indonesia.<\/p>\n
In 2003, Manulife and Prudential insurance companies were
\ndeclared bankrupt by the court.<\/p>\n
The trial was adjourned on Monday.<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/total-gets-pleasant-surprise-from-plaintiffs-witness-1447893297", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }