Former Manulife partner to continue court battle

Former Manulife partner to continue court battle

Rendi A. Witular, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta

The costly legal battle waged by the local unit of Canada's
insurer Manulife Financial Corp. here may not yet be over despite
the decision of the Supreme Court to overturn the bankruptcy
ruling against the company, legal experts say.

They said the Supreme Court's ruling contained loopholes which
could pave the way for another bankruptcy lawsuit against PT
Asuransi Jiwa Manulife Indonesia (AJMI).

Indeed, Paul Sukran, the receiver of the now defunct PT
Dharmala Sakti Sejahtera (DSS), the former partner of Manulife in
AJMI, said his side was planning to file a new lawsuit against
AJMI.

"Well, I just have to study the verdict and see whether
there's a chance for a judicial review, or for a new case. But
for sure we will sue them again," he told The Jakarta Post.

On Friday, the Supreme Court annulled the controversial
bankruptcy ruling against AJMI, which unnerved investors and
sparked a diplomatic row between Canada and Indonesia.

One of the judges said that the decision was made on the
grounds that the DSS receiver did not obtain consent from
supervising judges when filing the bankruptcy petition.

According to existing law, the receiver could seek a judicial
review of the Supreme Court's ruling if it has new evidence
against AJMI.

But prominent lawyer Amir Syamsudin said that the wording of
the Supreme Court's ruling were legally "odd," which could give
reasons for Paul to file for a judicial review.

He pointed out that since the decision to annul the bankruptcy
ruling was due to improper technical procedures when filing the
bankruptcy petition, the Supreme Court should have said in its
verdict it "can not accept the ruling," instead of it "rejects
the ruling".

"It (the legal term) may seem a small thing ... but actually
the impact is severe because it could open the gate for a
judicial review on the case," said Amir.

Another noted lawyer, Luhut Pangaribuan, concurred.

"I was suspicious that the "weak" verdict was made
intentionally for the plaintiff or other companies to seek a
judicial review," said Luhut.

Luhut regretted that the judges did not consider the substance
of the case in issuing the verdict.

The Manulife bankruptcy ruling was controversial partly
because AJMI, Indonesia's fourth largest insurance firm, is
actually a solvent company as acknowledged by the finance
ministry.

Meanwhile, Canada's ambassador to Indonesia welcomed the
Supreme Court's ruling.

"It is a very good decision," Ambassador Ferry de Kerckhove
was quoted by AFP as saying.

"I hope it is very good news for the investment community and
hope they will return to Indonesia."

The Commercial Court issued a bankruptcy ruling against AJMI
on June 13 after the DSS receiver filed a bankruptcy petition
over unpaid dividends in 1999. Manulife had said that
shareholders did not authorize any dividend for that particular
period.

Manulife alleged that the bankruptcy ruling was part of
efforts by its former local shareholder to regain its 40 percent
stake in AJMI. Manulife bought the shares in 2000 via a
government auction after DSS was declared bankrupt. But the
transaction was immediately contested by an unknown company
called Roman Gold -- which Manulife said was a front for the
Gondokusumo family which had controlled Dharmala.

The bankruptcy ruling angered the Canadian government and
raised concerns among foreign investors here of Indonesia's weak
legal system.