KCI explains

KCI explains

We refer to the article regarding the court proceedings
involving our client, PT Kangar Consolidated Industries (KCI)
that appeared in the Oct. 31 edition of The Jakarta Post on page
3.

Hereby we wish to clarify that it is not correct that we gave
no response to PT Multi Inti Trada (MIT), when they asked to
discuss a settlement. The fact is that we repeatedly submitted
our objections to the judges because the mediation process was
bypassed as MIT refused to take part in the mediation process,
even though it is mandatory under the law.

We also wish to reiterate that the attachment ruling is
irregular because neither MIT's request for the attachment nor
the evidence it submitted met the requirements of the Supreme
Court Circular, such as (i) MIT only submitted as evidence copies
of the Distributor Agreement and termination of the Distributor
Agreement, which did not prove MIT's concern that KCI might
dispose of its assets (in fact, KCI would need prior approval
from the General Meeting of Shareholders to sell or transfer its
assets); (ii) MIT did not specify the assets to be attached;
(iii) the value of the attached assets far exceeds the amount
claimed; (iv) KCI has not been given proper opportunity to be
heard or to defend itself prior to the issuance of the attachment
ruling; and (v) the judges did not prioritize the attachment on
movable assets. As such, considering these conditions, the judges
should not have granted the attachment ruling.

Thus, it is clear that KCI has been unequally treated during
the court proceedings of the case. Further, the attachment ruling
could contradict the RI government's effort to attract foreign
investment as this unfair treatment may eventually affect Owens-
Illinois, KCI's major shareholder, in deciding on further
investment in Indonesia.

RAHAYUNINGSIH HOED,
ALEXANDRA GERUNGAN
Legal Counsels for
PT Kangar Consolidated Industries
Jakarta