Nirwan Bakrie fights bankruptcy suit
Nirwan Bakrie fights bankruptcy suit
JAKARTA (JP): The law firm representing Nirwan D. Bakrie said
on Friday that the bankruptcy suit filed by Sinar Mas Multi
Finance (SMF) against the prominent businessman at the Jakarta
Commercial Court was invalid.
The Fuady, Tommy, Aji Wijaya law firm said in a statement made
available to The Jakarta Post that the suit was invalid because
SMF was the party responsible for Bakrie Capital Indonesia's
(BCI) inability to repay the matured debts to the finance company
owned by the Sinar Mas Group of the Eka Tjipta family.
The law firm claimed that SMF failed to meet its obligation to
disburse the committed Rp 100 billion total loan facility as set
out in the "factoring facility agreement" between BCI and the
finance company.
Factoring is a loan facility which is used by the borrower to
finance its accounts receivable.
"SMF, without giving any reason, only disbursed Rp 60 billion
of the Rp 100 billion committed total loan facility to us," the
statement said.
Because of that, BCI could not carry out its planned corporate
program. This, according to the law firm, in turn, directly
resulted in the disruption of BCI's ability to repay the
disbursed portion of the loan.
BCI's loan was based on the security in the form of personal
guarantee issued by its shareholder Nirwan D. Bakrie.
Meanwhile, Central Jakarta District Court, in its preliminary
verdict in late December, 1999, issued an injunction ordering SMF
to temporarily refrain from any effort to retain its receivables
from BCI until there was a final court verdict on the dispute.
BCI filed a law suit against SMF last year, claiming that the
finance company had caused BCI to incur losses due to the
incompleteness of the loan disbursement.
The lawyer representing SMF, Benny Harman from Abdul Hakim G.
Nusantara law firm, said the Central Jakarta District Court's
injunction was strange as it was issued without considering
whether there was an urgency for it.
"The injunction should only be issued after considering that
there is an urgent situation that the court requires one party to
do or to refrain from doing a specific act," he said.
He also claimed that the injunction was being manipulated in
favor of the borrowers who were not settling their matured debts
to their creditors in good faith.
"How come the creditors lose the right to collect their
receivables at the time when it matures?" Benny queried. (udi)