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)