Komunitas Praktisi, Intelektual Hukum Indonesia Tersaji Apik & Menarik
 
HomeCalendarFAQSearchMemberlistUsergroupsRegisterLog in
Share | 
 

 Masalah kasus ICSID against pemerintah Indo

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : 1, 2, 3  Next
AuthorMessage
Vedder
Partner
Partner


Posts: 1101
Join date: 2010-04-29

PostSubject: Masalah kasus ICSID against pemerintah Indo   Fri Apr 27, 2012 3:53 pm

:

1. Century case

Indonesia fails to knock out bank claim

SEBASTIAN PERRY MONDAY, 23 APRIL 2012
An ICSID tribunal has rejected Indonesia's request for summary dismissal of a US$75 million claim by a UK shareholder in a nationalised bank.
In an unpublished decision on 4 April, the panel ruled that Indonesia had failed to prove that Rafat Ali Rizvi's claim was "manifestly without legal merit" – the threshold required for an expedited dismissal under ICSID rule 41(5).
The claimant was an investor in Bank Century, which the state rescued in a controversial US$700 million bailout in 2008 and nationalised. He was subsequently convicted in absentia of corruption and money laundering and sentenced to a 15-year jail term. Indonesia has since sought his extradition from the UK and brought attachment proceedings against his assets in Hong Kong.
Rizvi denies any wrongdoing. He filed his ICSID claim in June last year under the UK-Indonesia bilateral investment treaty, alleging unlawful expropriation and a breach of the fair and equitable treatment standard.
Although GAR has not seen a copy of the tribunal's decision, Indonesia is thought to have argued that Rizvi's investment was not protected by the BIT because, among other reasons, it did not comply with Indonesia's foreign investment law; and was made indirectly through a Bahamian company.
Following hearings in Auckland, New Zealand, the tribunal rejected Indonesia's arguments in their entirety. The panel said it fell to the party bringing the rule 41(5) application to prove the claim's manifest lack of legal merit and that Indonesia had not met the required standard.
The tribunal consists of two Australians – chair Gavan Griffith QC and Muthucumaraswang Sornarajah, a professor at the National University of Singapore – and claimant-appointed arbitrator Joan Donoghue, a US judge at the International Court of Justice.
Counsel to Rizvi, George Burn of Salans in London, says the decision "confirms that the standard set by rule 41 (5) is high, the onus being on the state to prove its argument that the claims made against it are so clearly lacking in merit that there is no need for the arbitration to proceed. States considering this rule should proceed with care in deciding whether to make such an application."
Indonesia's counsel, Karen Mills of KarimSyah in Jakarta, declined to comment, citing confidentiality obligations. This is the fifth time rule 41(5) has been invoked since it was introduced in an April 2006 revision to the ICSID
rules. It has been successfully used in two cases – Global Trading and Globex v Ukraine and RSM v Grenada. Rafat Ali Rizvi v Republic of Indonesia (ICSID Case No. ARB/11/13)
Tribunal
• GavanGriffithQC(chair)(Australia)
• JoanDonoghue(US)
• MuthucumaraswangSornarajah(Australia


2. Chuchill case


Churchill Mining: Preparing next steps in Indonesian legal battle

Churchill Mining PLC is an AIM listed (CHL) mining company with a significant thermal coal development project located in the East Kutai Regency of Kalimantan, Indonesia, where to date more than 2.73 billion tonnes of coal resource has been defined to JORC standard. The project feasibility study has been completed, indicating an economic and desirable project and the study forms the platform for the next stage in the development of the Project. In addition to the East Kutai Coal Project, Churchill has interests in the Sendawar Coal Bed Methane Project in East Kalimantan, Indonesia and a strategic holding in Spitfire Resources, who are developing the South Woodie Woodie Manganese Project in Western Australia.

The news that Indonesia’s Supreme Court intends to reject Churchill Mining’s (LON:CHL) appeal is clearly a blow, however the firm’s fate does not rely solely on this one ruling alone.

Last week Churchill’s shares shed as much as 30 per cent with the news. 

One way or another, the Supreme Court’s final decision will provide investors with clarity on what Churchill’s next move will be. Last week, Churchill reported that notations on the register of the Supreme Court show it intends to reject the appeal.

The firm has been entrenched in a legal battle against the Indonesian government for the past year.  The case has put the future of the US$1.8 billion East Kutai coal mine development project in the balance.

Churchill says it has been subjected to a sustained campaign to expropriate its rights as a legitimate foreign investor in Indonesia. 

The company believes these actions are in direct breach of both Indonesia's investment laws and Indonesia's obligations under a number of international investment treaties.

The ‘expropriation campaign’, as Churchill calls it, centres of an attempt to cancel the licences that host the East Kutai project by regional authorities that govern the East Kalimantan province, the area on the island of Borneo where the project is found.

Speaking with Proactive Investors, chairman David Quinlivan said he believes Churchill did all the right things in Indonesia and it spent a lot of money on exploration.

With the apparently unsuccessful Supreme Court appeal, Churchill will have had three failed attempts to overturn a decision in a regional tribunal relating to the revocation of mining licences for the East Kutai project, which prior to the legal problems was on the verge of development.

Churchill has been actively preparing contingency plans in the six months since it filed the Supreme Court appeal.

Firstly, it sought a possible commercial settlement to end the dispute, and to this end it sent a letter to Indonesia’s president Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono in November.

“Our representative sent a letter to the President in November saying that we would like to resolve the matter commercially, and we hoped that he could help bring the parties together to achieve a commercial settlement.

A commercial settlement, basically a compensation deal, would also allow both parties to move on without any further fuss. 

But, as yet, Churchill has not received any response from the President’s office.

Prior to the legal fallout, Churchill had taken East Kutai to the verge of development with it only needing a project financing deal before construction work could start.

Quinlivan says it could take another firm a number of years to reach this point again and Churchill has no intention of handing over its valuable knowledge without an agreeable settlement.

Quinlivan says the letter to the President effectively opened a six month window of opportunity to achieve a settlement.

“We have to keep an open mind at the moment. Nothing is being ruled in or out.”

That said, Churchill hasn’t been able to catch a break in this legal battle so far, and as such the firm has also prepared to pursue a case in international courts if necessary.

Quinlivan says Churchill will file the application for arbitration to the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) in Washington, if a settlement can’t be agreed by the end of that six month window - i.e. by the end of May.

Churchill said it will now accelerate the filing of an arbitration request against the Republic of Indonesia for direct breaches of Indonesia's investment laws and Indonesia's obligations under international investment treaties – namely the United Kingdom - Indonesia Bilateral Investment Treaty.

Preparation of the arbitration claim is well advanced and a ‘Request for Arbitration’ will be filed shortly, it explained.

The total cost of a prolonged arbitration process could be in excess of US$5 million. And Churchill has confirmed it currently has over US$13 million in the bank.

“At the moment we have sufficient funds (to cover the arbitration process). If it is going to turn into a long litigation case we would scale back and regroup. 

“We’ve had estimates from our legal team about how much a long drawn out case would cost, and we’ve certainly got more than enough to last three to four years.”

It has been a very bumpy ride for investors since the legal battle flared up publicly in March last year. 

In that time Churchill shares have lost almost 90 per cent of their value, falling from around 90p to stand today at 9.2p.

If any positives can be taken from last week's update it is that while there could still be a number of further twists and turns in the coming months Churchill can now pursue its case in an independent international court.


Last edited by Vedder on Fri Apr 27, 2012 5:51 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile
odong2
Senior Legal Assistant


Posts: 201
Join date: 2011-06-06

PostSubject: Re: Masalah kasus ICSID against pemerintah Indo   Fri Apr 27, 2012 4:22 pm

Nama gua dibawa2 Shocked

I reserved my rights to not make any comment. Baca aja ud puyeng apalagi komen.

@vedder Btw, thanks buat jawabannya. Gile apdet jg ya lo soal arbitrase century. Oia, kasus arbitrase century akan sidang di Singapore tuh.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
.
Retired
Retired


Posts: 2489
Join date: 2010-04-28

PostSubject: Re: Masalah kasus ICSID against pemerintah Indo   Fri Apr 27, 2012 4:23 pm

Eh, sebentar, kayaknya gw agak keblinger nih, kalo gak salah untuk kasus bank century ada dua gugatan kan yah, icsid dan uncitral, yang uncitral uda jalan blom sih? Semoga hasil icsid dan uncitral beneran bisa shed light kepada korupsi di indonesia deh walau gw gak yakin sejauhmana efek putusan tersebut..walaupun masalah recognition dan enforcementnya tunggu dulu, blom tentu sukses nembus dpt exequatur What a Face

Churchil itu gara2 kasus IUP kutai timur yah? Wakakakaka, emang mereka berani gugat indonesia? Tp kedubes amrik uda kebakaran jenggot kalo. gak salah denger sih...kalo bener masuk icsid preseden juga tuh, krn akhir2 ini investor yang masih bercokol di indonesia jarang ada yang mau gugat indonesia ke venue internasional, temasek saja yang konon mau sue ke icsid gara2 kppu gak take action apapun kan...
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://lawyers.forumotion.net
odong2
Senior Legal Assistant


Posts: 201
Join date: 2011-06-06

PostSubject: Re: Masalah kasus ICSID against pemerintah Indo   Fri Apr 27, 2012 4:29 pm

Ada dua hesham ke icsid krn dia WN UK, si Rafat ke OKI tp pake UNCITRAL. Arbitrase paling berat emang di eksekuatur. Karahabodas dibayar krn rekening pertamina di us diblokir dan kapal pertamina disita di hongkong.

Kasus churchill emg yg geblek pemdanya dan putusan ptun lebih geblek lg, ud jelas bupati ga ngerasa buat iup tp sama ptun dikalahin gugatannya. Ajaib krn bakal si biji satu yg punya tuh perusahaan.

Btw jabatan memang mempengaruhi perilaku ya, kalian disini jd mimin jd lebih bijak. Klo di forum sebelah lain lagi ceritanya ini thread Very Happy


Last edited by odong2 on Fri Apr 27, 2012 4:32 pm; edited 2 times in total (Reason for editing : Seperti biasa blepetan nulis di mobile device)
Back to top Go down
View user profile
.
Retired
Retired


Posts: 2489
Join date: 2010-04-28

PostSubject: Re: Masalah kasus ICSID against pemerintah Indo   Fri Apr 27, 2012 4:33 pm

nah, skrg kita ada dua bahan nih, century dan churchil, tp enakan ngomong century kali yah krn churchil blom jalan.

Cmiiw, prasyarat masuk icsid adalah si investor sudah exhaust semua venue di dalam negeri, setahu gw rafat ato hesham (lupa mana yang masuk via icsid), dihukum pidana secara in absentia, dan sblm bisa gugat, harusnya mereka banding/kasasi/pk dulu, ato kalo mereka gak setuju dengan bail out, at least gugat dulu keputusan bail out ke ptun sampe pk. Kemudian, terjadinya tindakan pidana bisa jadi defense pemerintah mengambil alih ato membatalkan investasi kan?
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://lawyers.forumotion.net
.
Retired
Retired


Posts: 2489
Join date: 2010-04-28

PostSubject: Re: Masalah kasus ICSID against pemerintah Indo   Fri Apr 27, 2012 4:40 pm

odong2 wrote:
Ada dua hesham ke icsid krn dia WN UK, si Rafat ke OKI tp pake UNCITRAL. Arbitrase paling berat emang di eksekuatur. Karahabodas dibayar krn rekening pertamina di us diblokir dan kapal pertamina disita di hongkong.

Kasus churchill emg yg geblek pemdanya dan putusan ptun lebih geblek lg, ud jelas bupati ga ngerasa buat iup tp sama ptun dikalahin gugatannya. Ajaib krn bakal si biji satu yg punya tuh perusahaan.

Btw jabatan memang mempengaruhi perilaku ya, kalian disini jd mimin jd lebih bijak. Klo di forum sebelah lain lagi ceritanya ini thread Very Happy

Haha, ngerti saja, maklum tindakan sebagai admin mau gak mau berpengaruh ke forum, gw sempet berpikir ninggalin id ini dan online pake id baru biar bebas, tp ntar diban momod kan gak lucu Laughing Laughing
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://lawyers.forumotion.net
Vedder
Partner
Partner


Posts: 1101
Join date: 2010-04-29

PostSubject: Re: Masalah kasus ICSID against pemerintah Indo   Fri Apr 27, 2012 4:42 pm

Egg : Setau gw nggak ada yg uncitral. Satu di icsid satu via apa gitu (kalo nggak salah semacam opec pokoknya ada arab2nya karena si pemegang saham satunya wn salah satu negara di middle eastern sono). Kalo masuk pokok perkara bakal habis pemerintah indo, apalagi setau gw di icsid ada prinsip discovery, makanya gw juga heran kenapa nggak all out n malah pake karimsyah yg notabene kemampuannya masih swcond class dibandingin international law firm papan atas. Kalo utk level siac bolehlah. Tapi kalo dah icsid, it's a different level.

Dan gw juga heran kenapa kita bisa kalah di summay dismissal. Menurut gw dasar argumen karimsyah harusnya kuat yah. Investment treaty itu kan utk atur FDI. Investasi si rizvi kan bukan fdi, la wong waktu itu udah tbk bukan?

Churchill kayaknya serius. Soalnya ini idup matinya perusahaan mereka. Sharenya udah terjun bebas dr 90p ke 9p. Aset mereka tinggal 13 juta. Jadi kalo nggak bawa ke icsid tuh perusahaan bangkrut karena tambang di kutai keknya satu2nya income dia. So, pilihannya bagi2 duit 13 juta n windng up (karena MA dah putus dan mereka kalah) atau habisin 13 juta utk kejar pemeri tah indo di icsid and get their 1.8 billion back. So, keliatannya sih mereka bakal lanjut. Btw churchill itu Uk om bukan US.

@odong2: kasus apaan? Gw malah nggak denger ada kasus century di singapoh.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Vedder
Partner
Partner


Posts: 1101
Join date: 2010-04-29

PostSubject: Masalah kasus ICSID against pemerintah Indo   Fri Apr 27, 2012 4:43 pm

Btw gw split topiknya yah, kayakmya seru tuh.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Vedder
Partner
Partner


Posts: 1101
Join date: 2010-04-29

PostSubject: Re: Masalah kasus ICSID against pemerintah Indo   Fri Apr 27, 2012 4:48 pm

Eh iya OKI, oh jadinya pake uncitral di spore yah? Yg pegang sopo? Karimsyah juga?

Btw, gw sih beda sikap bukan karena jabatan, tapi karena pembacanya. Disini target readernya beda. Rata2 level intelektualitas dan pemahaman hukumnya di atas forum sebelah. Jadi beda treatmen lah. Lo ngomong bahasa abang tukang becak kalo ngomong sama mereka.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
.
Retired
Retired


Posts: 2489
Join date: 2010-04-28

PostSubject: Re: Masalah kasus ICSID against pemerintah Indo   Fri Apr 27, 2012 5:55 pm

Yup, churchil dari london, tapi menurut source gw mereka dibackup kedutaan amrik, ini info yang gak ada di berita ato internet, tp namanya juga cuma rumor, gak usa dipercaya What a Face

Ok, isunya skrg ada 3 nih:

1. Apakah icsid wajib exhaust legal remedy di lokal, dan apakah rafat dan hesham sudah melakukan hal tersebut kalo belom gimana dampak pada proceeding yang sedang berjalan?

2. Hesham dan rafat terbukti melakukan tindakan pidana, harusnya ini admissable defense di icsid dan uncitral kan?

3. Seandainya kita kalah, sepertinya gak bisa dieksekusi on ground of public order, krismon, bail out itu perlu.

Isu tambahan,

4. Mengingat kondisi genting di indonesia ketika bail out dilakukan, apakah bisa dimasukan defense state necessity. Dalam hukum internasional state of necessity ini menghilangkan kesalaahan atau tanggung jawab negara.

Btew, kayaknya milih karimsyah juga mau gak mau deh, krn kalo milih firm luar pasti dikritik.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://lawyers.forumotion.net
.
Retired
Retired


Posts: 2489
Join date: 2010-04-28

PostSubject: Re: Masalah kasus ICSID against pemerintah Indo   Fri Apr 27, 2012 5:57 pm

Ttg FDI, kalo pemegang saham pengendali walaupun tbk itungannya uda FDI, jd tribunal uda benar dalam pertimbangannya.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://lawyers.forumotion.net
Vedder
Partner
Partner


Posts: 1101
Join date: 2010-04-29

PostSubject: Re: Masalah kasus ICSID against pemerintah Indo   Sat Apr 28, 2012 1:32 am

Peraturan di Indo kan membedakan antara fdi dengan pasar sekunder. Makanya investment negatif list nggak berlaku utk tbk. harusnya framework ngikutin hk indo lah. Gw masih ngerasa ini bisa dipake.

Iya emang hrs exhaust, tapi mereka bisa argue kalo dr awal udah bias. Dan tindak pidana, gw yakin mereka bakal bilang kalo mereka diperas sama polisi or jaksa. Jaksa kita juga sempet buat statemen mau tuntut hukuman mati. Pasti dipake tuh sama mereka.

Kondisi genting juga masih debateable. Problemnya skrg kita sendiri masih blum satu suara. Dpr masih ribut, bbrp ahli juga blg nggak ada kondisi genting dan worse landasan hukum otoritas yg ngambil keputusan juga nggak jelas secara hukum karena dpr tolak perpunya.

Masalah loperm, kenapa nggak pake hbt yg afiliasi sama herbet smith. HS kan lumayan banyak track recordnya termasuk di IcSID.

Dan ngapain juga kita nominate prof, sonarajah. He's good. Tapi utk level ICSID, level dia blum nyampe imho.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
.
Retired
Retired


Posts: 2489
Join date: 2010-04-28

PostSubject: Re: Masalah kasus ICSID against pemerintah Indo   Sat Apr 28, 2012 7:00 am

Setau gw yah, yang gak masuk FDI cuma buat transaksi saham di bursa doang, tapi untuk saham yang gak likuid yang dimiliki pemegang saham pengendali masih masuk FDI, karena itu pemerintah indonesia ribut atas penjualan saham danamon oleh temasek ke DBS, padahal kalo pihak DBS beli saham danamon yang di bursa harusnya gak ada masalah, sebab pembelian saham bank tbk yang gak dilakukan di bursa terikat peraturan bank indonesia, plus prosedur lain, seperti notifikasi ke KPPU dsb. That being said, to the best of my knowledge (krn gw gak cross check lagi), hesham, rafat dan robert tantular termasuk pemegang saham pengendali century, kecuali kalo hesham dan rafat itu investor yang beli saham century melalui sekuritas baru gak masuk FDI. Krn itu pemikiran arbiter icsid sudah benar.

Now, kewajiban exhaust itu mutlak ato emang ada alasan pengecualiannya seperti yang lu tulis kecurigaan bias jd pembenar, setahu gw sih pake legal remedy lokal itu wajib, kalo gak gugatan ke icsidnya prematur.

Kalo keadaan genting, sbnrnya alasan pemerintah kuat, bisa dibilang proceeding di dpr itu cuma politisasi doang, buktinya sampe skrg gak ada bukti ada pidana di belakang bail out, termasuk temuan auditor negara, BPK dan draft audit yang sempet bocor itu juga bisa buat memperkuat. Lagipula faktanya dunia memang lagi genting ketika itu karena sub-prime morgage, bahkan hampir membangkrutkan salah satu negara di skandinavia (lupa namanya). Krn itu gw bilang best defense kita harusnya state necessity, toh amrik sendiri juga enggak lepas dari mem-bail out hampir semua perusahaan yang nyaris bangkrut kecuali lehman, dan walaupun di sono petingginya malah dalam pesangon jutaan dollar :nohope:

Well, to be fair, HBT yang dibacking dengan herbert smith kagak pernah megang perkara arbitrase bernuansa publik, at least di indonesia, sementara karen mills pernah, walaupun hasilnya kacau. Lagipula karen mills lebih bisa dianggap sebagai public figure untuk arbitrase ketimbang bule yang hobi minum steroid di HBT itu lah. Sepertinya catatan menang kalah mereka di arbitrase, dalam dan luar negeri juga gak luar biasa kan?

Kalo karimsyah qq pemerintah mau menang, well, karen mills harus punya pengetahuan yang luas di bidang hukum internasional publik maupun privat, kalo cuma andalin pengetahuan dan skill berarbitrase dia, well, we are fucked.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://lawyers.forumotion.net
.
Retired
Retired


Posts: 2489
Join date: 2010-04-28

PostSubject: Re: Masalah kasus ICSID against pemerintah Indo   Sat Apr 28, 2012 7:49 am

Bedewe, unlawful expropriation itu bukannya pmh yah?
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://lawyers.forumotion.net
odong2
Senior Legal Assistant


Posts: 201
Join date: 2011-06-06

PostSubject: Re: Masalah kasus ICSID against pemerintah Indo   Sun Apr 29, 2012 9:30 am

kasus si hesham mau hearing di S'pore setelah di NZ.

yang heran jg adalah perusahaannya si hesham itu adanya di virgin island, meskipun hesham punya saham mayoritas di perusahaannya tp tetep aja badan hukum yg berbeda dan kedudukannya di virgin island bukan di UK dan apakah itungannya si hesham FDI dari UK jg?

yg si rafat itu WN UEA, krn OKI ga punya settlement dispute convention jdnya pake UNCITRAL, tp rasanya belum jalan perkara si rafat, malah klo ga salah mau digabungin jd sama hesham (pake ICSID) krn perkaranya sama dan lawyernya salan jg.

mungkin salah satu alasan pake KarimSyah karena pemerintah pernah menang pake doi waktu lawan newmont perkara divestasi saham 2006-2009.

eniwei, hesham sama rafat selain beli saham century melalui perusahaannya yg kedudukannya di Virgin Island, mereka jg belinya melalui bursa saham, menurut gua sih ini bukan FDI tp knp admissable defense pemerintah ditolak sama ICSID ya ga tau jg knp.

kalau kalah sih gua yakin ga bakal bisa dienforce di Indonesia, tp permasalahannya pemerintah udah ngajuin MLA ke negara2 yg ada aset hesham+rafat dan pemerintah bakal sulit atau mungkin ga bakal bisa cairin aset mereka.

Beye pasti aman, jagonya cuci tangan dia.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
 

Masalah kasus ICSID against pemerintah Indo

View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 3Go to page : 1, 2, 3  Next

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Warung Hukum  ::  :: -