One headline caught my attention over the weekend, Tommy is getting his old stash back from Bank Mandiri. For some reasons this is relegated to less important news category, I think most people have already given up with the Cendanas. There’s little you can do full stop.
The legalese bores me, the point of the decision was to award Tommy’s Timor Putra Nasional with a little over one trillion rupiah (that’s US$100m) that was seized prior to him going to prison.
This is just one of those things I will never truly understand. The man went to prison for killing a Justice and he won the biggest sentence reduction in the history of judicial system. Upon his return, he gets his money back. With interest.
A while ago, when the AG dropped charges against his dad, I spoke to a few friends. To me, it was a major let down when SBY let the old man go on the very same day that students were getting killed trying to get him back.
My friends, all student activists in their days, convinced me that there’re a lot more to come. That wasn’t the end of it. There are reasons to hope that things will get better. The Supreme Court is getting better, Abdulrahman Saleh will improve the AG office. KPK will do something about things.
The more you pin your hopes on these things the more it looks like the system simply will never survive against Tommy and the likes.
It’s sad.
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Saturday, November 25, 2006
Indah Kiat Supreme Court Decision
The Supreme Court recently decided on some bond papers issued by Indah Kiat (some $500m worth). it's a complicated legalese around stuff i don't really understand (count on my co-host to explain when he's awake!), but the decision basically renders the bond agreement null in void.
In effect, it nullifies the bond and thus awarding Indah Kiat Pulp and Paper with $500m windfall (since the bond agreement was deemed in breach of Indonesian law, it -logically- frees indah kiat from its obligation to the bondholders). Among other problems (legal certainty issues, etc.) similar structure is used for many other bonds namely, PT Inti Indorayon Utama, PT Astra International, PT HM Sampoerna, PT Medco Energi, and PT Excelcomindo Pratama. While the decision itself was careful to note that it doesn't rule on the obligation itself (limited to the agreement), it's still an interesting case, nevertheless.
This is yet to make headlines (and unlikely so) - mainly because the primary creditors chose the quieter route and went with settlement deals instead.
It's also probably too complicated for most mainstream media to take notice at this stage as the implications are not yet clear.
And also the obvious fact that everybody involved would prefer to do this quietly -except those who lose. In the IKPP case, the losing parties are mostly vulture funds that bought the bonds at huge discount anyway (some 2c/$1) - ironically so since the bond was only dumped for the discounted value after APP danced around in its debt restructuring program earlier and resulting in this bonds to be in the hands of the 'distressed asset fund' investors.
Apparently this was even discussed with GWB on his visit last week. The Supreme Court is about to rule on another case (IKPP affiliates, Lontar) and already, ALL the major law firms in town are busy on their tails looking for the decision documents to explore the new exciting possibilities. This is probably the hottest decision coming from the court in many years. Except too many people would prefer that this is kept away from the public (they'd prefer to have the less scrutiny on the decisions so they can move forward with filing their own cases).
Several rating agencies overseas had already taking drastic steps in downgrading Indonesian bond ratings and flaunting the case as a major step backward in the legal system.
That's about as much as i could pretend to understand about this. Shoot me email, (or shoot my co-host) then we'll probably be back for more.
In effect, it nullifies the bond and thus awarding Indah Kiat Pulp and Paper with $500m windfall (since the bond agreement was deemed in breach of Indonesian law, it -logically- frees indah kiat from its obligation to the bondholders). Among other problems (legal certainty issues, etc.) similar structure is used for many other bonds namely, PT Inti Indorayon Utama, PT Astra International, PT HM Sampoerna, PT Medco Energi, and PT Excelcomindo Pratama. While the decision itself was careful to note that it doesn't rule on the obligation itself (limited to the agreement), it's still an interesting case, nevertheless.
This is yet to make headlines (and unlikely so) - mainly because the primary creditors chose the quieter route and went with settlement deals instead.
It's also probably too complicated for most mainstream media to take notice at this stage as the implications are not yet clear.
And also the obvious fact that everybody involved would prefer to do this quietly -except those who lose. In the IKPP case, the losing parties are mostly vulture funds that bought the bonds at huge discount anyway (some 2c/$1) - ironically so since the bond was only dumped for the discounted value after APP danced around in its debt restructuring program earlier and resulting in this bonds to be in the hands of the 'distressed asset fund' investors.
Apparently this was even discussed with GWB on his visit last week. The Supreme Court is about to rule on another case (IKPP affiliates, Lontar) and already, ALL the major law firms in town are busy on their tails looking for the decision documents to explore the new exciting possibilities. This is probably the hottest decision coming from the court in many years. Except too many people would prefer that this is kept away from the public (they'd prefer to have the less scrutiny on the decisions so they can move forward with filing their own cases).
Several rating agencies overseas had already taking drastic steps in downgrading Indonesian bond ratings and flaunting the case as a major step backward in the legal system.
That's about as much as i could pretend to understand about this. Shoot me email, (or shoot my co-host) then we'll probably be back for more.
Honest Lawyers
I probably wouldn’t normally do this but this is too good to resist: lawyers + advertising + feminist + cleavage. The ingredients are simply too good. Also that I have not much else to do.
This happens in America (really, where else?). Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly run ads (for custom tailored suits) that are apparently too raunchy for some. After running for three weeks in a row, readers contacted the magazine, finding the ad to be “demeaning” and it suggests “gender discrimination” in the legal profession – this is from the president of the Women's Bar Association. They demanded the ad to be pulled. David Yas, the publisher wrote a column and retaliated that the critics were "a bunch of self-important prudes." The debate raged on.
In America, a barely dressed brunette in action means women are being demeaned.
The image was too raunchy and sensual and thus the press was pressed for self-censorship.
In the more immediate context, it seems to also suggest that lawyers have sex and this is somehow surprising.
My co-host here yesterday met one of Indonesia’s most famous lawyer and the guy was sporting a gold badge bearing his name, as if you would forget who the man was.
A friend of mine had lunch with another lawyer and finding herself panicking for a secluded corner after he turned up with chequered trousers and pink jacket.
I drive home everyday past a house with a big plastic neon lit palm trees, Indians and cowboys in the front yard. The mansion bears a huge sign with the name of the proud lawyer residing inside.
You turn on the telly and the attorneys here regularly set the standard for preposterous fashion – and acting skills.
They also regularly go to prison for bribing in behalf of their clients.
A few years ago, I was walking around the market in Covent Garden in London and came across this sign that I bought for a very good friend, a lawyer. I didn’t really understand what that meant at the time, I only thought it was rather funny.
Now I get it.
This happens in America (really, where else?). Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly run ads (for custom tailored suits) that are apparently too raunchy for some. After running for three weeks in a row, readers contacted the magazine, finding the ad to be “demeaning” and it suggests “gender discrimination” in the legal profession – this is from the president of the Women's Bar Association. They demanded the ad to be pulled. David Yas, the publisher wrote a column and retaliated that the critics were "a bunch of self-important prudes." The debate raged on.
In America, a barely dressed brunette in action means women are being demeaned.
The image was too raunchy and sensual and thus the press was pressed for self-censorship.
In the more immediate context, it seems to also suggest that lawyers have sex and this is somehow surprising.
My co-host here yesterday met one of Indonesia’s most famous lawyer and the guy was sporting a gold badge bearing his name, as if you would forget who the man was.
A friend of mine had lunch with another lawyer and finding herself panicking for a secluded corner after he turned up with chequered trousers and pink jacket.
I drive home everyday past a house with a big plastic neon lit palm trees, Indians and cowboys in the front yard. The mansion bears a huge sign with the name of the proud lawyer residing inside.
You turn on the telly and the attorneys here regularly set the standard for preposterous fashion – and acting skills.
They also regularly go to prison for bribing in behalf of their clients.
A few years ago, I was walking around the market in Covent Garden in London and came across this sign that I bought for a very good friend, a lawyer. I didn’t really understand what that meant at the time, I only thought it was rather funny.
Now I get it.
Autopsy #2
Q: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse?
A: No.
Q: Did you check for blood pressure?
A: No.
Q: Did you check for breathing?
A: No.
Q: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy?
A: No.
Q: How can you be so sure, Doctor?
A: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar.
Q: But could the patient have still been alive, nevertheless?
A: Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law somewhere in this courthouse.
A: No.
Q: Did you check for blood pressure?
A: No.
Q: Did you check for breathing?
A: No.
Q: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy?
A: No.
Q: How can you be so sure, Doctor?
A: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar.
Q: But could the patient have still been alive, nevertheless?
A: Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law somewhere in this courthouse.
Thursday, November 23, 2006
Cross Examination
Q: Now doctor, isn't it true that when a person dies in his sleep, he
doesn't know about it until the next morning?
A: Did you actually pass the bar exam?
doesn't know about it until the next morning?
A: Did you actually pass the bar exam?
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
on Autopsy Report
Q: Do you recall the time that you examined the body?
A: The autopsy started around 8:30 p.m.
Q: And Mr. Dennington was dead at the time?
A: No, he was sitting on the table wondering why I was doing an autopsy.
A: The autopsy started around 8:30 p.m.
Q: And Mr. Dennington was dead at the time?
A: No, he was sitting on the table wondering why I was doing an autopsy.
Friday, November 10, 2006
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)