pihak penggugat dalam gugatan terhadap KPPU, All Asia Multimedia Networks, FZ-LLC (Astro Dubai), All Asia Networks, Plc (Astro Malaysia), ESPN - Starsport dan PT. Direct Vision (PT DV) sehubungan dengan dugaan pelanggaran hukum persaingan usaha terkait
hak siar English Premier League musim 2007-
2010.
PT. MNC Skyvision (MNCSV) is the plaintif in a lawsuit against KPPU, All Asia Multimedia Networks, FZ-LLC (Astro Dubai), All Asia Networks, Plc (Astro Malaysia), ESPN - Starsport and PT. Direct Vision (PT DV) in relation to the alleged violation of the competition law related to the English Premier League season 2007-2010 broadcasting rights.
Berdasarkan surat dari AFS Partnership perihal pemberitahuan mengenai putusan perkara yang diajukan permohonan kasasi oleh MNCSV, diinformasikan bahwa perkara permohonan kasasi yang diajukan oleh MNCSV telah diputus oleh majelis hakim kasasi No. 780 K/PDT.SUS/2010 yang pada intinya bahwa perkara yang dimohonkan kasasi ditolak, dengan alasan bahwa MNCSV bukan pihak yang diisyaratkan oleh undang- undang untuk mengajukan keberatan atas perkara yang diputuskan oleh KPPU.
Based on the letter from AFS Partnership regarding notification of decision of case against which MNCSV filed an application for cassation, it was informed that the said case was decided by the cassation Tribunal of Judges No. 780 K/PDT.SUS/2010, which
essentially stated that the cassation
application is rejected because MNCSV is not a party who is required by law to file an objection to the case which was decided by KPPU.
Pada tanggal 30 Agustus 2012, MNCSV telah mengajukan permohonan Peninjauan Kembali (PK) kepada Mahkamah Agung. Pada tanggal 22 Mei 2013 Mahkamah Agung telah
menjatuhkan Putusan PK
No. 2/PK/PDT.SUS/2013 yang amar
putusannya pada intinya menolak
permohonan PK yang diajukan oleh MNCSV. Hal ini berarti bahwa MA menguatkan Putusan PN Jakarta Barat. Sehubungan dengan hal
tersebut oleh karena MNCSV selaku
penggugat dalam perkara ini maka tidak ada kewajiban pembayaran apapun yang wajib dibayarkan oleh MNCSV.
On August 30 2012, MNCSV has filed a request for Civil Review to Supreme Court. On May 22 2013, The Supreme Court has rendered a decision of reconsideration with decision No. 2/PK/PDT.SUS/2013 that its dictum which essentially overruled the petition filed by MNCSV. This means that the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the West Jakarta District Court. With respect to that matter, because the MNCSV as the claimant in this case, therefore there is no payment obligation whatsoever required to be paid by MNCSV.
e. Perkara No. 434/PDT.G/2011/PN.JKT.SEL. e. Case No. 434/PDT.G/2011/PN.JKT.SEL.
Dalam perkara ini Hagus Suanto
(“Penggugat”) mengajukan gugatan perbuatan melawan hukum terhadap PT. Bank Central Asia Tbk (BCA) (Cabang Karawang) selaku Tergugat I, BCA (Pusat) selaku Tergugat II, Direktur Utama BCA selaku Tergugat III, Citibank N.A Indonesia selaku Tergugat IV, City Country Officer Citibank N.A Indonesia selaku Tergugat V, MNCSV selaku Tergugat VI dan Direktur MNCSV selaku Tergugat VII (“Para Tergugat”).
In this case Hagus Suanto ("Plaintiff") filed a tort suit against PT. Bank Central Asia Tbk (BCA) (Karawang Branch) as the 1st Defendant, BCA Headquarters as the 2nd Defendant, President Director of BCA as the 3rd Defendant, Citibank NA Indonesia as the 4th Defendant, City Country Officer Citibank N.A. Indonesia as the 5th Defendant, MNCSV as the 6th Defendant and President Director of the MNCSV as the 7th Defendant ("the Defendants").
Penggugat mengajukan gugatan perbuatan melawan hukum dengan alasan bahwa Para Tergugat telah memberikan, menggunakan dan menyebarluaskan data pribadi Penggugat selaku nasabah penyewa Tergugat VI-VII secara tidak sah, tanpa hak dan melawan hukum, sehingga menimbulkan kerugian
materiil Penggugat sejumlah
Rp 6.403.483.000 dan kerugian immateriil Penggugat sejumlah Rp 999.888.888.000.
The Plaintiff filed a tort suit against the Defendants asserted that the Defendants had illegaly given, used and disseminated the personal information of the Plaintiff, as the hirer of the 6th and 7th Defendants, with no rights and against the law, resulting a material
loses to the Plaintiff in amount of
Rp 6,403,483,000 and immaterial loss to the Plaintiff in amount of Rp 999,888,888,000.
Berdasarkan surat dari SH&R, tanggal
11 Januari 2013, selaku kuasa hukum
Tergugat VI-VII, diinformasikan bahwa perkara ini telah diputus oleh Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Selatan pada tanggal 10 Januari 2013, yang pada pokoknya memenangkan Para
Tergugat dan menolak gugatan dari
Penggugat untuk seluruhnya.
Based on the letter from SH&R, dated January 11, 2013, as the lawyer of 6th and 7th Defendants, they informed that this case has been decided by the South Jakarta District Court on January 10, 2013, which in essentially in favour of the Defendants and rejected all of the claims by the Plaintiff.
Sampai dengan tanggal diterbitkannya laporan keuangan konsolidasian ini, perkara tersebut sedang dalam tahap banding di Pengadilan Tinggi DKI Jakarta.
As of the date of issuance of this consolidated financial statements, the case is under appeal at the High Court of DKI Jakarta.
f. Perkara No. 388/PDT.G/2012/PN.JKT.SEL. f. Case No. 388/PDT.G/2012/PN.JKT.SEL.
Dalam perkara ini Hagus Suanto
(“Penggugat”) mengajukan gugatan perbuatan melawan hukum terhadap MNCSV selaku
Tergugat I, PT. Rajawali Citra Televisi
Indonesia (RCTI) selaku Tergugat II, dan PT. Global Informasi Bermutu (GIB) selaku Tergugat III (“Para Tergugat’).
In this case Hagus Suanto (“Plaintiff”) filed a tort suit against PT. MNC Sky Vision Tbk MNCSV as the 1st Defendant, PT. Rajawali Citra Televisi Indonesia (RCTI) as the 2nd Defendant, and PT. Global Informasi Bermutu
(GIB) as the 3rd Defendant (“the
Penggugat mengajukan gugatan perbuatan melawan hukum kepada Para Tergugat dengan alasan Penggugat tidak dapat menyaksikan pertandingan sepak bola Piala Dunia 2010 dari stasiun televisi Indovision,
yang diantaranya adalah Channel 80
Indovision (RCTI) dan Channel 81 Indovision
(Global TV). Untuk itu, Penggugat meminta
ganti rugi kepada MNCSV sebesar
Rp 13.117.934.000 untuk kerugian materiil dan Rp 988.888.888.000 untuk kerugian immateriil.
The Plaintiff filed a tort suit against the Defendants asserting that the Plaintiff was unable to watch the football match of the 2010 World Cup on Indovision Channels, among which there are Channel 80 Indovision (RCTI) and Channel 81 Indovision (Global TV). For that, the Plaintiff asked for compensation from MNCSV in amount of Rp 13,117,934,000 for material loss and Rp 999,888,888,000 for immaterial loss.
Atas gugatan yang diajukan oleh Penggugat di Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Selatan, Majelis Hakim Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Selatan telah menjatuhkan putusannya pada tanggal 21 November 2013, yang pada pokoknya memenangkan MNCSV dan kawan-kawan
dengan memutuskan bahwa gugatan
Penggugat tidak dapat diterima (niet
ontvankelijk verklaard). Terhadap putusan tersebut, Penggugat telah mengajukan upaya hukum banding ke Pengadilan Tinggi DKI Jakarta, pada tanggal 7 Januari 2014.
For the claim filed by the Plaintiff in South Jakarta District Court, the Panel of Judges of South Jakarta District Court has passed a decision on November 21, 2013, which in general ruled in favour of MNCSV, by judging that the claim filed by the Plaintiff is not acceptable (niet ontvankelijk verklaard). On the aforesaid decision, the Plaintiff has submitted an appeal to High Court of DKI Jakarta, on January 7, 2014.
Sampai dengan tanggal penerbitan laporan keuangan konsolidasi, kasus ini masih dalam proses pemeriksaan di Pengadilan Tinggi DKI dan belum ada putusan apapun terhadapnya.
As of the issuance date of the consolidated financial statement, the case is still under examination at the Jakarta High Court and no decision whatsoever against it.
g. Arbitrase SIAC, Arbitrase No. ARB
139/11/VN and No. ARB 053/13/AP. g. SIAC Arbitration, Arbitration No. ARB 139/11/VN and No ARB 053/13/AP.
Pada perkara ini, Ang Choon Beng
(“Penggugat”), selaku salah satu pemegang saham Innoform Media Pte Ltd (“Innoform”) mengajukan gugatan di SIAC terhadap pemegang saham Innoform lainnya (“Linktone dkk”).
In this case, Ang Choon Beng (the”Claimant”), as one of Innoform Media Pte Ltd’s (“Innoform”) shareholders filed its claim at SIAC, against the other shareholders of Innoform (“Linktone et al”).
Pada pokoknya Penggugat mengajukan
gugatan kepada Linktone dkk, untuk
memenuhi kewajiban sebagaimana diatur dalam perjanjian jual dan beli, tanggal 24 Pebruari 2010 yaitu membeli 12,5% saham
Innoform, dalam dua tahap put option.
Essentially, the Claimant asserted its claim over the Linktone et al., in order to fulfill its obligation, based on sale and purchase agreement, dated February 24, 2010, which is to purchase the 12.5% Innoform’s share for two put options.
Put Option dilakukan oleh Penggugat pada
tanggal 18 September 2011 (Initial Put Option)
dan tanggal 18 September 2012 (Further Put
Option). Linktone dkk menolak untuk
melaksanakan kedua put option tersebut, atas
dasar pelanggaran oleh penggugat terhadap warranties dan representations, sebagaimana diatur dalam perjanjian jual dan beli tanggal 24 Pebruari 2010.
Put options were exercised by Claimant on September 18 2011 (Initial Put Option) and on September 18 2012 (Further Put Option), both of which were rejected by the Linktone et al., on grounds of breaches of warranties and representations, as stipulated in the sale and purchase agreement, dated February 24, 2010.
Berdasarkan hal tersebut, pada tanggal 12 April 2013, Linktone dkk telah mengajukan
pembelaan dan gugatan balik kepada
Penggugat. Pada tanggal 5 Maret 2014, Majelis Arbitrase telah mengeluarkan putusan yang memenangkan Pemohon
On April 12 2013, the Linktone et al., filed a defense and counter claim against the Claimant. On March 5, 2014, the Tribunal has passed a decision on this case, in favour of the Claimant.
h. Arbitrase Pengadilan International ICC,
Arbitrase No. 167721CYK h. ICC International Court of Arbitration, Arbitration No. 167721CYK
KT Corporation menggugat Mediacom atas
tindakan wanprestasi terhadap perjanjian Put
and Call Option Agreement tanggal 9 Juni 2006 (Perjanjian Opsi). Perkara ini telah diputus pada tanggal 18 Nopember 2010,
dimana berdasarkan putusan tersebut
Mediacom diwajibkan melakukan pembelian 406.611.912 lembar saham PT. Mobile-8 Telecom Tbk milik KT Corporation dengan harga sebesar US$ 13.850.966 ditambah dengan bunga yang perhitungannya dimulai sejak 6 Juli 2009 sampai dengan pembayaran
tersebut dilakukan dan juga sebesar
US$ 731.642 untuk biaya hukum dan lain-lain, serta sebesar US$ 238.000 sebagai biaya arbitrase.
KT Corporation sued Mediacom for breach of contract of the Put and Call Option Agreement dated June 9, 2006 (Option Agreement). This case has been decided on November 18, 2010, in which Mediacom is required to purchase 406,611,912 shares of PT. Mobile-8 Telecom Tbk owned by KT Corporation at a price of US$ 13,850,966 plus interest calculated starting July 6, 2009 until payment is made, as well as payment of US$ 731,642 for legal and other fees, etc., and US$ 238,000 for the cost of arbitration.
Putusan arbitrase ICC tersebut baru akan mempunyai kekuatan hukum yang mengikat
terhadap Mediacom apabila telah ada
persetujuan dari ketua Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Pusat atas permohonan pelaksanaan Putusan arbitrase ICC tersebut di Indonesia. Sampai dengan tanggal penerbitan laporan
keuangan konsolidasian, belum ada
persetujuan tersebut.
The new ICC arbitration decision shall have binding legal force on Mediacom upon approval of the Chairman of the Central Jakarta District Court at the request of the ICC
arbitration decision implementation in
Indonesia. As of the date of issuance of the
consolidated financial statements, such
consent has not been obtained.
i. Perkara No.431/PDT.G/2010/PN.JKT.PST. i. Case No. 431/PDT.G/2010/PN.JKT.PST.
Pada tanggal 24 September 2010,
Perusahaan menggugat Mediacom selaku Tergugat I, KT Corporation selaku Tergugat II, Qualcomm Incorporated selaku tergugat III dan PT. KTF Indonesia selaku tergugat IV.
On September 24, 2010, the Company sued
Mediacom as a 1st Defendant, KT
Corporation, as 2nd Defendant, Qualcomm Incorporated as 3rd Defendant and PT. KTF Indonesia as 4th Defendant.
Dalam perkara ini, Perusahaan mengajukan
pembatalan Put and Call Option Agreement
tanggal 9 Juni 2006 (Perjanjian Opsi) karena bertentangan dengan peraturan yang berlaku dan tidak adanya persetujuan komisaris.
Apabila gugatan tersebut dikabulkan,
Mediacom dapat memiliki kewajiban
memberikan ganti rugi sebesar sampai dengan Rp 1.000.000.001.
In this case, the Company submitted the cancellation of Put and Call Option Agreement, dated June 9 2006 (Option Agreement) because of conflict with existing regulations and the lack of approval of the commissioners. If the claim is granted, Mediacom may have an obligation to provide compensation of up to Rp 1,000,000,001.
Pada tanggal 6 April 2011, Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Pusat telah mengeluarkan putusannya dan atas putusan tersebut Perusahaan telah mengajukan banding ke Pengadilan Tinggi DKI Jakarta.
On April 6 2011, Central Jakarta District Court passed a decision and on such decision the Company has submited an appeal to the High Court of DKI Jakarta.
Pada tanggal 26 Maret 2012, Pengadilan Tinggi DKI Jakarta mengabulkan permohonan banding yang diajukan oleh Perusahaan, yang pada intinya memutuskan bahwa Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Pusat berwenang untuk memeriksa dan mengadili terhadap perkara ini.
On March 26 2012, the High Court of DKI Jakarta granted the Company’s appeal which stated that the Central Jakarta District Court was authorized to examine and adjudicate this case.
Atas putusan Pengadilan Tinggi DKI Jakarta
tersebut, KT Corporation, Qualcomm
Incorporated, dan PT. KTF Indonesia
mengajukan permohonan Kasasi ke
Mahkamah Agung dan sampai dengan penerbitan laporan keuangan konsolidasian ini, perkara sedang diperiksa di Mahkamah Agung dan belum terdapat putusan apapun atasnya.
For such decision from the High Court of DKI
Jakarta, KT Corporation, Qualcomm
Incorporated, and PT. KTF Indonesia have filed the request for Cassation to Supreme Court and as of the issuance of the consolidated financial statements, the case is still under examination in the Supreme Court and there has not been any decision upon it.
j. Gugatan Perkara Perdata No.
534/PDT.G/2013/PN.JKT.PST tertanggal 25 November 2013 di Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Pusat
j. Civil Case Lawsuit No.
534/PDT.G/2013/PN.JKT.PST dated
November 25, 2013 at the Central Jakarta District Court
Pada perkara ini, Mediacom (Penggugat) mengajukan gugatan pembatalan putusan
arbitrase Internasional ICC International Court
of Arbitration No. 18062/VRO melalui Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Pusat terhadap Qualcomm Incorporated (Tergugat).
In this case, Mediacom (Plaintiff) filed for cancellation lawsuit on the award of the ICC International Court of International Arbitration No. 18062/VRO through the Central Jakarta District Court against Qualcomm Incorporated (Defendant).
Pada pokoknya Mediacom mengajukan
gugatan tehadap Qualcomm mengenai
pelaksanaan Put and Call Option Agreement
tertanggal 9 Juni 2006 (“Objek Sengketa”).
Sampai dengan diterbitkannya laporan
keuangan konsolidasian ini, perkara ini
sedang dalam proses pemeriksaan di
Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Pusat.
Substantially, Mediacom filed the lawsuit against Qualcomm regarding the performance of the Put and Call Option Agreement dated June 9, 2006 ("Object Dispute"). Until the
issuance of this consolidated financial
statement, the case is currently in the process of examination at the Central Jakarta District Court.
51. ASET DAN LIABILITAS MONETER DALAM MATA UANG ASING
51. MONETARY ASSETS AND LIABILITIES
DENOMINATED IN FOREIGN CURRENCIES