Cloudified Share Discussion Threads

[evil_doctor_facilier] 27/11/2016 17:40

Whilst i would really hate to deflate your bubble Neo. The license in question where issued in 2007 not 2009!!

Neo tell us all who posted that back in 2013 and how you remembered it so quick LOL? was it by chance Debs?
" Google 'Indonesian mining law divestment it will come up at the top of the page."
You are slipping up debs, you already used you other name 'Mr Noor' to posts that exact same sentence earlier today!!

As funny as i find it, debs you are reading new laws and not the old laws permanent to 2007. They have had a massive overall.

[neo26] 27/11/2016 17:34

This is an old post, explain 75% interest of licenses. I notice you only come out of your shell when there is some news coming, your old username suited you.

_------------

13 Dec '09 - 17:01 - 673 of 25156 0 0
I have just updated my knowledge of the Indonesian mining law and if the article below published in June 2009 is to be believed the divestment requirement might not apply to CHL by virtue of the 25% of EKCP already being locally owned. Negotiating ones way around these regulations may be why Price Waterhouse have been engaged!

"Indonesian mining law requires foreign firms to sell 20% of shares

Indonesian government will require 20 percent of shares in mining companies entirely owned by foreign shareholders to be divested to local partners, in accordance with the new mining law, the Jakarta Post quoted an official as saying.

The government would issue a regulation on the divestment obligation in August, the daily quoted Bambang Setiawan, the director general for coal, minerals and geothermal energy at the Energy and Mineral Resources Ministry, as saying.

“The law stipulates that foreign mining license holders must divest their shares to the central government, regional government, state enterprises or domestic private companies starting in the fifth year after production starts,” Setiawan said.

“Based on our research, state enterprises usually seek to buy 20 percent of shares in foreign-controlled companies,” said Bambang Gatot Ariyono, director for coal and mineral utilisation.

He added that the obligation would not affect joint ventures where a domestic player, or a local consortium, holds 20 percent of shares or more.

Those affected by the new regulation, he said, would be those applying for new contracts, because contracts signed by earlier generations (one to four) already specified share divestment obligations.

“[And] the fifth to seventh generations of mining contracts do not require any divestment,” he said.

The 20 percent divestment must be completed within four years, starting in the fifth year after production starts, Gatot said.

The required percentage, he said, would be cumulative if companies could not sell the shares in the targeted number of years, meaning if a company failed to sell 5 percent of shares in the fifth year, it must sell 10 percent in the sixth year and so on.

However, the regulation does not stipulate sanctions for companies who fail to divest their shares to domestic players within the allocated time frame.

“In this case, we will ask them to continue their efforts to divest the shares, but we cannot force them to sell shares if there are no buyers,” Gatot said.

Jeffrey Mulyono, former chairman of the Indonesian Mining Association (IMA) and president director of PT Bhakti Energi Persada, said the 20 percent divestment requirement was “still acceptable” to investors.

A 20 percent share divestment would allow the original shareholders to keep officials at management levels intact, Jeffrey said.

He also supported a provision in the regulation stipulating that state enterprises would enjoy a priority in buying the divested shares, citing that dividends paid to state enterprises would become state revenue while revenues garnered by private companies would go to individual pockets.

“Because money has no citizenship, the person could simply use it to buy another company outside Indonesia,” Jeffrey said.

However, divesting shares to state enterprises was not necessarily free from problems, he said.

“The question we need to address is whether state owned enterprises can manage the companies as well as private actors do.”


Please note I havn't posted the link because it will distort the Board but if you Google 'Indonesian mining law divestment' it will come up at the top of the page.

[debbiegee] 27/11/2016 17:21

ireminisces The 3 day warning of decision will not include the result

[debbiegee] 27/11/2016 17:20

With all the procedural orders published with all details I would find it very difficult for ICSID to be corrupt.
They will have to give good reasons for all their decisions on the world stage.
Investors from alll over the world will want to know they are safe to invest and receive foreign investments in the future.

[stephen1946] 27/11/2016 16:58

On second thoughts, do i want to read or post on an unprincipled wretches thread? No. End of.

[weegeordie] 27/11/2016 16:54

ireminisces - just as well it isn't a UK based court room then! :)

[tivoliworldgaming] 27/11/2016 16:48

I just hope our arbers are bound by religion like the monks on Coldey Island.

[stephen1946] 27/11/2016 16:48

Top syco, coley.

Obviously the matron has been busy, private messaging her disciples.

Call me a liar, no you wont will you?

[bones] 27/11/2016 16:40

Ireminisces- do you know that for a fact or do you read the Daily Mirror for information?

[stephen1946] 27/11/2016 16:19

Just to make it clear, whilst i have walked away from the debgee thread, she has seen fit to ban me from posting because i exposed her double handed methods of private messaging people to gang up on other posters.

You will see to date the Matron has NOT DENIED WHAT I ACCUSE HER OF.

I WOULD REMIND THE MATRON, SHOULD YOU DENY IT, I WILL PASTE THE PRIVATE MESSAGE CONCERNING ROSSANNAN FOR ALL TO SEE.

THE WOMAN IS A PATRONIZING BORE, LEADING A SQUAD OF SYCOPHANTIC LOSERS.

COME on DEBS, SAY I AM LYING?

[nicebut] 27/11/2016 16:16

Should be but if anyone who has seen Making A Murderer or followed other court cases around the world and how they have come to odd conclusions- you`ll appreciate that either result is possible even the more ridiculous, like a ROI win. Nothing surprises me these days.

[neo26] 27/11/2016 16:15

What exactly have roi proved? They have literally lied to the tribunal when they stated the docs are lost or don't exist, when officials were asked at the hearing they stated the docs did exist.I don't think they have proved their case. Simple...

[debbiegee] 27/11/2016 16:14

Dont think anybody has the score yet but we hope for 3-0 !

[neo26] 27/11/2016 15:52

That's why when Isran Noor failed to show the case became iffy, he looked at all paperwork before he upgraded the licenses so tribunal can interpret the licenses being genuine, with no evidence given to claim he was tricked.

[debbiegee] 27/11/2016 15:40

This is the follow up today again I hope you dont mind us sharing and Thankyou


TheTradersFoocus
Posts: 2,168
Off Topic
Opinion: No Opinion
Price: 34.75
Burden of ProofToday 14:47Few pm's on twitter asking relevance of yesterdays point so rather than multiple private responses hopefully this should explain further.

At all times/points in any litigation case one of the parties involved carries "the burden of proof". As soon as any party implies a point or makes any statement as fact then they have accepted the burden of proof regardless of their respective position as claimant or respondent. See following explanation...

"The Latin maxims ei qui affirmat non ei qui negat incumbit probatio (the burden of proof is carried by the person who affirms, not by the one who denies)" or more simply the burden of proof basically lies with the party who has the interest in establishing the fact alleged.

This is used by any arbitration panel to resolve disputes that may otherwise remain undecided. There are so many instances where this direction is prevalent as the deciding factor in any ruling. Here's point from one...

"since arbitrators cannot escape from their duty to adjudicate and cannot rule favorably on unproved claims. As a result, burden of proof functions clearly as a rule for judging under uncertainty"

Now also take note of the following..

"arbitrators may allocate the burden of proof in a non-traditional form when sanctioning a party that has unjustifiably refused to produce certain evidence"
"As a general rule, the party who affirms is expected to come to arbitration with sufficient evidence to sustain it."

So not only have ROI already taken on the burden of proof in making the allegations of fraud , forgery etc against CHL they have now the additional weight that is carried by refusal to produce so many key points of evidence that would have allowed the panel to draw a clear conclusion on events....hence DQ's reference to adverse inferences as were drawn by the panel post hearing.

Now revert back to previous post from yesterday regarding the binary score system the arbitrators will be applying to the case.
Hope its clear now