M
Mdm Tang
Guest
.
Davinder: Sukamto's aim was to derail
IPO Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on email
Share on print Source Business Times Date 16 Aug 2012
Author Grace Leong
[SINGAPORE]
Singaporean businessman Sukamto Sia - subject of a $300 million defamation lawsuit by Low Tuck Kwong, founder of Indonesian coal producer PT Bayan Resources - was accused in cross-examination yesterday of fabricating his claims to half of Bayan's business "for the sole and deplorable purpose of exacting revenge".
Mr Low's lawyer, Senior Counsel Davinder Singh of Drew & Napier LLC, pointed to what he said were "inconsistencies" in Mr Sia's statements. These related to a so-called oral agreement in 1995 to give Mr Low $3 million to set up a coal-mining business, in return for a 50 per cent share of the business. This, Mr Low had allegedly said, may be worth US$500 million in 7-8 years if the company was listed on the Indonesian stock exchange.
"In your evidence-in- chief (affidavit), you say it is an investment. And in the other case, in your letter of July 10, you called it an investment and the provision of facilities," Mr Singh said. "On the basis of your own statements, you are lying to this court."
"Being such a savvy corporate player and the former chairman of a bank, someone who understood the difference between the terms that are being used here, why did you change your story?" Mr Singh asked.
"I never changed my story, just the wording . . . you keep telling me different meanings of different words," Mr Sia said.
He maintained in his opening statement that "on the strength of a promise by Mr Low" if the business was established, he (Mr Sia) would have a 50 per cent share of it.
But Mr Sia claimed that Mr Low failed to fulfil his end of the bargain, and instead concealed the establishment of PT Bayan - and the decision to list the company - from him.
One month before PT Bayan's initial public offering in August 2008, Mr Sia allegedly defamed Mr Low in letters to an Indonesian regulator, the stock exchange in Jakarta and others, claiming he reneged on the agreement.
According to Mr Low, who is also represented by Tony Yeo of Drew & Napier, the letters were an act of revenge as he had sued Mr Sia's company, Dynasty Line Ltd, in 1999 for its failure to pay Mr Low and others HK$240 million (S$38.5 million) for the purchase of shares of China Development Corp Ltd. He obtained judgment against Dynasty in April 2001. Mr Sia was jailed for fraud by a Honolulu court in 2002. When he got out of prison in 2004, provisional liquidators for Dynasty were appointed. Subsequently, Mr Sia's assets were frozen by a Hong Kong court.
"Six months before you sent that (July 10) letter, your view was 'this man has inflicted agony on me as part of a personal vendetta', right? . . . And you called the transaction an advance of $3 million . . . But six months later, so as to exact revenge on Dato for what he had done to you, you changed your story to hurt him," Mr Singh said.
The game plan, Mr Singh said, was to stop the IPO and deprive Mr Low of the benefits of the IPO.
"Isn't it the case that before the first letter went, you had already planned that it didn't matter how Dato and Bayan Resources were going to reply? You were going to make sure that you would embarrass Dato and stop this IPO at all costs?" he asked.
"Disagree," Mr Sia responded. "I never intended to embarrass him. If I want the whole world to know, I will go to the media already."
Mr Singh pressed on. "Why was it . . . necessary to take this matter of your claim to Bapepam (the Financial Institutions Supervisory Agency in Indonesia) and the other agencies?" he asked. "You knew Bapepam would not decide who is right or wrong; they are not a court of law."
"Because of my lawyers' advice," replied Mr Sia.
Mr Singh also accused Mr Sia of concocting the claim to Mr Low's shares in Bayan in order to block the IPO. To that end, he had even threatened to sue Bapepam and the IPO team.
To allow Bayan's IPO to proceed, Mr Low gave up selling 375 million of his shares in Bayan, losing the opportunity to reinvest during the financial crisis in the wake of Lehman Brothers' collapse.
"So having achieved that objective (of exacting revenge), there was no need for you to do anything more," Mr Singh said.
Mr Sia disagreed, saying he intended to pursue his claim against Mr Low in Indonesia. But before he could do so, Mr Low filed the defamation suit against him in Singapore on Oct 3, 2008, and also filed a complaint of criminal defamation against him to the Indonesian police.
"This complaint was escalated into an Interpol arrest warrant for (me)," Mr Sia said in his opening statement.
At one point in the hearing, Mr Singh called Mr Sia a clever and unscrupulous man. Reacting, Senior Counsel Giam Chin Toon from Wee Swee Teow & Co, representing Mr Sia, interjected: "You are not entitled to insult the witness."
Mr Singh retorted: "I'm not entitled to insult the witness - but I'm entitled to suggest to him that he has devised this, concocted this and contrived this to mislead this court. And if that's not unscrupulous, I don't know what is."
The hearing continues today.*
Source: Business Times © Singapore
Davinder: Sukamto's aim was to derail
IPO Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on email
Share on print Source Business Times Date 16 Aug 2012
Author Grace Leong
[SINGAPORE]
Singaporean businessman Sukamto Sia - subject of a $300 million defamation lawsuit by Low Tuck Kwong, founder of Indonesian coal producer PT Bayan Resources - was accused in cross-examination yesterday of fabricating his claims to half of Bayan's business "for the sole and deplorable purpose of exacting revenge".
Mr Low's lawyer, Senior Counsel Davinder Singh of Drew & Napier LLC, pointed to what he said were "inconsistencies" in Mr Sia's statements. These related to a so-called oral agreement in 1995 to give Mr Low $3 million to set up a coal-mining business, in return for a 50 per cent share of the business. This, Mr Low had allegedly said, may be worth US$500 million in 7-8 years if the company was listed on the Indonesian stock exchange.
"In your evidence-in- chief (affidavit), you say it is an investment. And in the other case, in your letter of July 10, you called it an investment and the provision of facilities," Mr Singh said. "On the basis of your own statements, you are lying to this court."
"Being such a savvy corporate player and the former chairman of a bank, someone who understood the difference between the terms that are being used here, why did you change your story?" Mr Singh asked.
"I never changed my story, just the wording . . . you keep telling me different meanings of different words," Mr Sia said.
He maintained in his opening statement that "on the strength of a promise by Mr Low" if the business was established, he (Mr Sia) would have a 50 per cent share of it.
But Mr Sia claimed that Mr Low failed to fulfil his end of the bargain, and instead concealed the establishment of PT Bayan - and the decision to list the company - from him.
One month before PT Bayan's initial public offering in August 2008, Mr Sia allegedly defamed Mr Low in letters to an Indonesian regulator, the stock exchange in Jakarta and others, claiming he reneged on the agreement.
According to Mr Low, who is also represented by Tony Yeo of Drew & Napier, the letters were an act of revenge as he had sued Mr Sia's company, Dynasty Line Ltd, in 1999 for its failure to pay Mr Low and others HK$240 million (S$38.5 million) for the purchase of shares of China Development Corp Ltd. He obtained judgment against Dynasty in April 2001. Mr Sia was jailed for fraud by a Honolulu court in 2002. When he got out of prison in 2004, provisional liquidators for Dynasty were appointed. Subsequently, Mr Sia's assets were frozen by a Hong Kong court.
"Six months before you sent that (July 10) letter, your view was 'this man has inflicted agony on me as part of a personal vendetta', right? . . . And you called the transaction an advance of $3 million . . . But six months later, so as to exact revenge on Dato for what he had done to you, you changed your story to hurt him," Mr Singh said.
The game plan, Mr Singh said, was to stop the IPO and deprive Mr Low of the benefits of the IPO.
"Isn't it the case that before the first letter went, you had already planned that it didn't matter how Dato and Bayan Resources were going to reply? You were going to make sure that you would embarrass Dato and stop this IPO at all costs?" he asked.
"Disagree," Mr Sia responded. "I never intended to embarrass him. If I want the whole world to know, I will go to the media already."
Mr Singh pressed on. "Why was it . . . necessary to take this matter of your claim to Bapepam (the Financial Institutions Supervisory Agency in Indonesia) and the other agencies?" he asked. "You knew Bapepam would not decide who is right or wrong; they are not a court of law."
"Because of my lawyers' advice," replied Mr Sia.
Mr Singh also accused Mr Sia of concocting the claim to Mr Low's shares in Bayan in order to block the IPO. To that end, he had even threatened to sue Bapepam and the IPO team.
To allow Bayan's IPO to proceed, Mr Low gave up selling 375 million of his shares in Bayan, losing the opportunity to reinvest during the financial crisis in the wake of Lehman Brothers' collapse.
"So having achieved that objective (of exacting revenge), there was no need for you to do anything more," Mr Singh said.
Mr Sia disagreed, saying he intended to pursue his claim against Mr Low in Indonesia. But before he could do so, Mr Low filed the defamation suit against him in Singapore on Oct 3, 2008, and also filed a complaint of criminal defamation against him to the Indonesian police.
"This complaint was escalated into an Interpol arrest warrant for (me)," Mr Sia said in his opening statement.
At one point in the hearing, Mr Singh called Mr Sia a clever and unscrupulous man. Reacting, Senior Counsel Giam Chin Toon from Wee Swee Teow & Co, representing Mr Sia, interjected: "You are not entitled to insult the witness."
Mr Singh retorted: "I'm not entitled to insult the witness - but I'm entitled to suggest to him that he has devised this, concocted this and contrived this to mislead this court. And if that's not unscrupulous, I don't know what is."
The hearing continues today.*
Source: Business Times © Singapore
