NOTES TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS As of 30 June 2012 unaudited and 31 December 2011 audited and
For the period of six months ended 30 June 2012 and 2011 unaudited
Expressed in thousand of rupiah, unless otherwise stated
67 rate of 1 month COLF + 2,30 per annum in 2012 and 2011, in exchange for the Company paying monthly
interest to PT Bank ANZ Indonesia in rupiah computed at the rate of 15,35 per annum on the outstanding principal amount. The interest payment period and U,S, dollar interest receipts matched the interest
payment period and U,S, dollar interest payment of the Resona loan. During the year 2012 there was no payment of principal dollars by the company. Whereas during the year 2011, the rupiah principal paid by
the Company amounted to Rp5,344,124 and simultaneously received the U,S dollar principal amounting to US 588,236. The Company recognized the net liability on the CCIRS contract at market value of
Rp201,204, which is presented as “Derivative Liability” in the consolidated statement of financial position as of 31 December 2010.The derivative liability was fully paid in 2011.
The CCIRS instrument was not designated as a hedge for accounting purposes and accordingly, the change in the fair value of the CCIRS was recorded as a charge to “Gain Loss on Derivative Instrument”,
which is presented in the consolidated statements of comprehensive income. In 2010, the Company was required to provide collateral in the form of time deposits for the CCIRS
transaction Note 14.
38. LITIGATIONS
The Company and Subsidiaries are involved in several lawsuits as follows:
a.
Gading Orchard defendant vs,
Gloria Tannos plaintiff in relation to booking fee, On 17 December 2009, the Central Jakarta District Court approved some of the plaintiff’s claim,
However, on 29 December 2009, the defendant filed an appeal to the Jakarta High Court. As of 30 June 2012, no decision has been made by the Jakarta High Court.
b.
CDA defendant and the Company co-defendant I vs. Hj. Lisa dkk plaintiff in relation to the transfer of shares belonging to the plaintiff to H. Sukardi Endang Taruna, S.H. formerly a President
Director of CDA. On 14 July 2010, the East Jakarta District Court decided to refuse the claim which has had permanent legal force because the plantiff has not filed an appeal,
c. CDA defendant vs. Abdul Thalib Bin Haji Abubakar dkk plaintiff. In this case, the plaintiff claimed
from 18 parties including CDA 139,250 square meters of land. The management is of the opinion that the plaintiff’s claim is not based on law because the acquisition of the above land has followed
the relevant rules and regulations. On 11 May 2010, the East Jakarta District Court decided to refuse the claim since the plaintiff could not prove his claim. However, on 30 December 2010, the
plantiff filed an appeal to the Jakarta High Court. On 23 August 2011, the Jakarta High Court affirmed the East Jakarta District Court’s decision. Since the plaintiff has not filed an appeal to the
Supreme Court, the East Jakarta District Court’s decision has permanent legal force.
d.
Kiswantara Partadiredja defendant and BMS co-defendant II vs. Emma Hernasari plaintiff in relation to a dispute between the plaintiff and defendant relating to a sale and purchase of a property
at Gading Park View. On 4 February 2009, the North Jakarta District Court approved the plaintiff’s claim. On 29 April 2009, the defendants filed an appeal to the Jakarta High Court. On 10 November
2010, the Jakarta High Court rejected the defendant’s appeal and commanded BMS to sign a sale and purchase agreement. Then, defendant filed an appeal to the Supreme Court through the North
Jakarta High Court. On 28 January 2011, the North Jakarta High Court refused to continue the defendants’ appeal to the Supreme Court, since the appeal did not fulfill formal requirements.
e.
The Company defendant and Jakarta Provincial Government through the Mayor of North Jakarta co-defendant I vs. E. Atika dkk plaintiff concerning a claim over approximately 20,283 square
meters of land located in Pegangsaan Dua. On 16 March 2011, the North Jakarta District Court decided to refuse the plaintiff’s claim. However, on 30 March 2011, the plaintiff filed an appeal to the
Jakarta High Court. As of 30 June 2012, no decision has been made by the Jakarta High Court.
f.
The Company defendant and the Government of the Republic of Indonesia through the Minister of Internal Affairs, Governor of DKI Jakarta and Supervision and Control of Agency Heads of Jakarta
and North Jakarta defendant II vs. Susanto Arfiana Oen plaintiff. In this case, the plaintiff claimed
NOTES TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS As of 30 June 2012 unaudited and 31 December 2011 audited and
For the period of six months ended 30 June 2012 and 2011 unaudited
Expressed in thousand of rupiah, unless otherwise stated
68 44 hectares of land of Grand Orchard, located in Pegangsaan Dua. On 24 November 2011, the East
Jakarta District Court decided to refuse the plaintiff’s claim. However, on 21 December 2011, the plaintiff filed an appeal to the Jakarta High Court. As of 30 June 2012, no decision has been made
by the Jakarta High Court.
g.
The Company defendant vs. Iin Parwati plaintiff in relation to fence installation above the plaintiff’s ground. On 28 November 2011, the Tangerang District Court decided to refuse the
plaintiff’s claim. However, on 30 November 2011, the plaintiff filed an appeal to the Banten High Court. As of 30 June 2012, no decision has been made by the Banten High Court.
h. The Company defendant and PT Persada Graha Permai co-defendant vs. R. Bey Ubaydillah
plaintiff concerning a claim over approximately 53,120 square meters of land located in Pegangsaan Dua. As of 30 June 2012, no decision has been made by the East Jakarta district
Court.
i.
Ministry of Law and Human Rights defendant and CDA defendent intervension vs. PT Citraputra Lestari plaintiff concerning legality of the Ministry of Law and Human Right’s decision about the
amendment of the articles of association of CDA and the receipt of report on the amendment. On 20 December 2010, the Jakarta State Administrative Court decided to refuse the plaintiff’s claim.
However, on 14 September 2011, the plaintiff filed an appeal to the Jakarta High State Administrative Court, which affirmed the Jakarta State Administrative Court’s decision. On 23
November 2011, the plaintiff filed an appeal to the Supreme Court. As of 30 June 2012, no decision has been made by the Supreme Court.
The Company’s management believes that the above litigations will not have a material effect and will not influence the going concern status of the Company and that these can be settled in accordance with
existing laws.
39. RECENT DEVELOPMENTS AFFECTING ACCOUNTING STANDARDS AND INTERPRETATIONS
The following are several accounting standards published by the Indonesian Financial Accounting Standards Board DSAK that are considered relevant to the financial reporting of the Company and
Subsidiaries but will be effective only starting on 1 January 2012 :
a. PSAK 10 Revised 2010, The Effects of Changes in Foreign Exchange Rates
This revised PSAK prescribes how to include foreign currency transactions and foreign operations in the financial statements of an entity and translate financial statements into a presentation currency.
b.
PSAK 13 2011, Investment Property This PSAK shall be applied in the recognition, measurement and disclosure of investment property,
including the measurement in a lessees financial statements of investment property interests held under a lease accounted for as a finance lease and to the measurement in a lessors financial
statements of investment property provided to a lessee under an operating lease
c.
PSAK 16 2011, Property, Plant and Equipment This PSAK prescribes the accounting treatment for property, plant and equipment so that users of
the financial statements can discern information about an entitys investment in its property, plant and equipment and the changes in such investment. The principal issues in accounting for property,
plant and equipment are the recognition of the assets, the determination of their carrying amounts and the depreciation charges and impairment losses to be recognized in relation to them.
d.
PSAK 18 Revised 2010, Accounting and Reporting by Retirement Benefit Plans This revised PSAK is concerned with the determination of the cost of retirement benefits in the
financial statements of employers having plans. This Standard complements PSAK 24 Revised
