• ..

(Official Translation)

0143/88.01/liP"

May 26, 2010

HEAD OF CENTRAL JAKARTA DISTRICT COURT

Cencral JaKarta Court

Jl. Gajah Mada No. 17,

Central Jakarta

Subject: LAWSUIT OF TORT

Dear Sir,

The undersigned, Hotman Paris Hutapea, S.H., M.Hum., Subagio

Aridarmo, S.H. and Donald R.O. Pardosi, S.H., the Advocates,

'l'1hose office is situated at the Office of Advocate and Legal

Consultant HOTMAN PARIS & PARTNERS, haVing address at

Summitmas I Building, 18 th Floor, Jalan Jenderal Sudirman

Kavling 61-62, Jakarta 12069, acting for and on behalf of

PT Mobile-a Telecom Tbk, an incorporated company established

under the laws of the RepUblic of Indonesia, having address at

Menara Kebon Sirih, 18 th Floor, J1. Kebon Sirih Kav. 17-19,

Jakarta 10340, base on Specia: ?ower of Attorney, iated May 14

4

•

(fourteenth), 2010 (Original Power of Attorney is attached),

hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiff".

The Plaintiff herewith intends to make a lawsuit of Tort

against:

Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc., in 745 Seven"n

Avenue, New NY 10019, referee

to as "Defendant".

The reasons for this lawsuit are as

I. FACTUAL CRONOLOGY:

1.1. Ivhereas the Plaintiff is a national company having

been listed in the publio stock exchange (go public),

whose shares belong to the public.

1.2. That the Defendant is a company established under the

laws of the State of Delaware of the United States of

America specializing business in =oreign currency

speculation (Swap Transaction or derivatives), but

doing businesses in allover the world, as well as in

Indonesia.

JJ:- '-·1... .. JiI'

•

I. 3. Whereas in the mid year 2007, the speculation staff

of the ::>efendant had repeat:edly cOr:'.e to the

Plaintiff's office in Jakarta requiring the Platntiff

to unhesitatingly do business in foreign currency

speculation (Swaps and Derivatives Transactions)

where ;;efendant promi sed to provide profitable

percentage, and he specified that the speculation

business was safe and the Plaintiff would have been

pro:e::::ed ,since the speculators would sign the terms

and conditions as required by ISDA (INTERNATIONAL

SW1l:P AND DERIVATIVES ASSOCIATION, INC. ) AGREEMENT,

THE MASTER AGREEMENT referred to as

"ISDA Master Agreement") . The Defendant also

that the transactions of swaps and

deriva:ives would only be binding the Plaintiff and

the Defendant if the Plaintiff and the Defendant have

negotiated and agreed to sign ISDA Master Agreement

as the main agreement. The Defendant promised to send

immediately the concept of ISDA Agreement Master

Agreement.

1.4. whereas according to the testimony of the Plaintiff,

the initial concept of ISDA MASTER AGREEMENT simply

consisced of the rules and procedures of foreign

currenc/ speculation and Derivatives

Transac:'':''QnL

·.terms

do':'::g

of default (defaulted),

transactions of swaps

guarantees, ways of

and derivatives,

incumbency or rights and liabilities of the parties

and the jurisdiction of the court to settle if any

cases, which is not exclusive (or not bound by the

judiciary of any country), which must oe pe:::::;;:::::.",:'

a:::ourt in New York or in the United ;;::: cny

oUler court in another country (as ,..ell as a .-

Indonesia) .

1.5. Whereas as a preliminary talk and negotiatiofl, The

Defendant sent a letLer to the Plaintiff,

August 8, 2007 (vide Evidence/ Poo£ P-l)

consisted of information, general exp:anaticn and

pointers, and specified the name of agreement to be

signed stating that: uTRANSACTIONS OF

SWAP/DERIVATIVES" WILL ONLY BE CONSIDERED TO EXIST

AND BE EFFECTIVE 1lND BE LEGALLY BINDING AFTER THE

PLAINTIFF and THE DEFENDANT PENGGUGAT and HAVE

DISCUSSED and AGREED THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS, and

SIGNED THE ISDA MASTER AGREEMENT.

1.6. The Plaintiff quotes here the statement of the second

paragraph in the letter of the Defendant, dated

August 8, 2007 (vide evidence P-l) stating as

':.:-llows;

1

, •

... , you and we agree to use all reasonable efforts

prc?!!!ptly to negotiate, execute and deliver an

agreement .in the form of ISDA Master AvJ;eement

(Multicurrency-Cross Border) (the "ISDA Form"),

with such modifications as you and we will .in good

faith agree. Upon tha exeC'.ztion by you and us or

such agreement, this Confirmation shall supplement,

:form a part of, and be subject to that agreement

(the "Agreement")."

Hence, it :;a3 p.:roved t:rac ::he letter of tr.e

Defendant, ::",'c,=::: 8, 2007 (vide evidence P-l)

simply of information of currency

speculatioc. o;;s2.::ess plan (swaps and derivatives) ,

there is :10 nm·,ly iJinding agreemep.t nor any legally

binding transactiofc, as it will only occur and come

into force when the Plaintiff and Defendant have

signed ISDA Master Agreement to be the Master

Agreement.

1.7. Whereas within the period of about (10) months, the

Plaintiff made calls to the Defendant requiring

it to send the draft of ISDA Agreement Master

Agreement, which, in essence, questioning WHY the

congept _0:;' ISO!\, .MASTER AGREEMENT is still not

yet. Furthe" ·."ith the lette::: dar.ed 2008 :=II:A"'··· ,.. '.' .- .

.. ."' /;J'

•

No.: 31!MS-LGL!VII!2008 (vide evidence P-2), the

Plaintiff sen;:. a letter again to the Defendant to

questioning the same purpose, WHY the had

not sent the concept of ISDA (MASTER AGREEMENT) to

the Plaintiff, and WHEN the concept of ISDA

(INTERNATIONAL SWAP DERIVATIVES ASSOCIATION, INC. )

MASTER AGREEMENT would start to be discussed !

negociated.

For clear understanding, as quoted from the

Plaintiff's letter, dated July 25, 2008 No.: 31/M8-

LGL!VII/2008

follol-Is:

(vide P-2) it is said as

"We would like to inform you, as the new management

of PT Mobile-8 Telecom T.bk, we believe that some

documentation regarding ISDA Master Agreement

(Multi CUrrency Cross Border) (the "ISDA rr) has been

missing to discuss and/or to elaborate and/or to

negotiate between both parties."

I.8. Whereas as the responses to the Plaintiff's letter,

dated July 25, 2008 (vide evidence P-2) , then for the

first time on AUgust 1, 2008 at 3:15 PM The Defendant

sent a le;:.ter via to the Plaintiff :vide

evidence P-J), essentia:

,

OF ISDA MASTER AGllEE:MBNT (vide evidence P-4); For

clear understanding here below is quoted -.:he

content of e-mail from the Defendant, on August 1,

2008 evidence P-3) as follows:

"With reference to dated 25 2008 from

to Lehman Brothers Financing

requesting on ISDA Master Agreement

Cross Border) ("ISDA") , find

attached a draft ISDA agreement for your review and

further considerations."

Latter on,

follows:

in the third paragro.,::: :'5 c'"'-..:.::-:ed as

"My Anita Chiu, :from :l'ransaction

Management Group (copied on this be

responsible for negotiation of ISDA on behalf of

Lehman. us know the right person on your

side to liaise with to further the discussions on

ISDA. "

1.9. As quoted here below, the content of the Defendant's

len:er via e-mail on August 1, 2002 (vide evidence

P-3) , refers to 4 (four) matters:

. ......-" ';l.., . ..__ A. __ •

1°

•

a. It is for the first time the Defendant sent the

concept/draft of ISDA (vide

evidence P-4l on the mentioned date (August 1,

2008) ;

Augusc 2008 (vide evidence

P-3; Defendant Defendant Staff,

to be as a proxy of the

Defendant start negotiating I discussing the

concept content of ISDA Master Agreement. THIS

MEANS, THE DEFENDANT RECOGNIZES THAT THERE HAVE NOT·

YET BEEN ANY UNDERSTANDING ON THE CONCEPT CONTENT OF

ISDA MASTER AGREEMENT, therefore, <:here is no S,,,ap

Cleri-;ative agreement which is valid and bind <:he

Plaintiff and the Defendant;

c. The Defendant required the Plaintiff to appoint

someone to represent the Plaintiff in discussing I

negotiating the concept of ISDA Master Agreement

(vide evidence P-4);

d. As the attachment of the Defendant's letter via e-

mail on August 1, 2008 (vide evidence P-3) , the

J;lefendant has attached the document named "the

.concept of ISDA Master Agreement" (vide evidence P-

4), whic:, by the Defendant had

\\

dated August 1, 2007. However, the concept was just

by the Defendant on August 1, 2008 .which was

still in the form of "draft" or "concept".

I .10. Whereas as the responses to the Defendant's letter

via e-mail on August 1, 2008 (vide evidence E-3

above, the Plaintiff sent a -r ._._.-

Defendant, daced AL:gust 29, 2008

LGL/VIII/2008 (vide evidence which

the Plaintiff intends to reaffirm (reconfirm) that:

a. The Plaintiff and tr:e Defendant are not

any agreement on currency swap transact:ions

ISDA MASTER AGREEMENT HAS FULLY AND THROUGHFULLY

been negotiated, signed aCId performed by the

plaintiff and the Defendant, for the reasons that:

(i) the Defendant had defaulted its obligation to

negotiate with the Plaintiff on THE CONCEPT OF ISDA

MASTER AGREEMENT (vide evidence P-4), and (ii) the

Board of Commissioners of the plaintiff never gives

any approval for the plan of swap transactions

whereas the approval for purpose is an obligation /

compulsion based on the articles of Association of

/iIli""'"••• •• ••_01- .. ..--,- ","',.... _. -:'.

\2.

b. Based on the matters as specified above, the

Plaintiff ar:ci :::e Defendant, whether in the pa.o:,

present or future, have no financial in

relation to swap transactions or any other financial

transaction.

For clear unaerstanding, as quo:ed from cite

Plaintiff's _'0:;:2::, ciaceci ;:"'lQ'csc 29, 2J08 (vide

Evidence P-5 if said:

"We refer to our letter dated 25 July 2008 and also

your email dated 1 August 2008 and previous

communication in which we repeatedly states that. PT

Mobile-8 Telecom Tbk and Lehman Brothers

Financing Inc. do not have any legal binding

agreement on any swap transaction until ISDA Master

Agreement (Multi Currency-Cross Border) (the "ISDA")

to be fully negotiated, executed and delivered by

Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc. and PT

Mobile-8 Telecom Tbk.

The fact is that until today, Lehman Brothers

Financing Inc. neglects its obligation to

negotiate the draft ox ISDA with PT Mobile-8 Telecom

- Tbk.

We refer to the fact '/;bat the Board of

of PT Xbk never

approves the for swap transaction, wl2icb Board

of Commissioner's approval is conpul.sory requirement

under the of Association of PT

Telecom Xbk.

Therefore, this letter is to reconfi:rm our mutual

understanding that PT Telecom Xbk and

Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc. do not have

any past or current and future financial obligations

on any swap transaction or any financial

transaction. II

1.11. FIRST EVIDENCE (I) OF TORT BY THE DEFENDANT

(DEFENDANT'S LETTER, DATED SEPTEMBER 4, 2008 - VIDE

EVIDENCE P-6)

Whereas as the responses to the Plaintiff's letter,

dated July 25, 2008 No.: 3l/M8-LGL/VII/2008 (vide

evidence P-2), and August 29, 2008 No.: 39/M8-

LGL/VIII/2008 (vide evidence P-5) unpredictably the

Defendant sent a letter, dated September 4, 2008

(vide evidence P-6) to the Plaintiff, consistir.g of

accusation that _the Plaintiff had viol.ated Artic:e 5

(a) (1,\ and Article 12 (a) .of .ISDA..... , ...

. - .14

whereas the Plaintiff has not yet negotiated and has

never signed the draft of ISDA Agreement

(vide Evidence 2-4). Even on August 1, 2008, it is

for the first time that the Defendant sent a letter

via e-mail (vide Evidence P-31 specifying about the

concept to be discussed, (c·,·:e';e:::,

negotiated or agreed at az'Cer one

month, on September 4, 20GS, cf:e Defendant accdseo

the Plaintiff to have violatec A!:':.:'c="2: a:, ,:..) and

12 (a) of the concept of ISDA Master Agreement.

Fa:::' clear understa,,"dircc;, as ,...,.., -.,- ,:),-<-:, ......... - ,"-,- the

Defendant's letter, dated :vide

Evidence P-6) it is said:

"We refer to the terms o£ the Master Agreement

re£erenced above. Capi te.r::ms used herein

and not de£ined have the meanings ascribed

to them in the Master Agreement.

Under the Master Agreement (and the

terms o£ the Transactions), you were required to

a payment to us by the o£ business on 2

September 2008. The amount was USD

2,047,576.03, and we had indicated to you on 27

__ 2008 the amount the

the accoUDt into wh:l.c.h such sbould be

paid.

You are hereby notified that you have failed to

:make such payment. This notice constitutes a

notice of failure to payor deliver given to you

in accordance with Section 5 (a) (i) of the Master

Agreement, if the failure to pay is not remedied

by you on or before the first Local Business Day

after receipt of this notice, then such failure to

payor deliver constitutes an event of Default

with respect to Party B."

In accordance with Section 12 (a) of the Master

Agreement, this notice is being delivered during

normal business hours and will be deemed effective

today. "

The main content of the Defendant's letter, dated

September 4,

fol10'."s:

2008 (vide Evidence p-6} , is as

a_ The Plaintiff accused the Defendant to have

violated \committed a the content of

Article 5 (a) (i) of ISDA MASTER even

though the Plaintiff HAS ?1tl. .., '7- ". .."'!O'". - &:.- .....'. ,..__ 6-. R I

S:IGNED :ISDA MASTER AcmEEMENT since the concept

itse:f was just delivered by the via e-

mail on August 1, 2008 (vide EVidence P-3);

b. The Defendant notified and also accused the

that according to the content of _"''-'.-.

Agreemenc, the Plaintiff has failed or defaulcec

cO :nake payment in accordance '.-lith ISDA HaSLer

Agreement, and therefore Lhe Defendant

to the Plaintiff to make payment as much as USD

2,047,576 (;:''10 million forty seven thousand and

five hundred seventy-six United States

which is according to the Plaintiff, its due on

September 2, 2008; the Defendant gave a reason of

his claim that the Plaintiff has defaulted or

violated lSDA MASTER AGREEMENT;

Therefore, the Defendant is proven to have made a

tort by making up a fictitious bill as much as USD

2,047,576 (two million forty seven thousand and five

hundred seventy-six United States Dollars) and sent

a letter to the Defendant dated September 4, 2008

(vide Evidence e-6) which the content is an untrue

statemen::, and has improperly set up a supposition

as if lSDA MASTER AGREEMENT ;,ai been truly Signed

and Plaintiff had

AGREEMENT, whereas ISDA Master Aq2:eement has never

been signed at all.

1.12. SECOND EVIDENCE (II) OF TORT BY THE DEFENDANT (THE

DEFENDANT'S LETTER, DATED MARCH 31, 2009 - VIDE

EVIDENCE P-7)

Whereas, the Defendant :.as ..:tseqL.e:'_':.l j- up

letter, da":ed . .;)_1 (vide Evidence P-7)

notifying that the Defendant has terminated ISDA

4 and 5 of the

lette= cated Ma=ct 2:C9 ,vide Evidence P-7), the

Defendant claimei -::,e -:e=r:;inatio:: '"as based on

Article 12 (a) of :5:'_::1. Has:er Agreement, and the

Defendant also argued that the Defendant had

reserved his rights under ISDA Master Agreement,

whereas the fact is that ISDA Master

Agreement had never been approved and signed, and

the Plaintiff had never negotiated and signed the

Article 12 (a) of ISDA Master Agreement.

1.13. THIRD EVIDENCE (III) OF TORT BY THE DEFENDANT

(DEFENDANT'S LETTER, DATED JUNE 18, 2009 - VIDE

EVIDENCE P-8)

Whereas letter on, the of tort by the Defendant, who

had manipulate:: :::'11 and made up as if ISDA Master

Agreement had been signed, was made again ?y the

Defendant through the letter dated June 18, 2009

(vide Evidence P-8) addressed to the Plaintiff,

the essence of the letter is partially as

follows:

a.6n the top of the Defendant's letter, dated June

18, 2009 (vide Evidence P-B) it is written the

following

"Re: Notice o£ Amount Payab1.e Under Section

6 (d) (i) o£ the £or.m o£ ISDA Master Agreement.";

Note:

Whereas, the legal fact is, ISDA Master Agreement

is never been signed, therefore, Article 6 (d) (i)

and the concept of ISDA Master Agreement is not

yet valid.

b. From the first paragraph of the Defendant's

letter, dated June 18, 2009 (vide Evidence P-8) it

is quoted is follows:

"Reference is hereby made to the Master Agreement

referenced above."

Note:

The legal fact proves that there is no ISDA Master

Agreement because ISDA ::as ::;::;-::

yet been signed by the ana the

Defendant.

c. From the second paragraph of the letter, dated

Jur-e 18, 2009 (vide Evidence P-Bj ic qu::;t:ed as

follm'1s:

"In accordance with the tezmination notice dated

March 31, 2009 previously sent to you, whereby we

designated April 7, 2009 as the Early Tezmination

Date, we hereby notify you, pursuant to Section

6 (d) (i) of the Master Agreement, that the amount

payable under the Section 6 (d) (i) of the Master

Agreement is USD 2,560,472 (tbe "Tezmination

payment") and such Tezmination Payment is payable

by Counterparty to Lehman on the date this notice

is effective (the "Payment Date"). This amount

does not reflect the interest accrued and accruing

pursuant to .the Master Agreement."

J.. ,- ,-' .. " -"-= :;c... .. ./7V zo

Note:

the Defendant states to have ISJA

Master Agreement in accordance with Article 6 (d)

(i) which asking for compensation as much as USD

2,560,472 based on Article 6 (d) (i).

':'ego.':' ':"5, P,rticle 6 (d) (i) of ISDA

l"ias:.er Agreemen'C has nor. ye"C been eifective, and

no 6inding contr3.Cl:. oet:. ....Jeen the

Plaintiff ana Defendant.

'.d. 3c, it is 9roven that the of tore by che Defendant

to happen, because on June 1B, 2009 a

bi:ling letter as much as U.S. $

2,560,472 (two million five hundred sixty thousand

and four hundred and seven twenty-two United

Staees Dollars) had been sent by the Defendant on

June 18, 2009 (vide Evidence P-8) as the

compensation of Termination Payment per April 7,

2009 on the basis that, according to the

Defendant, the billing out is of ISDA MASTER

AGREEMENT, whereas, the ISDA MASTER AGREEMENT has

never been negotiated, and agreed or signed at

all.

e. Based on the description above, it :5 the

:act that until the date of registra-' of the 1- --( p:"!!/1/....{:._" _,

1\

lawsuit a quo, ISDA MASTER AGREEMENT is in

the form of DRAFT I CONCEPT, it was just

by the on the 10 ' (first) of Augus.t 2008

but has not been negotiated and signed yet. So, if

ISDA MASTER AGREEMENT has never been dpproved and

signed, THERE SHALL BE NO BINDING AGREEMENT c::

BINDING TRANSACTION BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF AND THE

DEFENDANT, BECAUSE ISDA MASTER AGREEMENT specifies

the following conditions, such as:

Clauses of Breaches/Defaults;

- Clauses 0: Te::mination;Clauses of Taxes;

- Clauses of Liabilities of the Parties;

- Clauses of Jurisdiction (Courts) and others.

f. THEREFORE:

WITHOUT any signed ISDA MASTER AGREEMENT WHICH

BAS BEEN SIGNED, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE for THE

PLAINTIFF AND THE DEFENDANT TO KNOW THE

INCUMBENCIES OF THEIR OWNS.

So, until the date of registration of this

lawsuit in the court, THE FACT IS:

The P1aintiff and the Defendant HAVE NEVER

NEGO'l'IATED, AGREED and SIGNED ISDA Master

Agreement;

The P1aintiff and the Defendant have never

signed the as required by Bank

Indones:'a "'lir.:-. Regulation on

Swap Transaction / Derivatives (Foreign

Currency as stip-Jlated in Bank

Indonesia Regulii 1;;0.7/31/ ?BI /2005 dated

September 13, 2005 on Derivative Transactions

(vide Evidence P-9) .

3ased on as mentioned,

Plaintiff files the la,suit co the Panel of

Judges to declare that the three (3) letters of

the Defendant be illegal and null and have no

legal power at all, namely:

- The letter, dated September 4, 2008 (vide

Evidence P-6);

- The letter,

Evidence P-7);

dated March 31, 2009 (vide

- The letter, dated June 18, 2009 (vide Evidence

P-8) ;

I .14 . FOURTH EVIDENCE (IV) OJ!' TORT BY THE DEFENDANT

(DEli'ENDAN'l' VIOLATED THE REGULATION OF BANK INDONESIA

REGULATION)

The Defendant has violated its leqal obliqations to

obey the Regulation of Bank Indonesia, as follows:

a. Default to fulfill the requirements of BANK

INDONESIA REGULATION NO.7/31/PBI/2005 ON

DERIVATIVE TRANSACTIONS (vide Evidence P-9) ;

In accordance BANK INDONESIA REGULATION

NO.7/31/PBI/2005 ON DERIVATIVE TRANSACTIONS (vide

Evidence p-9), it is required that derivative

swap transaction shall be made in the form of

CONTRACT practically known as ISDA Master

Agreement. The contract shall be in the form of

final agreement (not a draft / concept) for

having been completely negotiated and signed by

both parties. However, the Defendant does not

fulfill BANK INDONESIA REGULATION

NO.7/3l/PBI/2005 ON DERIVATIVE TRANSACTIONS (vide

Evidence p-9) as in reality, ISDA MASTER

AGREEMENT is si:ill in the form of a draft or

concept and :;e':,,::: s:'gned.

2'f

b. Default to fulfill the requirements of BANK

INDONESIA CIRCULAR LETTER No.10/42/0PD, dated

NOVEMBER 27, 2008 ARTICLE 1 (4) (A) (vide

BANK INDONESIA CIRCULAR LETTER No .10/42/00'0,

DATED NOVEMBER 27, 2008 ARTICLE 1 (4) (AI (vide

Evidence P-IO) requires L:ne exis;:ence cf

main/principal contract (UNDERLYING CONTRACT;

agreement.

Similarly, as specified abcve, the concraeL: shal:

be a FINAL agreement (not a dra::t: '-or

having completed negotiated and s:'T-',,:: by

parties, as a MAIN/PRINCIPAL AGREEMENT

(UNDERLYING CONTRACT) .

However, the Defendants does not fulfill BANK

INDONESIA CIRCULAR LETTER No .10/42/DPD, Dated

NOVEMBER 27, 2008 ARTICLE 1 (4) (A) (vide

Evidence P-10) as in reality ISDA MASTER

AGREEMENT as a principal I main contract

(underlying contract) is sU2l in the form of a

draft/concept and never signed;

c _ All incumbencies of the Plaintiff in the

.<;:urrency speculation business_ (swaps and

derivati.ves) with the De:endant aha] 7 .._- :1-/-{ AlAVf;:: \ _:-,,::-71-

O' nv'

regulated and protected by the main/principal

ag:::eement as t:l;e underlying contract, here named

ISDA Master Agreement which is the final

agreement and signed by the parties. However,

ISDA Master Agreement is still in the form of a

based che "egal fact, according to Bank

the currency speculation

plan (swaps and derivatives) between the

Plaintiff and Defendant can only be held and come

:crce when ISDA Agreement as the Master

_-_? ::-2'2:::'3";: Agreement) has been signed; but

:act, there are no agreement or contract

having been final and signed by the Plaintiff and

che Defendant.

II. THE DEFENDANTS IS PROVEN TO HAVE MADE A TORT AGAINST THE

I?LAINTIFF

II.l. From the evidence described above, it is proven that

all the elements speCified in Article 1365 of Civil

Code namely "THE ACT OF TORT", referring to the

verd:ot of Hoge Raad, dated January 31, 1919 in the

case _Dec:ween Lindenbaum against. Cohen, ar,:,' ao:: ca-n-

.. : __. .__ .;... ':: . bY

be considered as an ACT OF TORT if it qualifies the

criteria:

1. The act is cont.radictive to the legal obligation

of the actor;

2. The act violates the rights of others; OR

3. The act violates social ethics or norms;

4. The act is considered to be contradictive to the

principle of appropriateness, accuracy, and

carefulness which must be possessed by a person

in his/her social intercourse when getting in

touch with the community or against the property

of others.

11.2. In verdict concerning the criteria of the TORT, Hoge

Raad applied the word "OR". It means, to prove that

there was an act of TORT, the four criteria of tort

shall not be cumulative of acts. If one of the

criteria (one element) has beep. fulfilled by an act

of tort, the act can be qualified as a TORT.

II. 3. In the case of a quo, the act of the Defendant has

completely been considered to have violated not only

one (11, but all, from the 1s , to the elements of

Tort, namely;

Performing. tr.e act considered to be contradictive

to.the principle of appropriateness by

the three (3) letters, namely the letter, dated

September 4, 2008 (vide Evidence P-6), the letter,

dated March 31, 2009 (vide Evidence P-7) and the

letter, dated June 18, 2009 (vide Evidence P-S),

and has made up fictitious bills;

- Violating ene 5;.:;:;:e:-::-:e :::::: Plaintiff

namely che righcs of DelDg ereaced fairly;

Performing l:he act. whic;. :..::: radict.'::" "v"-e to the

legal c: Defendant :c obey the

regulations of Bank Indonesia at the time of

performing businesses in

Indones:'a.

III. LOSSES SUFFERED BY THE PLAINTIFF

I II .1. Whereas the tort performed by the Defendant has

caused losses to the Plaintiff amounting to USD

15,250,000 (fifteen million two hundred and fifty

thousand United States Dollars), where the fault

made by the Defendant has different types of

causalities or causal rela":ionship to the losses

suffered by the Plaintiff, with the following

details:

a. Since the date of registration of this lawsuit,

material losses having been. suffered by t:Je

Plaintiff are among c .. ,. ,"...... • -,jI' •. , •. ,. : .... - ":.

amounting to· USD 4,250,000 (four million two

hundred and fifty thousand United States

Dollars), whereas if the Plaintiff were not

negligent to perform negotiation with the

Defendant and had completed the Draft of ISDA

MASTER AGREEMENT, swap and derivative

::,::,o.IJsactions WO...i::"d have cccurred and the

Plaintiff benefit as much as

USD 4,250,000 (four million two hundred and

fifty thousand United States Dollars) plus 6%

(six percent) interest per year;

b. Losses suffered by che Plaintiff, if

counted, is USD 11,000,000 (Eleven million

United States Dollars), considering that the

Plaintiff is a pUblicly listed and highly

reputable company which has good image and

reputation in the society and business

community, hence the tort performed by the

Defendant to the Plaintiff by declaring that

the Plaintiff has failed to make payment in

accordance with ISDA AGREEMENT MlI.STER

AGREEMENT, has destroyed the good image, name

and reputation of the Plaintiff in business

.cOl11Jl\T,lnity.ond ot::e::: 2.:lstitutions / agencies of

authorized capital rr;arket,

III. 2.

shall make reports to Bapepam and has decreased

the share value of the Plaintiff's Company.

As it is already proven that the tort performed by

the Defendant has. caused material and irmnaterial

losses to the Plaintiff, the Defendant __ .:::a

responsible in the matters and [heretore, snall be

given punishment to pay the losses by [je

Plaintiff, such as:

a. Indemnity of material loss the lost

profit amounting to USD 4,250,CCC

two hundred fifty chousand li:1i::e:: S:.a-:es

Dollars) in cash, plus 6% ( S2-A ¥-_ .... ..... .......- ..,. .... -. - ,

interest per year since the date of

registration of this lawsuit until it has been

fully paid; and

b. Indemnity of iJTul\aterial loss amounting to USD

11,000,000 (Eleven million United States

Dollars) in cash plus 6% (six percent) interest

per year.

IV. APPLICATION FOR PROVISION

3eing anxious that the Defendant would act something,

;"jich may further cal:se difficulty to the'f'" ••..A\'. ...:lr..:Z'..::.:: t "j;J;'

and would perform any action which may cause bigger losses

to the Plaintiff, the Pla{ntiff herewith asks ?anel of

Judges to produce a provisional verdict as follows:

a. the Defendant and/or the proxies or the

.:::- =e;:::eiving the transfer of

righcs .:ne auchority, or ochers, oefore the

to be '__ not to take any action, neither

legal action in the form of civil suit, bankruptcy

n.e Plaintiff, the arbin:ary petition

in the ;;;Ed / or in foreign country, a request

of bi::in;; actions, transfer of rights or

cessie upon any / all documents of any property

mvned by the Plaintiff, both a-ny movable- or immovable

matters at law institutions and/or any arbitrary bodies

in the Domestic and International Countries;

b. To punish the Defendant to pay a penalty (dwangsom) to

the Plaintiff as much as USD 50,000,000,- (fifty million

rupiah) per day subsequently if the Defendant is

negligent to conduct or violates the content of this

provisions wholly or partially.

V. APPLICATION FOR SECURITY ATTACJIMENT

Whereas to ensure that this lawsuit will not be

ineffective or fruitless (illusioir) F and that the

Defendant will execute the verdicts in the case of a quo,

the plaiTIciff herewith appeals to the Central Jakarta

Districc Court TO STIPULATE THE SECURITY ATTACHMENT

(CONSERv.ATOIR BESLAG) OF THE PROPERTY AND OTHER ASSETS

BELONGING TO THE DEFENDANT, for which, the details will be

provided "atter on. Therefore, Plaintiff will reserve its

rights ;:0 apply for the security At;:achment of property

and assets of the Defendant.

VI. APPLICATION FOR DIRECTLY EXECUTABLE DECISION AND PENALTY

PAYMENT (DW1INGSOM)

Whereas this lawsuit is filed based on the justifiable

evidences and in accordance with the prevailing and

applicable laws which can be used as evidences and

undeniable by the Defendant and in order that the verdict

in the case of a quo can be immediately executed by the

Defendant, so that all material and immaterial losses

suffered by the plaintiff will immediately be returned,

then in accordance with Article 180 HIR, the Plaintiff

herewi:h appeals to Panel of JUdges to dec::'are the

case of a quo imposed verdict

executed in advance even if otherwise there is any other

legal actions against it (uitvoerbaac bij voocraad).

Whereas in order to ensure immediate execution as a result

of verdict in the case of a quo, the Defendant shall be

::0 tr.e

rupiah) per day Defendant ',';'ola1:es

the content of this decision

verdict of a quo until the date of execul:ion of the

verdict of ::he case cf a quo by Defendant.

BASED ON THE LEGAL FACTS AS SPECIFIED ABOVE THE PLAINTIFF

APPEALED TO A PANEL OF JUDGES TO GIVE VERDICT AS FOLLOWS:

IN THE PROVISION

1. To grant the Provisional Plaintiff Application entirely;

2. Requiring the Defendant and/or the proxies or the

representatives or any party receivir.g the transfer of

rights and the authority, or any others, before the verdict

has binding legal power (inkracht van gewisjde) , to be

status quo or not to take any action, neither legal action

;Lr; the for:n of oiviI suit, bankruptcy pet:'. tion against the

Plaintiff, the arbitrary petition in theA'u.. ' '" •

-'-'

in foreign country, a request of execution, billing out

actions, action, of eights or cessie

upon any letter / all documents of any property owned by. .the Plaintiff, both any movable or immovable matters at law

institutions and/or any arbitrary bodies in the Domestic

_ .•J p,nisi: ;:::ce Defendant 1:0 pay tnIO penalty (dwangsom) to

Plaintiff as much as USD 50,000,000,- (fifty million

rupiah) per day continuously every time the Defendant

conduct" against the of this decision

paetially or wholly.

IN THE LEGAL PROCESS OF THE CASE:

1. To grant the lawsuit of the Plaintiff entirely;

2. To declare that security attachment having been stipUlated

is valid and valuable;

3. To declare that the Defendant has conducted a Tort;

4. To declare that the Defendant and the Plaintiff are not

the parties and not legally bound by any a letter of

agreement 0= s;,ap. and derivati':es :=al'sactions or foreigl'

currency exchange transactions

•

or in writing in any kind of letter or any others, and to

declare the P1.aintiff has no obligation of any

liability to the Defendant in relation to a swap and

derivatives transaction or any foreign currency exchange

transaction;

To declare that the concept of ISDA (Internal:.':'''';[..a: .3 ..vaf'5

and Derivatives Association, Inc.) Mas::e:::-

Evidence P-4) is merely a concept, which has ye:

effective and has no legal power to the Plaintiff

Defendant;

6. To declare ::hat all the letters sent by the Defendant ':0

the Plaintiff, dated September 4, 2008 (vide Evidence P-6"

the Defendant's letter, dated march 31, 2009 (vide Evidence

P-7) and the Defendant's letter dated June 18, 2009 (vide

Evidence P-8) addressed to the Plaintiff are not legitimate

and ineffective;

7. To declare that billing out of the Defendant as much as USD

2,047,576 (two million forty seven thOusand and five

hundred seventy-six United States Dollars) provided by the

Defendant on September 4, 2008 (vide Evidence P-6) and

letter on, the total increased to USD 2,560,472 (two

million :ive hundred thousand and fO:1:::: hl.:ndred

sevem:y-(l<o United States Collars)

· '

Defendant's letter dated June 18, 2009 (vide Evidence P-B)

addressed to the Plaintiff as baseless and illegal

8. To punish the Defendant to immediately indemnify the

material loss to the Plaintiff in cash as much as USD

4,250,00: and fifty thousand

Uniced Scaces 6% \six pe:ccent) incerest per

year aaLS chis

9. To punish the Defendant to iwmediately indemnify the

illL"11aterial loss tc -:'1e Plaintiff in cash as much as USD

11, 000, 000 :c'.i:':'ic:l United States Do11aYs) and 6%

10. To punish the Defendant ;:'0 pay the penalty (dwangsom) to

the plaintiff as much as Rp.50.000.000,- (fifty million

rupiah) per day continuously every time the Defendant

violated the contents of this verdict, either partially or,

.Iholly since the date the verdict in the case of a quo

until the date of execution of the verdict of the case of a

quo of the Defendant;

11. To declare that this verdict shall be implemented in

advance even if the:ce is any legal opposition, appea:i.,

cassation or revie,; : :;itvq",rp.Cla.r: .\Co.Qu'aad) ;

r::'-";J?=:J. 1:1"

-,

12.To punish the Defendant to pay legal costs and expenses

OR

If otherwise the Panel of Judges argues differently it is

appealed here;.;':::n 1:0 produce a verdict fairly (ex aequo et

00i10 J •

No" therefore, 'de herewith provide the lawsuit and, for your

honor and attention we thank you.

Faithfully Yours,

Attorney of PT Mobile-a Telecom Tbk (The Plaintiff)

HOTMAN PAlUS & PARTNERS

Hotman Paris Hutapea, S.H., M.Bum.

Advocate

Donald R.O. Pardosi, S.B.

Advocate

Subagio Aridarmo, S.H.

Advocate

· ,Attachment:

Original Special Letter of Atto.::-"e:i ,

(fourtenth) 2010.

dal:ed :-1ay 14