Wednesday, 14 October 2009

Getting The Deal Through - Project Finance 2010 - Published in 34 jurisdictions worldwide

Indonesia-Project Finance 2010
Emir Kusumaatmadja, Justin M Patrick and Mohammad Farhan
Mochtar Karuwin Komar

1. Collateral
What types of collateral are available?

  • Collateral may include certain types of real property rights, moveable objects and certain intangibles. A mortgage on real property may encumber the right of ownership, the right to cultivate and the right to build, as well as the transferable right to use of state land. A fiduciary security may encumber certain intangibles (including proceeds, receivables, insurance claims and shares), immoveable objects that are not subject to the law on real property mortgages, and moveable objects (eg, inventory, machinery and equipment, except aircraft and registered maritime vessels with a gross volume of at least 20m3, each of which is subject to specific laws). A pledge may encumber any moveable object physically delivered to the secured party, such as share certificates. Contractual rights, leaseholds, concessions and licences, among other things, cannot be the object of a security device under Indonesian law.
2. Perfection and priority
How is a security interest in each type of collateral perfected and how is its priority established? Are any fees, taxes or other charges payable to perfect a security interest and, if so, are there lawful techniques to minimise them? May a corporate entity, in the capacity of agent or
trustee, hold collateral on behalf of the project lenders as the secured
party?
  • A mortgage on real property is made effective by registration of a mortgage deed (akta pemberian hak tanggungan, APHT) by the relevant land office in the applicable mortgage book. The application for registration must be made within seven days of the execution of the APHT; the date of registration will be seven days after receipt of the requisite documents. The APHT must be in the Indonesian language and be executed before an applicable land deed official (PPAT). Additionally, the underlying loan agreement must provide that the mortgagor agrees to grant a mortgage to secure the debts arising thereunder. A fiduciary security interest is made effective by registration, at the Fiduciary Registry at the domicile of the fiduciary grantor, of a deed of fiduciary security, executed as a notarial deed in the Indonesian language. The deed of fiduciary security must state, among other things, the amount of the secured indebtedness and the value of the assets subject to the fiduciary encumbrance. Effectiveness of a fiduciary security interest in receivables also requires acknowledgment in writing by the applicable obligors or account debtors or notification of the obligors or account debtors by court bailiff. A pledge is made effective by physical delivery of the pledged collateral to the pledgee and giving notification of the pledge to the party with respect to whom the rights of the pledgee are to be exercised. A pledge of registered shares becomes effective on the recordation of the pledge on the shareholders’ register of the issuing company.
  • In the case of shares in scriptless form listed on the Indonesian Stock Exchange, this is achieved by registering the pledge with the Indonesian central securities custodian agency. Execution of an APHT requires payment of fees to the land deed official and to the land office. Amounts vary from location to location. Execution of a notarial deed evidencing a fiduciary security interest requires payment of notarial fees, which are negotiated with the notary; registration of the deed in the applicable Fiduciary Registry requires payment of an additional fee and non-tax state income, the amount of which depends on the value of the secured indebtedness. For a pledge agreement and related documentation to be eligible for presentation as evidence in an Indonesian court or before a government agency, a nominal stamp duty must be paid.
    Creditors may appoint a proxy (eg, a security agent) under contract to hold and enforce security interests on their behalf. The terms of the appointment would be governed by the applicable contract. In the case of an APHT, however, the lenders should be named as secured parties, in addition to the security agent. If the composition of the lenders changes, such change should be evidenced by a deed of assignment. Based on this, the National Land Agency (BPN) may
    be requested to update the composition of the lenders identified in the APHT.

3. Existing liens
How can a creditor assure itself as to the absence of liens with priority to the creditor’s lien?

  • A creditor may obtain evidence that certain real property is not subject to an APHT by conducting a search at the applicable land office. Conducting this search requires physical possession of the original certificate of title, which must be brought to the land office. The Fiduciary Registration Offices maintain records of fiduciary security interests in the form of a Fiduciary Register Book. However, these records are not frequently updated or organised. A creditor may obtain evidence that shares are not subject to a pledge by checking the share register book of the issuing company.

4. Foreclosure on and sale of collateral
What steps must a project lender take to foreclose on and sell collateral in your jurisdiction? (Are self-help remedies available? Is a public or private sale permissible or required? Is a judicial sale necessary? May the project lenders participate as buyers in any sale? May such sale be for foreign currency?)

  • A notice of default and demand of payment must generally precede any foreclosure action. APHT and fiduciary security interests may be enforced by either direct public auction or court proceeding to obtain a court order of foreclosure. It is possible, however, that an auction house may decline to implement a public auction until a court order of foreclosure has been issued. Moreover, in practice a debtor may interrupt an auction by a court filing requesting a stay of the auction on some basis. In the case of a pledge, there are no mandatory procedures for conducting an auction.

    Public auctions may be conducted by the State Auction House or by a private company licensed to act as an auction agent. The project lenders may participate as buyers in any such auction.

    Alternatively, the secured parties under an APHT or a fiduciary security interest may, with the approval of the debtor, sell the encumbered property directly to a third party purchaser after written notice to all concerned parties (including any holders of second or subsequent security interest) and announcement of the proposed sale in at least two newspapers at least one month prior to the proposed sale (if no objection to such sale has been filed). Any such sale by auction or otherwise can be made in foreign currency.

5. Foreign exchange
What are the restrictions, controls, fees, taxes or other charges on foreign currency exchange?

  • There is no restriction on cross-border remittance of foreign currencies through the Indonesian banking system, but there is a reporting system administered by Bank Indonesia (BI), the central bank. For transactions not carried out through the Indonesian banking system, however, companies (non-bank and non-financial institutions) that have total assets or total annual gross revenues of at least 100 billion IDR are required to report to BI (i) any transaction affecting their offshore assets and/or liabilities and (ii) the changes in position of their foreign assets and/or liabilities.

    Cross-border remittances of Rupiah funds through the Indonesian banking system are prohibited.

6. Remittances
What are the restrictions, controls, fees and taxes on remittances of investment returns or loan payments to parties in other jurisdictions?

  • For any transfer of foreign currencies amounting to USD10,000 or more, the transferring customer must provide information to its bank as to the residency of the recipient. Payments to an offshore party in the form of dividends and interest are subject to a 20% withholding tax, unless there is a lower rate pursuant to a tax treaty.

7. Repatriation
Must project companies repatriate foreign earnings? If so, must they be converted to local currency and what further restrictions exist over their use?

  • Neither repatriation nor currency conversion is required. Under the Investment Law, a foreign investor is given the right to freely transfer and repatriate in foreign currency, capital, profit, bank interest, dividend and other income, among other things.

8. Offshore and foreign currency accounts
May project companies establish and maintain foreign currency accounts in other jurisdictions and locally?

Yes, a project company may establish and maintain a foreign currency account in other jurisdictions and locally.

9. Foreign investment and ownership restrictions
What restrictions, fees and taxes exist on foreign investment in or ownership of a project and related companies? Do the restrictions also apply to foreign investors or creditors in the event of foreclosure on the project and related companies? Are there any bilateral investment treaties with key nation states or other international treaties that may afford relief from such restrictions? Would such activities require registration with any government authority?

  • All business fields or sectors may be open to some foreign investment, except for (i) the production of weapons, ammunition, explosive materials, military equipment, and (ii) business sectors that are explicitly closed or otherwise restricted pursuant to a specific law or regulation (including, under the current DNI (defined below), gambling or casinos and the museum business sectors).

    The activities of a foreign capital investment company must be approved by the Capital Investment Coordination Board (BKPM) and/or, if applicable, its regional equivalent.

    The criteria and conditions for business sectors open under certain conditions or which are closed to investment are separately regulated in a presidential regulation, which is commonly known as the Negative List of Investment (DNI). The most recent DNI was issued – and subsequently amended – in 2007. The DNI is valid for 3 (three) years as of the issuance date, unless amended within such period, and may be re-evaluated if required.

    The current DNI divides the types of business sectors in the following structure:
  • Business sectors totally closed to foreign investment (which currently includes 23 business sectors).
    Business sectors open under certain conditions, which include those:
  • reserved for small-scale and medium businesses and cooperatives;
    requiring a local partner;
  • for which foreign capital participation is limited to a specific percentage;
    limited to a specific location;
  • requiring a specific license;
  • reserved for 100% domestic investment;
  • for which foreign capital participation is limited to a specific percentage and that are limited to a specific location; and
  • for which foreign capital participation is limited to a specific percentage and that require a specific license.

    There is no statutory minimum of foreign investment. However, BKPM has its policy that for a manufacturing company, a minimum of US$ 500,000 is required and for a non-manufacturing company (service company) a minimum of US$ 250,000 is required.

    In connection with a foreign lender’s enforcement remedies, any prospective foreign purchaser of shares in a project company at a public auction would be subject to the applicable foreign investment regulations.

10. Documentation formalities
Must any of the financing or project documents be registered or filed with any government authority or otherwise comply with legal formalities to be valid or enforceable (eg, language, notaries. If not strictly required, please indicate if it is otherwise advisable).

  • A notarial deed is a highly stylized type of legal document executed by an Indonesian notary that provides prima facie evidence in court regarding the matters set forth in the deed, including due execution and authorization, compliance with Indonesian law and that the parties understand the matters to which the deed relates.

    Transaction documents that must be executed in notarial deed form include, among others, instruments conveying real property, mortgages on real property (except that they must be executed before a PPAT – who may or may not be a notary – rather than before a notary), a grant of a fiduciary security interest, a power of attorney to impose a mortgage on real property and an acknowledgment of indebtedness. Additionally, in some cases, it is advisable for lenders to have loan documentation (in addition to the acknowledgment of indebtedness), and for parties to obtain powers of attorney, in notarial deed form.

    A nominal stamp duty of Rp. 6,000 per document must be paid for each document to be executed or used in Indonesia (including admission before an Indonesian court).

    On 9 July 2009, Indonesia enacted Law No. 24 of 2009 on The National Flag, Language, Coat-of-Arms and Anthem, which requires, among others, (a) agreements with the government, private institutions or Indonesian citizens to be written in the Indonesian language (and by implication, all notices or reports pursuant to such agreements) and (b) requires all reports to be filed with the government to be made in the Indonesian language. Additionally, for court admission, any non-Indonesian language documents must also be accompanied by a sworn translation into the Indonesian language prepared by a sworn translator licensed in Indonesia.

11. Government approvals
What government approvals are required for typical project finance transactions (please cover investments, loans, operations, transactions and remittances by foreign parties or by local companies owned or controlled by foreign parties)? What fees and other charges apply?

A project finance transaction involving offshore equity participants and lenders typically will involve the following government approvals:

  • Approval of the Ministry of Law and Human Rights in respect of the formation of the project company in the form of limited liability company;
  • Approval of the foreign equity ownership in the project company by the Capital Investment Coordination Board (BKPM);
  • Approval of the Offshore Loan (PKLN) Team, which consists of representatives from Bank Indonesia and the Ministry of Finance, in respect of financing of projects that have any connection with certain transactions involving the government or a state-owned enterprise (BUMN),
  • Applicable technical, operational and environmental consents, approvals and/or licenses, which vary by sector; and
  • Applicable regional and/or local consents, approvals and/or licenses, which vary by location.

    Additionally, offshore borrowings are subject to various reporting requirements to the Offshore (PKLN) Team, Bank Indonesia and the Ministry of Finance.

    Administration fees may apply in order to obtain approvals, which vary by respective authorities.

12. Foreign insurance
What restrictions, fees and taxes exist on insurance policies over project assets provided or guaranteed by foreign insurance companies (please consider whether local insurance is required and, if so, whether cut-through clauses or reinsurance is effective or customarily required by foreign investors or creditors)? May such policies be payable to foreign secured creditors?

Participation of an offshore entity in insurance activities in Indonesia can only be done through establishment of an Indonesian insurance company licensed by the Ministry of Finance, unless:

  • there is no locally licensed insurance company, jointly or severally, which has the capacity to solely retain the risk over the relevant object;
  • there is no locally licensed insurance company willing to underwrite insurance over the relevant object; or
  • the title owner of the relevant object is not an Indonesian national or not an Indonesian legal entity.

    Where domestic insurance is mandatory (or otherwise preferred), the locally licensed insurance company may obtain reinsurance from an offshore licensed reinsurance company.

    Insurance policies may be payable to foreign secured parties under a loss payee clause, and the proceeds from insurance policies may be encumbered by a fiduciary security interest in favor of such secured parties.

13. Foreign employee restrictions
What restrictions exist on bringing in foreign workers, technicians or executives to work on a project?

  • Each sector has different provisions on the limitations and restrictions on the employment of foreign workers, technicians or executives to work on a project, but generally foreign workers, technicians or executives are only permitted to work in Indonesia in certain positions and for an limited time. A company that employs foreign workers, technicians or executives must have an Expatriate Manpower Utilization Plan (RPTKA) and a work permit (IKTA) for each foreign employee. These documents are subject to approval by the Minister of Manpower. The RPTKA must provide information regarding the reason for employment, the position of the foreign workers, technicians or executives, the duration of employment, and the appointment of Indonesian employee(s) as the fellow worker of the foreign workers, technicians or executives.

14. Equipment import restrictions
What restrictions exist on the importation of project equipment?

  • Project equipment use is subject to applicable local content requirements and government procurement rules. Importation will be subject to certain import duties.

15. Nationalisation and expropriation
What laws exist regarding the nationalisation or expropriation of project companies and assets? Are any forms of investment specially protected (from nationalisation or expropriation)?

  • Pursuant to Investment Law, the government will not take any measures of nationalization or expropriation against the proprietary rights of investors, unless provided by law. If the government takes such measures of nationalization or expropriation, the government is obligated to pay compensation in an amount to be established by market value. Any disputes regarding such market value are to be resolved through arbitration.

16. Fiscal treatment of foreign investment
What tax incentives or other incentives are provided preferentially to foreign investors or creditors? What taxes apply to foreign investments, loans, mortgages or other security documents, either for the purposes of effectiveness or registration?

  • The Investment Law provides specific provisions on fiscal incentives, known as facilities. There are various form of facilities, including (i) an investment allowance for income tax relief purposes, (ii) exemption or relief of import duty for capital goods, machinery or equipment for production purposes that can not be produced in Indonesia, and (iii) exemption or relief of import duty for raw materials or auxiliary materials for production purposes for a certain period and on certain conditions.
  • Corporate income tax holiday or relief is provided and may be given to pioneering industry investments (i.e., those with substantial ripple effects, present high value added and positive externalities, introduce a new technology and are of strategic value to the Indonesian economy).
  • Other than fiscal facilities, the Investment Law also provides the availability of certain concessions or facilities as to land title, immigration services and import permitting.

17. Government authorities
What are the relevant government agencies or departments (central and regional) with authority over projects in the typical project sectors (please cover oil and gas, and minerals extraction; chemical refining; water treatment; power generation and transmission; transportation; ports; telecommunications; or other typical project sectors)? What is the nature and extent of their authority? What is the history of state ownership in these sectors?

  • To avoid the inherent conflict of interest in being both the national oil company and a regulatory body, PERTAMINA, in 2001, relinquished its role as a regulatory body and it now exists purely as an oil and gas company.
  • Supervising and establishing Cooperation Contracts or Production Sharing Contracts, which was previously done by PERTAMINA, is now done by BP MIGAS, in respect of upstream oil and gas activities, while the regulator and the supervisory board for the downstream oil and gas sector is BPH MIGAS.
  • The Directorate of Mineral, Coal and Geothermal under the Department of Energy and Mineral Resources is the relevant supervisory body and regulator for coal and mineral mining activities, as well as geothermal projects.
  • For the energy and electricity sector, the relevant supervisory body and regulator is the Directorate General of Electricity and Utilization of Energy under the Department of Energy and Mineral Resources.
  • Foreign investors can only conduct electricity projects through cooperation with PLN, the state-owned grid company, under its Independent Power Producer (IPP) scheme. All power generated by independent power producers must be sold to PLN through a power purchase agreement. Only PLN can distribute electricity to consumers.
  • The Department of Transportation is the government agency authorised to supervise and regulate business activities in the transportation sector, including ports.
  • The Indonesian Toll Road Agency (BPJT) under the Department of Public Works is the government agency authorized to supervise the management of toll roads in Indonesia.
  • Business activities in the telecommunication sector are supervised and regulated by the Department of Communication and Information through the Directorate General of Posts and Telecommunications.

18. International arbitration
How are international arbitration contractual provisions and awards recognised by local courts (eg, under what conditions and pursuant to what procedures, can an award be enforced)? Is the jurisdiction a member of the ICSID Convention or other prominent dispute resolution conventions (eg, the New York Convention)? Are any types of disputes not arbitrable? Are any types of disputes subject to automatic domestic arbitration?

  • Indonesia is a party to the ICSID Convention and the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. Generally, foreign arbitral awards will be enforced in Indonesia on the basis of reciprocity, provided that such awards pertain to disputes arising out of a legal relationship that is considered to be commercial under Indonesian law and are not contrary to the public order of Indonesia.
  • To enforce a foreign arbitral award, it is necessary to obtain an exequatur (enforcement order) from the District Court of Central Jakarta (which has the authority to issue exequaturs in respect of foreign arbitral awards). To enforce a domestic arbitral award, the award must be registered with the relevant District Court within 30 days of the award’s issuance. In principle, all arbitral awards rendered in Indonesian territory will be regarded as domestic awards. Indonesia’s Arbitration Law does not stipulate a timeline for registering foreign arbitral awards for enforcement in Indonesia.
  • Only disputes of a commercial nature or those “concerning rights which according to law are fully controlled by the parties to the dispute” are arbitrable under Indonesian law.

19. Applicable law
Which jurisdiction’s law typically governs project agreements? Which jurisdiction’s law typically governs financing agreements? Which matters are governed by domestic law (regardless of contractual provisions to the contrary)?

  • Project agreements typically are governed by the laws of Indonesia. Financing agreements typically are governed by the laws of England and Wales or New York. The choice of foreign law to govern project agreements and financing agreements should each be upheld as a valid choice of law and be binding in any action in the courts of Indonesia, provided that there is a nexus between the chosen law and the parties to the agreements or the performance of the agreements. Agreements regarding security over assets located in Indonesia must be governed by Indonesian law. Additionally, the choice of foreign law cannot be made to derogate mandatory provisions of Indonesian law.

20. Jurisdiction and waiver of immunity
Is a submission to a foreign jurisdiction and a waiver of immunity effective and enforceable?

  • A submission by a party to the jurisdiction of foreign courts should be valid and enforceable, provided that the relevant foreign courts would uphold their jurisdiction. However, foreign court judgments are not enforceable in Indonesia and will not be considered as res judicata by Indonesian court(s). Therefore, in order to execute against assets located in Indonesia, fresh proceedings would need to be initiated and the issue re-litigated in the Indonesian court system. A foreign judgment, however, could be tendered as evidence in support of the suit in Indonesia.
  • Indonesian law is unclear as to the authority to waive sovereign immunity. It is accepted doctrine under Indonesian law that no immunity applies when a governmental instrumentality is a party to a commercial transaction. However, there is an express prohibition in the Indonesian State Treasury Law against attachment, seizure or execution over government property and assets.

21. Bankruptcy
What entities are excluded from bankruptcy proceedings and what legislation applies to them? What processes other than court proceedings (eg, appointment of a receiver) are available to seize the assets of a business? (Please discuss whether the claims of foreign creditors are treated the same as the claims of local creditors.)

  • Generally, Indonesian law provides that claims of foreign creditors are to be treated the same as the claims of domestic creditors.
  • A petition for a declaration of bankruptcy in respect of an insurance company or certain types of state-owned enterprises, a bank, or certain types of financial services institutions may only be filed by the relevant regulatory authority (Indonesia’s Minister of Finance, Bank Indonesia, the Capital Markets Supervisory Board, a.k.a. BAPEPAM-LK, respectively). A private creditor cannot initiate insolvency proceedings in respect of such entities.
  • Debtors may also be subject to court-supervised workouts during a “suspension of payments” (prior to declaration of bankruptcy) or a workout in bankruptcy.
  • In connection with enforcement actions outside of insolvency proceedings, Indonesian law provides for pre-judgment seizure of goods by way of conservatory attachment, as well as garnishment of property.

22. Title to natural resources
Who has title to natural resources (please cover oil and gas, minerals, water and other resources in the ground; land; and things that grow on or live on the land)? What rights may private parties acquire to these resources and what obligations does the holder have? May foreign parties acquire such rights? (Please discuss whether the acquisition or exercise of such rights is affected by the rights of aboriginal, indigenous or other recognised groups of people.)

  • The Indonesian Constitution provides that “Land, water and their constituent natural resources are possessed by the State and are used for people's utmost wellbeing.” However, the State may transfer its duty to manage land, water, and natural resources to domestic or foreign parties, and foreign parties are entitled to natural resources, subject to the prevailing laws and regulations for each sector.
  • Oil and gas exploration and exploitation are the responsibility of the State delegated to BP MIGAS, which then cooperates with oil and gas companies to share the oil and gas under production sharing contracts. Under such circumstance, the title of profit oil and gas split for the companies is transferred upon the point of export after it has been subjected to “First Tranche Petroleum” (FTP), Domestic Market Obligation (DMO), cost recovery, and income tax.
  • Coal and other minerals mining activities are conducted through a licensing regime, under which both foreign and domestic investors are able to apply for licenses. After obtaining such license, the license holder has to pay concession fees/royalties and taxes to the government under the prevailing regulations. The transfer of title occurs after the payment of royalties has been conducted.
  • Production sharing contracts or mining licenses do not give rights over land, however. All land matters including land ownership and land usage are covered by Indonesia’s Agrarian Law, which allows certain legal entities established under Indonesian Law and domiciled in Indonesia, to own land for a limited duration under right to cultivate, right to build, and right of use.

23. Royalties on the extraction of natural resources
What royalties and taxes are payable on the extraction of natural resources, and are they revenue- or profit-based? (Please discuss whether there is any distinction between the royalties and taxes on extraction payable by domestic and foreign parties.)

  • The royalties payable on the extraction of minerals and coal mining consist of dead rent and production royalties from net profit. Furthermore, the Indonesian Mining Law introduces a mandatory additional payment obligation of 10% of net profit for production activities on state reserve areas.
  • Royalties are not applicable for upstream oil and gas business activities. In this sector, the government non-tax revenue depends on the net profit sharing of oil and gas production agreed in the production sharing contracts.
  • Taxes, duties or local government charges are also payable. However, under Indonesia’s Mining Law, the government may reduce taxes in some instances to increase investment in the mining sector.

24. Export of natural resources
What restrictions, fees or taxes exist on the export of natural resources?

  • Exports of certain natural resources are subject to applicable measures, such as Domestic Market Obligations (DMO), export tax, domestic refining obligations (i.e., “value added” processes), production quotas and price floors (in each case to be set by applicable law(s), regulations and/or contractual arrangements). Additionally, under certain circumstances, payments in excess of certain amounts (depending on the type of commodity) by the offshore purchaser of a natural resource must be made by a letter of credit in favor of a domestic bank account.

25. Environmental, health and safety laws
What laws or regulations apply to typical project sectors (oil and gas and minerals extraction, refining, water, power generation and transmission, transport, ports, telecommunications, or other sectors)? What regulatory bodies administer those laws?

  • Any activity having a major or significant impact on the environment must undertake an analysis of the environmental impact of the development. The process is known as an "AMDAL," which consists of the preparation of an "Andal Report" (Environmental Impact Analysis Report), a "RKL"(Environmental Management Plan), and a "RPL"(Environmental Monitoring Plan). The State Minister of Environmental Affairs decides which development activities require a full AMDAL, based on the scope of the work, the proximity of the development to protected zones and its potential impact on the environment. Those activities that do not require an AMDAL are required to undertake an environmental management effort ("UKL") and an environmental monitoring effort ("UPL"). Additional licenses are required for the production, transportation, storage, using, processing and disposal of hazardous and toxic waste. Moreover, parties that dispose of waste water must submit reports concerning the disposal of their waste water detailing their compliance with the relevant regulations to the relevant regional head, with a copy provided to the Minister of Environmental Affairs, on a quarterly basis. Regulations of the Minister of Energy and Mineral Resources also require a reclamation plan in connection with a mining operation, which is to be prepared in accordance with the approved AMDAL documents and is a part of the feasibility study. Projects are also subject to general emission standards relating to air, water and sound.

26. Project companies
What are the principal business structures of project companies? What are the principal sources of financing (including a domestic public securities market) available to project companies?

  • Project companies are typically limited liability companies that have been approved for foreign investment. Additionally, in certain sectors, including oil and gas and public works, business activities may be carried out through an unincorporated joint venture. Financing may be through equity sponsors, passive equity investment, private financing, financing and/or credit support from multilateral organizations, some form of government credit support (which may be limited to a comfort letter or, in limited circumstances, a financial guarantee). Financing may also be obtained from domestic and foreign capital markets.

27. Public-private partnership legislation
Has PPP enabling legislation been enacted and, if so, at what level of government (eg, national, provincial or state or municipal or other local government) and is the legislation industry-specific (toll roads, power, social infrastructure, etc)?

  • PPP have been enabled by a Presidential Regulation, which applies nationwide. The regulation specifically provides that the types of infrastructure available for PPP include, among others, infrastructure for transportation, toll roads/bridges, irrigation, drinking water, waste management, telecommunications, electricity, and oil and gas. The partnership can be conducted by way of a cooperation agreement or business license in accordance with the prevailing regulations in the respective sectors.

28. PPP – limitations
What, if any, are the practical and legal limitations on PPP transactions (limitations on the state to contract with private participants, to incur long-term fiscal obligations, to divest public functions or duties to private participants, etc)?

  • Further provisions regarding principles, procedures, guidance and/or limitations are provided in the law and regulations for the respective sectors and regions (provinces). Each sector and region has different policies regarding the limitations and the obligations for private entities engaged in a PPP. These limitations and the obligations may include long-term fiscal obligations, partial ownership divestment, corporate social responsibilities and others, depending on the relevant regulations. Additionally, the Indonesian Company Law requires a company that engages in business activity in and/or related to natural resources to implement “Social and Environmental Responsibility,” the details of which are to be governed by relevant implementing regulations in each sector.
  • The form of cooperation between the relevant ministries and/or regional governments and private entities will be determined by the agreements among such parties, so long as their terms are not contrary to prevailing regulations or Indonesian public policy.

29. PPP – transactions
What have been the most significant PPP transactions completed to date in your jurisdiction (in terms of size, complexity, novelty, etc)?

  • The most significant PPP concession project awarded is for toll roads infrastructure, which consists of 17 projects, demands Rp.57,696.83 billion in total investment and involves land acquisition stage with a total length of 671.63 km. Other significant PPP concession projects awarded are 38 Independent Power Producer (IPP) projects with a total capacity of 3,441 MW, consisting of 18 IPP projects in Sumatera, 7 IPP projects in Java, Madura, Bali, East / West Nusa Tenggara and 8 IPP projects in Sulawesi and Eastern Indonesia.

As published by the International Bar Association (Law Business Research)-in 38 jurisdictions worldwide

Friday, 17 July 2009

Direct Appointment for Distribution of Fuel in Indonesia

The Downstream Oil and Gas Regulating Agency (BPH Migas) will conduct a direct appointment for the company which will be responsible for the distribution of fuel in Indonesia beginning 2010. It estimates that the volume of subsidized fuel oils in 2010 may reach 34.9 million kiloliters consisting 20.6 million kiloliters of premium gasoline, two million kiloliters of kerosene and 12.3 million kiloliters of diesel oil. This marks a slight decrease from the amount of subsidized fuel oils in the 2009 state budget which was set at 36.85 million kiloliters consisting of 19.4 kiloliters of premium gasoline, 5.8 million kiloliters of kerosene and 11.6 million kiloliters of diesel oil.

The assignment of a company for the distribution of subsidized fuels with a direct appointment is permissible by Presidential Decision No. 71/2005. However, the Head of BPH Migas, Tubagus Haryono, said that the corporate body which will be appointed directly has to meet certain commercial, financial, technical and administrative requirements. Moreover, he also revealed that the direct appointment will be carried out on a regional basis. For that purpose, BPH Migas had already prepared a mechanism for the direct appointment of a company which will provide and distribute subsidized fuel oils in 2010. On the other hand, Ismayatun, a member of House Commission VII, warned that the appointment must be carried out transparently or questions may be raised. MF
As published in MKK newsletter June 2009

Wednesday, 15 July 2009

Pertamina to cease imports of petroleum in 2017

To stop importing refined petroleum products from abroad after 2017, a senior official of Indonesian national oil and gas company PT Pertamina, Rukmi Hadihartini, revealed the company planned to have built or expanded eight refineries by 2017 to more than double refining capacity to 2.2 million barrels per day from the current 1.03 million. The first project to start would be the expansion in 2012 of the Plaju refinery in Palembang, which would provide additional refining capacity of 20,500 barrels a day.

The next project would be the expansion of the Cilacap refinery in Central Java, which is the country’s biggest refinery, and has two crude distillation units with a capacity of 118,000 bpd and 230,000 bpd, supplying 34 percent of national demand, and 60 percent of demand in Java. The Cilacap refinery is expected to supply an additional 62,000 bpd capacity by 2013. In this $1.5 billion project, Japan’s Mitsui would join and hold 80 percent of the stake.

Some other Pertamina’s refinery projects are the expansion of Balikpapan refinery in East Kalimantan and the Balongan refinery in West Java in order to provide additional capacity of 40,000 bpd and 200,000 bpd respectively, the revamping of the Dumai refinery in Riau which would provide additional capacity of 200,000 bpd, and the construction of a new and low emissions refinery in Cilacap to add 19,000 bpd of the total demand. Those projects are expected to be completed in 2014. Another target which is set to start next year and expected to be completed in 2015 would be a new $7.8 million refinery in Banten on which Pertamina is cooperating with the National Iranian Oil Refining and Distribution Co. (Niordc), with each having a 40 percent stake, and Petrofield Refining of Malaysia, which holds the remainder. The consortium had finished the feasibility study and had agreed to give a stake to South Korean conglomerate STX. When the project is completed, it will account for a capacity of 150,000 bpd. The last project, Rukmi said, is a new refinery in East Java with a capacity of 200,000 bpd. However, he did not mention the specific location of the project. In the interview, he further mentioned that although there will still be a gap between supply and demand in 2017, the government won’t have to import refined products because we expect all of the alternative energy programs would be up and running by that stage, including the biofuel, coal gasification, and coal liquefaction projects. The current Pertamina’s six refineries operation is only enough to supply 70 percent of the domestic demand for petroleum products, with the balance having to be imported, while the national demand for petroleum products will increase by an average of 3.2 percent per year through 2017. Another government’s attempt to fulfill the gap, as had been said by the Energy Minister, Purnomo Yusgiantoro, is to persuade private sector investors to build refineries in Indonesia, including offering corporate income tax breaks and lifting taxes on construction input. MF

As published in MKK Newsletter July 2009

Friday, 13 March 2009

A Glance at the Income Tax System in Indonesian Production Sharing Contracts

Production Sharing Contract (PSC), first introduced in Indonesia in 1966, is a risk contract for oil companies to access oil and gas resources which are widely used in many oil and gas producing countries. In a PSC system, the state owns all of the oil and gas production, and the oil companies only act as the contractors who provide technical and financial services for exploration and development operations, and in return, the production will be shared between the oil companies and the State according to the provision in the PSC.
In contrast with the PSC system, the other system to access oil and gas resources is called a concession license, which grants property right to natural resources to the oil companies, and excludes the government from any participation in the business, as well as the management of petroleum operation and profits. In return, the state will receive royalty payments on production volume, income taxation, and similar payments from the concessionaire. The relationship between the government and the oil companies makes the position of the parties in the PSC equal to one another, while in contrast, the concessionary system creates a vertical relationship which favors the government as opposed to the oil companies.
As a contractual relationship, the Indonesian PSC system has its own mechanism for income tax. To this extent, this article describes the taxation system in PSC relevant to Indonesian tax regulations. In this matter, PSC is the Lex specialist for Indonesian Income Tax Law, and the Branch Profit Tax Treaty is the Lex specialist of the PSC.

1. First Tranche Petroleum (FTP) and Cost recovery
First Tranche Petroleum (FTP) is the oil and gas shared by the parties in PSC before the cost recovery. Usually the FTP shared is between 10% – 20% of production. The FTP mechanism was applied for the first time in 1988 for Indonesian PSC, and for some oil and gas practitioners, FTP is treated as Quasi-Royalty.
Cost recovery is needed by the contractor to recover the costs of exploration, development and operations out of gross revenue. It is one of the most common features in PSC.
Taxable income in PSC is derived from the net revenue, which is already deducted from the FTP and cost recovery. Similar to the PSC system, in the concession system, taxable income is derived from net revenue which is already deducted from operating costs, depreciation, depletion and amortization (DD&A) and intangible drilling costs (IDCs). These deductions in the concession system can be counted as cost recovery, but the difference with cost recovery in PSC that there is ‘no cost recovery limit’ in the concession system.[1] In the Indonesian PSC system, cost recovery submitted by oil companies is audited by the State Audit Board (BPK) and/or Agency for Finance and Development Supervision (BPKP) and also the Upstream Oil and Gas Supervisory Board (BP MIGAS).

2. Different income tax regulations for different PSC generations

2.1 PSCs signed before the enactment of Income Tax Act 1983
PSCs signed before the enactment of Law No. 7 of 1983, regarding Income Tax (Income Tax Act 1983), are subject to Corporate Tax Ordonantie 1925 and Tax upon Interest, Dividend, and Royalty Act 1970 with all the implementing regulations. Moreover, Minister of Finance Decree No. 267/KMK.012/1978 (KMK 267) also regulates the double layer of taxation which will be further discussed below.

2.2 PSCs signed after the enactment of the Income Tax Act 1983
All the PSCs signed after the enactment of Income Tax Act 1983 are subject to Income Tax Act 1983 and its amendments, consequently by Law No. 7 of 1991, Law No. 10 of 1994 and Law No. 17 of 2000 (Income Tax Acts). Other than that, Minister of Finance Decree No. 458/KMK.012/1984 (KMK 458) is also applicable to the PSCs.


3. Double layer of taxation
The Income Tax Acts uses a mechanism known as effective tax rate which is derived from Branch Profit Tax levied after Corporate Income Tax. Branch Profit Tax, provided in Article 26 (4) of the Income Tax Acts, is an additional income tax upon the net income after tax received by a Permanent Establishment (Badan Usaha Tetap).[2] The normal rate for the Branch Profit Tax in the Income Tax Acts is 20% after the Corporate Income Tax. However, for some countries which have a Branch Profit Tax Treaty with Indonesia, the Branch Profit Tax is below 20%.
In practice, the normal total effective tax rate which is payable by the oil companies/contractors after being deducted by the FTP and the Cost Oil is 44% of the oil companies’/contractors’ share.



[1] It is also must be noted that some other PSCs have no limit on cost recovery either.
[2] The Branch Profit Tax is regulated under Law No. 7 of 1983, regarding Income Tax as amended several times consequently by Law No. 7 of 1991, Law No. 10 of 1994 and Law No. 17 of 2000 (Income Tax Law), Article 26 (4). For PSCs signed before the Income Tax Law, Branch Profit Tax is also regulated under Minister of Finance Decree No. 267/KMK.012/1978 (KMK 267).












Thursday, 18 December 2008

The Sensibility of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Doctrine

Introduction

Many civil law systems around the world, and perhaps major common law systems such as the United States recognizes and enforces the general principle of good faith in making and carrying out contracts.[1] For example, Section 242 of the German BGB (Civil Code) provides that contracts must be performed in the manner required by good faith and fair dealing, taking into consideration the general practice in commerce; Article 1134 of the French Civil Code likewise provides that contracts must be performed in good faith; and the Italian Civil Code refers to good faith and fair dealing in negotiation (Article 1337), interpretation (Article 1366), and performance (Article 1375).[2] In the common law system such as in the United States, the doctrine of good faith performance has three textual underpinnings: the Uniform Commercial Code, the American Law Institute’s Restatement (2d) of Contracts, and the United Nations Convention of Contracts for the International Sale of Goods.[3] However, despite of those legal systems which adopt good faith, most English lawyers find it difficult to adopt a general concept of good faith.[4]

The UNIDROIT, which its objective is to prepare modern and where appropriate harmonized uniform rules of private law understood in a broad sense,[5] also applies the good faith and fair dealing principle in the Principles of International Commercial Contracts (“the Principles”). The Principles address good faith as a principle directed to the parties of international contracts: "Each party must act in accordance with good faith and fair dealing in international trade" (Article 1.7 (1) Principles). Even more specifically, Article 4.8 (2) (c) of the Principles refers to good faith and fair dealing as a determining element when and which omitted contract term has to be implied. Besides Article 1.7 and 4.8, there are also a number of more specific applications of the principle of good faith and fair dealing. For examples Articles 2.1.4(2)(b), 2.1.15, 2.1.16, 2.1.18, 2.1.20, 3.5, 3.8, 3.10, 4.1(2), 4.2(2), 4.6, 4.8, 5.1.2, 5.1.3, 6.1.3, 6.1.5, 6.1.16(2), 6.1.17(1), 6.2.3(3)(4), 7.1.2, 7.1.6, 7.1.7, 7.2.2(b), (c), 7.4.8 and 7.4.13.[6] These imply that good faith and fair dealing may be considered as one of the fundamental ideas underlying the Principles.

The concept of good faith depends on the standard of morality and fairness and these standards differ based on the people, the context and the circumstances involved. These standards may lead to many problems such as uncertainty and inconsistency in the performance and interpretation of contract. As the Principles’ objective is to provide guidance and general rules in drafting international commercial contracts and settling disputes in the context of international trade, this paper attempts to describe the standards of good faith in the Principles through their approach in addressing the legal concept of good faith. The goal of this paper is to assess how realistic is the Principles in accommodating the legal concept of good faith and fair dealing, and also to analyze the problems and the difficulties in applying the concept of good faith and fair dealing to the international commercial contracts. To support the argument, examples of several court and arbitral decisions which rely on good faith provisions in the Principles will also be given in this paper.

Good Faith in commercial contract

Even though good faith and fair dealing principle has been used in many legal systems in the world, there is no precise definition of this principle. P J Powers,[7] without aiming to formulate any specific domestic interpretation of this principle, has tried to restate that the duty of good faith can be considered as a duty of the parties to act ‘reasonably’ as they would expect the other party to act. In a commercial contract, it means that this principle is the basic principle to treat the other party with regard to the standard of morality and fairness. However, by nature it is nearly impossible to define the standard of morality and fairness because these standards are varies depending on one’s perspective.

The dilemma of defining morality and fairness and the infinite perspectives on fairness, and by extension, good faith, may lead to uncertainty. Grubb stated that “Whilst everyone agrees that a doctrine of good faith represents some set of restrictions on the pursuit of self- interest, the objection is that it is not clear how far these restrictions go...[8] In other words, good faith presupposes a set of moral standards against which the parties are to be judged, but it is not clear whose (or which) morality this is or how far these restrictions go. An endless uncertainty about a number of critical questions occurs where there is no clear moral reference point. Several examples are, to name a few, whether the good faith should be seen subjectively or objectively. Subjective good faith requires only a clear conscience whereas objective good faith introduces a standard of fair dealing independent of personal conscience. Furthermore, it is also related to the phases of contracting, whether good faith should be used in all phases of contracting. Other critical questions are regarding bad faith, would a requirement of good faith add anything to the regulation of bad faith? Would good faith entail both negative and positive requirements? and so on.[9]

Furthermore, viewing from several English lawyers’ arguments, good faith doctrine has negative impacts to commercial contract.[10] Noting from Michael Bridge’s argument, “…it would be wholly inappropriate to introduce a doctrine of good faith into the commodities markets, where dealing is intrinsically competitive and where opportunistic behavior is to be expected.[11] This is not to say that, even in the commodities markets, good faith is totally rejected. However, to such an extent, good faith concept is accepted, which is taken up in the standard terms of the trade and this is the way that the market best deals with new questions of fair dealing.

Good Faith and Fair Dealing Provisions in the Principles

The Principles are also silent in defining good faith, and this indefinite terminology makes it seems unrealistic to impose this concept through the Principles. However, there are several terms used to express the notion of good faith range from “good faith and fair dealing,”[12] “bad faith,”[13] “reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing,”[14] “grossly unfair”[15]. Even though the Principles use different terms, in general the legal concept of good faith is woven in the major provisions of the Principles. Those different terms of good faith provisions in the Principles standardize the applications of international commercial contracts, which are ranged from the aspects of pre-contractual obligations in the negotiation process, formation and modification of contract, material validity, interpretation of contracts, implied obligations, and non-performance caused by creditor.[16]

The basic provision of good faith and fair dealing in the Principles is stipulated in the Article 1.7, and it is clearly stated that: (1) Each party must act in accordance with good faith and fair dealing in international trade; and (2) The parties may not exclude or limit this duty. As the basic provisions, it should be noted that the other provisions of the Principles and/or the comments thereto at times refer only to "good faith" or to "good faith and fair dealing", should always be understood as a reference to "good faith and fair dealing in international trade" as specified in this article.[17]

Viewing from the paragraph (1) of Article 1.7, it is clear that the Principles acknowledge that good faith plays an important rule for international contracts and the context of good faith and fair dealing are not to be applied according to the standards ordinarily adopted within the different national legal systems. In other words, good faith and fair dealing must be construed in the light of the special conditions of international trade, but domestic standards may be taken into account if only that they are shown to be generally accepted among the various legal systems.[18] Furthermore, in the paragraph (2), the parties' duty to act in accordance with good faith and fair dealing may not be contractually excluded or limited. Therefore, parties to contract cannot, with any reasonable certainty, predict what kind of performance is prohibited by Article 1.7, yet they cannot exclude from the scope of their obligations. The specific applications of the general prohibition to exclude or limit the principle of good faith and fair dealing between the parties may be seen in Articles 3.19, 7.1.6 and 7.4.13 of the Principles.[19]

Other than the basic provision of good faith stipulated in the Article 1.7, as previously discussed, there are also specific provisions in the Principles to standardize the expectation of how good faith and fair dealing doctrine should be applied in international commercial contracts:[20]

a. Pre-contractual Obligations in the Negotiation Process

Article 2.1.4 (2) (b) stipulates that an offer cannot be revoked if it was reasonable for the offeree to rely on the offer as being irrevocable and the offeree has acted in reliance on the offer. This article gives a binding effect of some particular conduct and reliance on it emanates from the good faith principle that no one should take advantage of acts or situations which are irreconcilable with his prior conduct.

Other provisions in pre-contractual obligations in the negotiation process is Article 2.1.15, especially subsections (2) and (3) which provide that when a party who negotiates or breaks off negotiations in bad faith, then he is liable for the losses caused to the other party, and that it is bad faith, in particular, for a party to enter into or continue negotiations when intending not to reach an agreement with the other party. This article specifies that the good faith principle demands fair negotiations with a clear view to reach agreement. Misuse of the negotiation process to the detriment of the other party offends the standard of good faith recited in the Principles. Therefore this article assists in giving some notice to the parties of what standards on conduct are excluded from the notion of good faith.[21]

b. Formation and Modification of Contract

The Principles, through Article 1.8 regarding “inconsistent behavior”, do not allow a party to act inconsistently which may cause the other party to have and upon which that other party reasonably has acted in reliance to its detriment. Moreover, in relation to modification in a particular form, Article 2.1.18 states that a contract in writing which contains a clause requiring any modification or termination by agreement to be in a particular form may not be otherwise modified or terminated. In other word, only if a written contract contains a no oral modification clause then any modification must also be in writing or in the form the parties agreed upon. But to this exception, the Principles allow an identical sub-exception grounded on the good faith principle: "…a party may be precluded by its conduct from asserting such a clause to the extent that the other party has acted in reliance on that conduct." Again conduct which creates a situation of reliance and acting on it override rules of strict formality.

c. Material Validity

Article 3.5 regarding “relevant mistake” stipulates that there are several conditions which might allow a party to avoid a contract when it was already concluded. Those conditions that must be fulfilled in order to allow a party to avoid a contract are:

1. A reasonable person in the same situation as the party in error would only have concluded the contract on materially different terms or would not have concluded it at all if the true state of affairs had been known; and

2. The other party made the same mistake, or caused the mistake, or knew or ought to have known of the mistake and it was contrary to reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing to leave the mistaken party in error; or the other party had not at the time of avoidance reasonably acted in reliance on the contract.

However, a party may not avoid the contract if it was grossly negligent in committing the mistake; or the mistake relates to a matter in regard to which the risk of mistake was assumed or, having regard to the circumstances, should be borne by the mistaken party.

Furthermore, Article 3.8 regarding “fraudulent” also allows a party to avoid a contract when it has been led to conclude the contract by the other party’s fraudulent representation, including language or practices, or fraudulent non-disclosure of circumstances which, according to reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing, should have been disclosed. In relation to Articles 3.5 and 3.8, noting from Farnsworth’s statement,[22] the standard of good faith when it is coupled with the concept of fair dealing and reasonable commercial standards would tend to be an objective standard.

d. Interpretation of Contracts

In addition to addressing conduct and performance in terms of good faith, the Principles also address good faith in terms of contract interpretation, or as a canon of contract construction.[23] The article which relates to this aspect is Article 4.8 regarding “Supplying an omitted term”. It states that where the parties to a contract have not agreed with respect to a term which is important for a determination of their rights and duties, a term which is appropriate in the circumstances shall be supplied, furthermore in determining what is an appropriate term regard shall be had, among other factors, to (a) the intention of the parties; (b) the nature and purpose of the contract; (c) good faith and fair dealing; (d) reasonableness. Therefore, it can be seen that when a contract term has been omitted from the contract, that term may be supplied by reference to “good faith and fair dealing,” among other factor. However, this provision does not assist in determining the precise standard of good faith and fair dealing principle.

e. Implied Obligations

Article 5.1.2 stipulates that implied obligations stem from (a) the nature and purpose of the contract; (b) practices established between the parties and usages; (c) good faith and fair dealing; and (d) reasonableness. Furthermore Article 5.1.3 which deals with co-operation between the parties states that each party shall cooperate with the other party when such co-operation may reasonably be expected for the performance of that party’s obligations. The rule can be understood as expression of the general principle, based on good faith, that neither party must hinder performance through the other nor otherwise militate against the contractual purpose.[24]

f. Non-performance Caused by Creditor

According to Article 7.1.2, a party may not rely on the non-performance of the other party to the extent that such non-performance was caused by the first party’s act or omission or by another event as to which the first party bears the risk. This provision again can be traced back to the sub-principle of good faith that no one should profit from own unlawful or otherwise forbidden acts.[25]

By those aspects stated above, the Principles have set the standards of good faith which they expect to be applied to international commercial contracts, and by the standards, it is more sensible to apply the good faith doctrine under the Principles into international commercial contracts. As a non-binding law, the Principles shall be applied when the parties have agreed that their contract be governed by the Principles and may be applied when the parties have not chosen any law to govern their contract.[26] They are merely an effort to restate contract law principles in the context of international trade and, as discussed in this paper, to provide guidance in legislating, drafting contracts and settling disputes, particularly before arbitral tribunals. [27]

Basically there are number of reasons why parties may wish to choose the Principles as the law governing their contract.[28] First, neither party is strong enough to impose its own domestic law. Second, parties cannot agree on the choice of the domestic law of a third country. Third, the Principles provide a comprehensive set of rules governing the most important areas of contract law. Fourth, the Principles, written in a clear and non-technical terminology, are easier to understand than most domestic laws. And the last, the Principles, prepared with the participation of experts from the same countries/regions of the parties, let parties feel immediately comfortable with them.

The Principles as references in dispute resolutions

As a general rules for international commercial contracts, the Principles also play a major role in international dispute resolution. Based on UNILEX database,[29] it presently reports 149 decisions referring in one way or another to the Principles, which consist of 112 arbitral awards, and 37 court decisions, and these numbers actually much higher since arbitral awards usually remain unpublished. In relation to the Principles as the reference in international dispute resolution, usually courts and arbitral tribunal apply the Principles as the law governing the contract; or refer to the Principles as a means of interpreting and supplementing domestic law; or refer to the Principles as a means of interpreting and supplementing international uniform law

As facts that good faith provisions in the Principles are in line with many jurisdictions and also sensible enough to be applied in international commercial contracts, examples of court and arbitral decision which rely on or refer to good faith provisions in the Principles are given below:

1. Award of the Arbitration Court of the Lausanne Chamber of Commerce and Industry of 17 May 2002[30]

In the contract between a Turkish company and a company incorporated in the West Indies concerning highly sophisticated equipment, the parties agreed to apply the Principles to govern a dispute in which their services contract referred to "general principles of law applicable to international commercial contracts". The contract contained two conflicting choice of law clauses: one in favour of English law, the other in favour of Swiss law; the arbitral tribunal suggested to the parties to agree on the application of the Principles; the parties agreed also in view of the fact that with respect to the disputed issues the solutions provided by the Principles were found basically to correspond to both English and Swiss law; the arbitral tribunal applied Articles 1.7 on good faith, 2.1.16 on the duty of confidentiality, 4.6 on the contra proferentem rule, and 7.4.1, 7.4.2 and 7.4.4 on damages.

2. ICC Award of 4 September 1996 No. 8540[31]

In a pre-bid agreement between a U.S. supplier of telecommunications systems and a Middle Eastern manufacturer of telecommunications cables, the parties undertook to negotiate in good faith for the supply of cables in the event that the U.S. supplier’s bid to become prime contractor for a telecommunications expansion project succeeded. The U.S. supplier secured the entire contract, but after a series of fruitless negotiations terminated the preliminary agreement on the ground that the parties were unable to conclude the contemplated final agreements, the Middle Eastern manufacturer objected that the U.S. supplier had failed to negotiate in good faith and claimed damages for the breach of the pre-bid agreement. The arbitral tribunal applied the law of the State of New York, but having found that under the law of the State of New York it was controversial whether an agreement to negotiate in good faith was enforceable, Articles 1.1, 1.3, 1.7 and 2.1.15 of the Principles were referred to by the tribunal only as further support for its decision that an agreement to negotiate in good faith is binding under the law of the State of New York.[32]

3. Federal Court of Australia, 30 June 1997, No. 558 (Hughes Aircraft Systems International v Air services Australia)[33]

The dispute concerned a bidding procedure, which had arisen between a Californian company and an Australian governmental agency after the latter awarded the contract to another bidder. According to the claimant, the defendant had failed to conduct the tender evaluation fairly and in a manner that would have ensured equal opportunity to both bidders. In this case, Article 1.7 of the Principles was referred by the Federal Court of Australia as a reference to supplement the domestic law. It concluded that in the affirmative, in support of its ruling, that a general duty of good faith and fair dealing was not only recognised in a number of foreign jurisdictions but had also been propounded as a fundamental principle to be honoured in international commercial contracts.

All the examples provided above are just some of court and arbitral decisions which referred to the good faith provisions in the Principles, especially Article 1.7. However, in practice, the applications of the good faith and fair dealing concept in the Principles are not always immaculate. There are several examples noted from some arbitral decisions regarding issues and/or difficulties encountered in applying the concept provided in the Principles:

1. Failure to perform a contract in good faith will not necessarily lead to legal remedy. [34]

In Anderson Consulting Business Unit Member vs. Arthur Anderson Business Unit Member Firms et al. an arbitral tribunal referred the Principles to supplement the legal rule applicable to the contract, in which the parties also had stated that the Principles should be the law governing the contract.[35] The contractual agreements among the parties forbid the Anderson Worldwide Organization (AWO) member firms to engage in uncooperative acts to benefit themselves at the expense of other member forms. Such acts are contrary to the member firms' implicit obligation to cooperate and to pursue their professional practice in accordance with the principle of good faith and fair dealing inherent to international contracts. In this case, without reference to any specific provision of the Principles, the tribunal’s view based on such conduct, that the breach of good faith was insufficient to provide a contract remedy to the affected party. In terms of performance, the decision indicates that good faith has no meaning at all, and a failure to perform a contract in good faith will not necessarily lead to legal remedy.

2. Good faith includes an obligation to attempt to resolve disputes, but not to reach settlement.[36]

In an ad hoc arbitration in 2004 which referred to French Law and Article 1.7 of the Principles,[37] (when the dispute arose) the parties were bound to act in good faith in search of an amicable solution. The mere fact that the parties did not agree on a compromise settlement does not in itself reveal lack on good faith on Claimant’s side and the tribunal concluded that the mere failure to reach an agreement was not in itself a breach of good faith and that parties are not required to “grant large concessions” in order to comply with the good faith obligation. From this case, the nature of good faith seems so ambiguous. In one hand the parties have an obligation to attempt to resolve disputes in an amicable solution, but on the other hand they do not have to grant large concessions to reach an agreement.[38]

3. A contract cannot be avoided for failure to disclose information unless the non-disclosure was made with fraudulent intent.[39]

Referring to Article 3.5 regarding “Relevant Mistake” and Article 3.8 regarding “Fraud” of the Principles, a party in the ICC Award No. 9474 claimed that a contract should be nullified due to an alleged fraudulent non-disclosure of a payment of a consulting fee by the opposing party.[40] The party claimed, under the Article 3.8, that the non-disclosure was a circumstance which, “according to reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing,” the latter party should have disclosed. In accordance to this claim, the tribunal concluded that there was no fraudulent non-disclosure because there was no sufficient evidence that the payment was made in fraudulent intent.[41]

From this case, as discussed in this paper, the standard of good faith, especially in terms of “fair dealing and reasonable commercial standards”, would tend to indicate objective standards which is unaffected by a party’s intent.[42] However, the tribunal in this case based its conclusion on the party’s intent which is contrary to the generally accepted standard for fair dealing.

From those examples of arbitral decisions above, even though the Principles have tried to specify what good faith and fair dealing is designated to mean in their provisions, it is true that there are also difficulties in applying the provisions of the Principles in international commercial contract. In some cases, good faith may not be reliable enough to provide legal remedy, or sometimes it gives uncertainty because of the vast interpretation of the concept. Moreover, does the addition of the word commercial confine the standard to what is done by others in commerce, to the exclusion of a course of dealing observed by the parties but not by others? In view of the pervasiveness of the concepts of good faith and fair dealing, it was perhaps inevitable that some inconsistencies would appear in the language concerning them.[43] In accordance to this, Farnsworth stated that one must hope that those who have occasion to apply the Principles will find the means by which to reach rational solutions in the face of what seem to be irrational variations.

The Vast Interpretation of Good Faith Provisions

Notwithstanding to the inconsistencies which would appear in the language concerning the terms of good faith, there are few good reasons why the Principles provide the good faith provisions in vast interpretation as they are provided. Firstly, good faith provisions provide umbrella principle. In the absence of a doctrine of good faith, the law of contract is ill-equipped to achieve fair results, on occasion leaving judges ‘unable to do justice at all’.[44] As an umbrella principle, the provisions may cover, unify, and fill the gaps between a range of specific doctrines designed to secure fair dealing. Furthermore, the umbrella principles can be used by judges in hard cases for several purposes. For example, it can be used as a justification for one-off decision; or to adumbrate some new principle of fairness; or to expand the extent of an already recognized principle. The extension can expands the range of equitable estoppels into pre-contractual dealings; or expands the principle of duress to some forms of economic pressure, and so on.[45]

Secondly, good faith provisions provide security and flexibility. The provisions may provide contracting parties greater protection which leads to greater flexibility about the ways in which they are organized to do business, or to be interpreted. In addition to the reasons, there are also several arbitral decisions which getting advantages from the vast interpretation of the provisions:

1. Good faith provisions provide “reciprocal trust between the parties” in doing business. Using ICC Award No. 8908 as an example, the arbitral decision indicates that good faith will be attributed to the parties’ behavior during contract formation insofar as that behavior informs the interpretation of the contract.[46] Based on the Principles and other legal rules, the tribunal held that the conduct of the parties could be used to interpret the meaning of the agreement. This decision not only implies that a tribunal will attribute fairness to the terms of an agreement, but will also attribute fairness to the parties behavior (such as acceptance of a counterproposal) in order to give meaning to the terms of an agreement.[47]

2. Good faith prevents a party from doing indirectly what a contract prohibits directly. In ICC Award No. 9875, the Principles were applied at the request of the parties. The tribunal stated that it would specifically take into account the principle of good faith. In rendering the award, the tribunal held that good faith prevents an interpretation of a contract that would allow a party to “do indirectly” (through a contract with a third party) what the contract prevents a party from doing directly. Good faith prevents a party from selling to an entity which one knows or should reasonably know intends to resell in another licensee’s territory”. Thus, the initial contract was held to have been breached by the execution of the third party contract allowing the third party to do what the party itself could not. Good faith will therefore prevent an indirect breach of a contract.

Conclusion

Good faith and fair dealing doctrine is one of the fundamental ideas underlying the Principles. There are different terms used to express the notion of good faith in the Principles. An endless uncertainty about a number of critical questions occurs where there is no clear moral reference point. Moreover, one might say, the introduction of a doctrine of good faith into commodities market would be inappropriate, where dealing is fundamentally competitive and where opportunistic behavior is to be anticipated.

The Principles have set the standard of good faith and fair dealing through their provisions, and this doctrine applies to all phases of contracting. When the Principles apply as the law governing a contract, the contract must be construed based on the Principles’ provisions in the light of the special conditions of international trade, even though sometimes domestic standards may be taken into account if only that they are shown to be generally accepted among the various legal systems. These provisions are proven as reliable source to be provided as the law governing the contract when the parties have so agreed or if the arbitral tribunal deems them applicable. Since the Principles are designed to be persuasive on issues of contract law, several arbitral tribunals have generally utilized good faith under the Principles merely as a reference or a guide, and in some cases, a confirmation of the adequacy of the application of a principle of domestic law.

As an international legislative product, the Principles are not immaculate. They are just a mere guidance which restates contract law principles in the context of international trade. It is also inevitable that some inconsistencies would appear in the language concerning them. In practice, to understand good faith not only requires a clear conscience (subjective good faith) but also requires personal conscience (objective good faith), for example when it is coupled with the concept of fair dealing and reasonable commercial standards. However, in the end it is courts’ or arbitral tribunals’ role to make decisions to reach rational solution in interpreting the provisions in the Principles under the ambiguous nature of good faith. This nature of good faith provisions merely provides umbrella principle to give space for judges to apply justice, fairness, and not to forget, objective standard.

In the perspective of commodities market and international trade, the Principles through the good faith and fair dealing doctrine provide “reciprocal trust” between the parties, with the expectation that the contract should be performed in honesty and in regard to reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing. In the end, the application of this doctrine will provide balance in the international trade and commodities market while dealing is intrinsically competitive and opportunistic.


[1] Brownsword, Roger. Contract Law: Themes for the Twenty-First Century. Butterworths; London, Edinburgh, Dublin (2000) p. 98.

[2] Ibid. p. 97 Also see Lando and Beale (eds). The Principles of European Contract Law: Part I. (1995).

[3] Beatson and Freeman. Good Faith and Fault in Contract Law. Clarendon Express; Oxford (1995) p. 155.

[4] Ibid. Brownsword, p. 98. See also Beatson and Freeman, p. 157.

[6] Magnus, Ulrich. Guide to Article 7 CISG: Comparison with UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts. Pace Law School Institute of International Commercial Law (2007)

[7] P J Powers. Defining the Undefinable: Good Faith and the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sales of Goods. (1999) 18 Journal of Law and Commerce 349 cites Garvin.

[8] Andrew Grubb & Michael Furmston, The Law of Contract, at 73 (London: Lexis Nexis UK, 2d ed.

2003).

[9] Ibid. Brownsword, p.101.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Bridge, Michael. Good Faith in Commercial Contracts in Brownsword, Hird and Howells (eds). See also Brownsword, Roger p. 105.

[12] UNIDROIT Principles Arts. 1.7, 4.8 & Art. 5.2.

[13] UNIDROIT Principles Art. 2.15.

[14] UNIDROIT Principles Arts. 3.5, 3.8 & Art. 3.10.

[15] UNIDROIT Principles Art. 7.1.6.

[16] Ibid. Ulrich.

[17] Ibid.

[18] Ibid.

[19] Ibid.

[20] Ibid.

[21] Ibid.

[22] Farnsworth, E. Allen. Duties of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Under the UNIDROIT Principles, Relevant International Conventions and National Laws. 3 Tul. J. Int’l & Comp. L 47, 60 (1995). However, circumstances unique to the particular parties involved should not be ignored.

[23] Ibid. Farnsworth.

[24] Ibid. Ulrich.

[25] Ibid.

[27] Bonell, Michael Joachim. The UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts: Why?

What? How?, 69 Tul. L. Rev. 1121, 1122 (1995)

[28] Ibid.

[29] www.unilex.info (last visited on 30 March 2008)

[30] Sharpe, Charles N. Brower & Jeremy K. The Creeping Codification of Transnational Commercial Law: An Arbitrator's Perspective. Virginia Journal of International Law (Fall 2004) 199-221

[31] www.unilex.info/case.cfm?pid=2&do=case&id=644&step=FullText (last visited on 1 April 2008) ICC International Court of Arbitration, Award No. 8540, Paris, (04.09.1996).

[32] www.ccs.cl/html/eventos/2007/doc/Santiago%20PICC%2013%20June%202007%20II.ppt (last visited on 3 April 2008) Presentation by Herbert Kronke, Secretary General UNIDROIT in Santiago 13 June 2007, UNIDROIT Principles: Role in International Dispute Resolution.

[33] Ibid. Bonell.

[34] Barnes, Naomi Julia. Good Faith under the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts: A Struggle for Meaning. Available at http://www.dundee.ac.uk/cepmlp/car/html/ CAR9_ARTICLE14 .pdf (last visited on 30 March 2008).

[35] www.unilex.info/case.cfm?pid=2&do=case&id=668&step=FullText (last visited on 30 March 2008) Anderson Consulting Bus. Unit Member Firms v. Arthur Anderson Bus. Unit Member Firms, et al., ICC International Court of Arbitration, Case No. 9797, Geneva (28.07.2000).

[36] Ibid. Barnes.

[37] http://www.unilex.info/case.cfm?pid=2&do=case&id=973&step=FullText (last visited on 30 March

2008) unknown, Ad hoc Arbitration, (04.03.2004).

[38] Ibid. Barnes.

[39] Ibid.

[40] http://www.unilex.info/case.cfm?pid=2&do=case&id=690&step=FullText (last visited on 30 March

2008) Unknown, ICC International Court of Arbitration Award No. 9474, Paris (00.02.1999).

[41] Ibid.

[42] Ibid. Farnsworth.

[43] Ibid.

[44] Powell, Raphael. Good Faith in Contracts. (1956) 9 CLP 16, 26.

[45] Ibid. Brownsword, p.109.

[46] www.unilex.info/case.cfm?pid=2&do=case&id=663&step=FullText (last visited on 30 March 2008) ICC International Court of Arbitration , Award No. 8908, Milano (00.09.1998).

[47] Ibid.