Risk of damages arising from litigation in Indonesia
First written in FY2017. 7 of 24 entries say "Restated". Latest entry: FY2026.
No other company in this theme has enough history to compare yet.
- FY2026Previous judgment set aside following Supreme Court decision to rehear caseAnnual report
「The Company received, dated 19 January 2026, the decision granting Sugar Group’s petition for judicial review (retrial) (the “Decision”). According to the Decision, the Supreme Court decided, as a result of the judicial review (retrial), to set aside the Supreme Court judgment received by the Company on 8 November 2022.」
With respect to the 2022 Supreme Court judgment in the Central Jakarta litigation, which had partially granted the Company’s claims in the main action, the Company stated that Sugar Group’s petition for a retrial had been granted and the judgment had been set aside. Meanwhile, the renewed counterclaims were dismissed. - FY2026-H1RestatedAnnual report
「As of the date on which these summarized interim consolidated financial statements were approved, the Company intended to take measures in response to the impropriety of the contents of the rejection decision. There had been no change in the Company’s previous position that the Supreme Court judgment in the Gunung Sugih litigation was highly likely to be invalidated, and as of the end of the current interim consolidated accounting period, the Company had not recognized a provision for litigation losses relating to the Gunung Sugih litigation.」
The Company reconfirmed that, even after the rejection decision received on 30 January 2024 concerning the Gunung Sugih litigation, there had been no change in its previous position and that it had not recognized a provision for litigation losses. - FY2025RestatedAnnual report
「As of the end of the current consolidated fiscal year, the Company had not recognized a provision for litigation losses relating to the Gunung Sugih litigation.」
Even after receiving the decision rejecting the second petition for judicial review in the Gunung Sugih litigation, the Company maintained its position that the Supreme Court judgment was highly likely to be invalidated and continued not to recognize a provision for litigation losses. - FY2024-Q3WorsenedAnnual report
「However, the Company received on 30 January 2024 the written decision on the Supreme Court’s retrial decision rejecting the Company’s second petition for judicial review (retrial), dated 28 July 2022.」
With respect to the Gunung Sugih litigation, the Company received on 30 January 2024 the decision rejecting its second petition for judicial review. The Company considers the decision improper and continues to maintain that the Supreme Court judgment is highly likely to be invalidated and that no provision for litigation losses should be recognized. The Company also received on 11 December 2023 the opposing party’s written petition for a retrial concerning the Central Jakarta litigation. - FY2024-Q2RestatedAnnual report
「As of the end of the current summarized quarterly consolidated accounting period, there was no information requiring a change in the Company’s previous position that the Supreme Court judgment in the Gunung Sugih litigation was highly likely to be invalidated. Accordingly, as of the end of the second quarter of the current summarized quarterly consolidated accounting period, the Company had not recognized a provision for litigation losses relating to the Gunung Sugih litigation.」
The Company reconfirmed that there was no information concerning the Gunung Sugih litigation requiring a change in its previous position and that it had not recognized a provision for litigation losses. - FY2024-Q1RestatedAnnual report
「As of the end of the current summarized quarterly consolidated accounting period, there was no information requiring a change in the Company’s previous position that the Supreme Court judgment in the Gunung Sugih litigation was highly likely to be invalidated. Accordingly, as of the end of the first quarter of the current summarized quarterly consolidated accounting period, the Company had not recognized a provision for litigation losses relating to the Gunung Sugih litigation.」
The Company reconfirmed that there was no information concerning the Gunung Sugih litigation requiring a change in its previous position and that it had not recognized a provision for litigation losses. - FY2023-Q2Receipt of the Supreme Court judgment in the Central Jakarta litigationAnnual report
「The Company received, dated 8 November 2022, a Supreme Court judgment that partially granted the Company’s claims in the main action and dismissed all counterclaims brought by the Sugar Group defendant companies. The judgment granted claims equivalent to approximately US$160 million against total claims of approximately US$1.6 billion.」
With respect to the Central Jakarta litigation, the Company received a Supreme Court judgment that partially granted its claims in the main action and dismissed all counterclaims brought by Sugar Group. - FY2023-Q1Update on information regarding rejected judicial review petitionsAnnual report
「Information was recently posted on the Supreme Court website stating that the second petition for judicial review (retrial) had been rejected as of 28 July 2022. However, the website included a note that the information posted there does not constitute an official record of the Supreme Court. As of the filing date of this quarterly report, the Company has not received the Supreme Court’s decision rejecting the petition, and the grounds for rejection have not been posted on the Supreme Court website.」
Information was posted on the Supreme Court website stating that the second petition for judicial review in the Gunung Sugih litigation had been rejected, but the formal decision had not been received. The Company continues to maintain its previous position and does not recognize a provision for litigation losses. The Company also noted that a draft Supreme Court judgment concerning the Central Jakarta litigation had been posted. - FY2022RestatedAnnual report
「In response, the Company appealed the main action to the Supreme Court on 19 November 2021, and the matter remains pending.」
The Company reconfirmed that, with respect to the Central Jakarta litigation, the appeal to the Supreme Court has remained pending since the second-instance judgment. - FY2022-Q3Appeal to the Supreme Court in the Central Jakarta litigationAnnual report
「In response, the Company appealed the main action to the Supreme Court.」
With respect to the Central Jakarta litigation, after receiving the second-instance judgment dismissing both the claims in the main action and the counterclaims, the Company appealed to the Supreme Court on 19 November 2021. - FY2022-Q2WorsenedAnnual report
「The Company received, dated 8 November 2021, a second-instance judgment dismissing both the claims in the main action and the counterclaims. The Company intends to analyze the contents of the judgment in detail, examine the legal measures available to it against the judgment, and take appropriate action.」
With respect to the Central Jakarta litigation, the Company received a second-instance judgment dismissing both the Company’s claims in the main action and Sugar Group’s counterclaims, and stated that it would consider the legal measures to be taken going forward. - FY2021South Jakarta litigation: judicial review granted; Gunung Sugih litigation: second petition acceptedAnnual report
「The Company filed a second petition for judicial review (retrial) concerning the Gunung Sugih litigation with the Supreme Court again, dated 31 May 2021, and the petition was accepted by the Gunung Sugih District Court.」
In the South Jakarta litigation, the petition for judicial review was granted, the judgment against the Company was set aside, and all of the plaintiffs’ claims were dismissed. In the Gunung Sugih litigation, the second petition for judicial review was accepted. - FY2021-Q3South Jakarta litigation: judicial review granted and appeals in related litigationAnnual report
「With respect to the South Jakarta litigation, the Company received the written decision on the Supreme Court’s retrial on 30 December 2020. The decision states that, as of 24 August 2020, the Company’s petition for judicial review (retrial) had been granted, that the Supreme Court judgment in the South Jakarta litigation, which the Company received on 17 May 2017 and which had ruled against the Company, had been set aside, and that all claims brought by the companies belonging to Sugar Group, the plaintiffs, had been dismissed.」
In the South Jakarta litigation, the petition for judicial review was granted, the judgment against the Company was set aside, and all of the plaintiffs’ claims were dismissed. In the Gunung Sugih litigation, however, the petition documents were not accepted, and the separate main action and counterclaim were both dismissed at first instance, after which the Company appealed the main action. - FY2021-Q2Developments in the judicial review proceedingsAnnual report
「With respect to the South Jakarta litigation, information was posted on the Supreme Court website stating that the Company’s petition for judicial review (retrial) had been granted as of 24 August 2020. However, the website included a note that the information posted there does not constitute an official record of the Supreme Court. As of the filing date of this quarterly report, the Company has not received the Supreme Court’s written decision relating to the petition being granted, and the specific contents of the decision, including its operative provisions and reasoning, have not been posted on the Supreme Court website.」
Information was posted on the Supreme Court website stating that the petition for judicial review in the South Jakarta litigation had been granted, but the Company noted that it had not received the formal written decision and that its specific contents had not been posted. - FY2020WorsenedAnnual report
「After analyzing the Supreme Court’s decision on the retrial and examining the legal measures available to the Company against that decision under the judicial review (retrial) system pursuant to the Indonesian Supreme Court Law, the Company filed a second petition for judicial review (retrial) with the Supreme Court on 18 May 2020, on the grounds that the Supreme Court’s retrial decision was inconsistent with the Supreme Court judgment in the original litigation.」
After receiving the decision rejecting its petition for judicial review in the Gunung Sugih litigation, the Company filed a second petition for judicial review, but the District Court decided not to accept the documents or refer them to the Supreme Court. - FY2020-Q3WorsenedAnnual report
「Among these matters, with respect to the Gunung Sugih litigation, the Company received on 3 February 2020 from the Gunung Sugih District Court a decision rejecting its petition for judicial review (retrial) (the “Decision”).」
Previously, the information posted on the Supreme Court website had been limited to notice that the petition was rejected and a draft decision. The Company subsequently received the decision rejecting its petition for judicial review in the Gunung Sugih litigation. The Company considers the decision improper and based on a misunderstanding of the facts, and continues to maintain that the Supreme Court judgment is highly likely to be invalidated. - FY2020-Q2Additional posting of draft reasons for non-acceptance of judicial review petitionAnnual report
「Regarding the Gunungsugi litigation, information stating that our judicial review petition for rehearing would not be accepted was posted on the Supreme Court's website dated 8 October 2018. In October 2019, a draft decision setting out the reasons for non-acceptance and other matters was added to the Supreme Court's website.」
Regarding the non-acceptance of the judicial review petition in the Gunungsugi litigation, a draft decision setting out the reasons and other matters was added to the Supreme Court's website in October 2019. The company had not received the formal decision and maintained its previous position that the judgment was highly likely to be invalidated, as well as its policy of not recognizing a provision for litigation losses. - FY2020-Q1RestatedAnnual report
「As of the date of submission of this quarterly report, there was no information requiring a change in our previous position that the Supreme Court judgment in the current litigation was highly likely to be invalidated. Accordingly, as of the end of the first quarter of the current consolidated fiscal year, we had not recognized a provision for litigation losses relating to the current litigation.」
While noting the information that the judicial review petition in the Gunungsugi litigation would not be accepted and the existence of the counterclaim, the company reconfirmed its previous position that the Supreme Court judgment was highly likely to be invalidated and its policy of not recognizing a provision for litigation losses. - FY2019WorsenedAnnual report
「Because Sugar Group denied its validity, on 26 April 2017 we filed a damages claim with the Central Jakarta District Court of Indonesia against Sugar Group, seeking approximately US$1.6 billion for damage to our reputation and other losses arising from Sugar Group's tortious acts. In response, Sugar Group alleged in the proceedings that our filing of the action constituted a tort and, on 30 April 2019, filed a counterclaim seeking total damages of US$7.75 billion from our company.」
In addition to the existing South Jakarta and Gunungsugi litigation, Sugar Group filed a counterclaim on 30 April 2019 seeking total damages of US$7.75 billion in response to the action brought by our company. - FY2019-Q3RestatedAnnual report
「As of the date of submission of this quarterly report, there was no information requiring a change in our previous position that the Supreme Court judgment in the current litigation was highly likely to be invalidated. Accordingly, as of the end of the third quarter of the current consolidated fiscal year, we had not recognized a provision for litigation losses relating to the current litigation.」
Even after information was posted stating that the judicial review petition in the Gunungsugi litigation would not be accepted, the previous position that the judgment was highly likely to be invalidated remained unchanged, and the company reiterated that it had not recognized a provision for litigation losses. - FY2019-Q2Posting of information that judicial review petition was not acceptedAnnual report
「Regarding the Gunungsugi litigation, information dated 8 October 2018 stating that our judicial review petition for rehearing would not be accepted was posted on the Supreme Court's website. However, as of the date of submission of this quarterly report, we had not received the Supreme Court's decision not to accept the petition, and the reason for non-acceptance had not been posted on the Supreme Court's website. A note states that information on the website is not an official record of the Supreme Court.」
Information stating that the judicial review petition in the Gunungsugi litigation would not be accepted was posted on the Supreme Court's website. However, the company had not received the formal decision, and stated that its previous assessment that the current litigation judgment was highly likely to be invalid remained unchanged. - FY2018-Q3Judicial review petitions in both lawsuitsAnnual report
「Accordingly, under Indonesia's Supreme Court Law, we filed judicial review petitions for rehearing with the Supreme Court regarding the South Jakarta litigation on 24 October 2017 and the Gunungsugi litigation on 6 February 2018, respectively.」
In addition to the South Jakarta litigation, we filed a judicial review petition regarding the Gunungsugi litigation. We believe there is a high likelihood that the judgments in both lawsuits will be invalidated and have not recognized a provision for litigation losses. - FY2018-Q2WorsenedAnnual report
「South Jakarta litigation: Of the 6 defendants, 4 defendants, including our company and Marubeni Europe Plc, are jointly and severally ordered to pay total damages of US$250 million to the 5 plaintiffs. Gunungsugi litigation: Of the 7 defendants, 5 defendants, including our company, are jointly and severally ordered to pay total damages of US$250 million to the 4 plaintiffs.」
In addition to the existing South Jakarta litigation, a judgment ordering total damages of US$250 million was received in the Gunungsugi litigation, expanding the scope of the damages judgments. We plan to file a judicial review petition regarding the South Jakarta litigation and also plan to file one regarding the Gunungsugi litigation. - FY2017MaterialisedAnnual report
「South Jakarta litigation: Of the 6 defendants, 4 defendants, including our company and Marubeni Europe Plc, are jointly and severally ordered to pay total damages of US$250 million to the 5 plaintiffs, companies belonging to Sugar Group, an Indonesian corporate group: PT. Indolampung Perkasa, PT. Sweet Indolampung, PT.Gula Putih Mataram, PT. Indolampung Distillery and PT. Garuda Pancaarta.」
The Indonesian Supreme Court judgment ordered our company and others to pay total damages of US$250 million. We plan to file a judicial review petition and have not recognized a provision for litigation losses.