Jakarta, March 29th 2018
TBLA’S CLARIFICATION 2ND
First and foremost, the Company has previously put forward a formal statement in regards to the note issued by Chain Reaction Research. TBLA made it clear that claims written within the said note were mainly subjective analysis made to discredit the Company and our on-going operation. As such, TBLA finds no need to prolong this unproductive matter any further and to simply focus in enhancing the Company’s stakeholder value through our business.
Let it be known that the respond made by Mr. Mulyono on 28 February 2018 was for a draft presented by an organization called Aidenvironment, which content was less than 40% of the note issued by Chain Reaction Research on 14 March 2018. Hence, as previously stated in our initial respond to this matter; Chain Reaction Research has never directly approached the Company for any clarification. Moreover, If the 2 (two) said entities are related, we then wonder as to why Mr. Mulyono’s respond was not incorporated in the said note.
Allow us to give one clear example that the data presented in the note are substantially inaccurate and downright misleading:
The Company again highlights the fact that no proposal ever submitted to change the site permit of the above subsidiary from sugar cane to oil palm. Moreover, the Company has never planted oil palm in area under sugar cane site permit.
TBLA is confident that our stakeholders understand the Company’s business and corporate governance standard very well, and also aware that these sorts of news are common nowadays in the South East Asia’s oil palm industry that is facing constant trade pressure from its international competitors. TBLA would also like to use this opportunity to thank all stakeholders for their constructive inputs on this matter.
Thank You