Is DANAHARTA a saviour or robber? How many pieces of property have DANAHARTA taken by force at way below market prices just to be sold to ‘middlemen’ at even lower prices so that they can make a huge profit. You will be surprised to discover how many millionaires and billionaires are created through DANAHARTA.
NO HOLDS BARRED
Raja Petra Kamarudin
DANAHARTA SDN BHD / PROKHAS SDN BHD
Tingkat 9, Bangunan Setia 1
15 Lorong Dungun, Bukit Damansara,
50490 Kuala Lumpur
Attn: Encik Fadzlur Rahman Ebraheem
RE: DISCUSSIONS ON SETTLEMENT ON MARINARA
I refer to your faxed letter dated 20th July 2009 with regards to the discussions on Marinara..
We are very disappointed that the discussions between us have come to nothing. If you had told me that you had already made up your mind on the matter I would not have bothered to discuss the matter at all.
1. Regretfully I do not agree with your contention that “MARINARA has been successfully sold and transferred to the new owner, Danaharta Hartanah Sdn Bhd”. It is a subsidiary of Danaharta and fully owned by Danaharta Nasional Bhd and also controlled by you. Clearly it is conflict of interest.The principal of both these companies is the Minister of Finance.
2. A sale of the property to one of Danaharta’s subsidiaries does not constitute a proper sale as Danaharta are only custodians of the property which has to be returned to the rightful owner as soon as the shareholders are able to repay the sum owing. It was never the intention of the Danaharta Act to make profit in this manner. As such any surplus on a sale should be returned to the owners. According to Danaharta’s Board decision made in 2002 it was decided as a matter of policy that there shall no longer be any sale to Danaharta’s subsidiaries but only direct sale to buyers be made as the chances of getting a higher sale price was found to be better.
3. The Danaharta Act clearly states the functions upon taking over a company to which you have not complied. You are supposed to act in the best interests of the shareholders but instead you have acted contrary to the Act. Selling well below the market value is also against decided cases and the Courts will frown on your action in doing so. You are well aware there are two Court cases pending which has been fixed for trial. We are unable to withhold the legal actions at this stage and will leave it to the lawyers how best to handle these matters.
4. Your claim that we still owe you a sum of RM41.2 million is ridiculous. The fact that Danaharta bought both MARINA SDN BHD and PEKELILING TRIANGLE SDN BHD for only RM35 million should have some bearing on what you are claiming from us. You yourself stated that ” being a Government organization you should not be making profit” is certainly contrary to what you are saying in your letter.
5. Please bear in mind that Pekeliling Triangle Sdn Bhd’s loans were NOT A NON-PERFORMING LOAN at the time of vesting in Danaharta. As such the wrongful freezing of the accounts and the Project would result in our claiming for Liquidated and Ascertained Damages calculated at RM47,000 per day multiplied by 8 years would result in approximately RM 137 million payable by Danaharta and or it’s agents to all Pekeliling Triangle Sdn Bhd’s shareholders.
6. The alleged sale price of RM171million ( objected to by the shareholders right from the beginning) decided on private negotiations between you and the “Receiver” was exceptionally low as the market value by then was RM430 million as at that time the services were all functioning and rented out. There was sabotage and manipulation in the three “tenders”.
7. We deny that we still owe a further sum of RM41.2 million to you. Danaharta. purchased all the assets of Marina Sdn Bhd and Pekeliling Triangle Sdn Bhd for only RM35 million. At the time of acquisition by Danaharta the total sum owing by Pekeliling Triangle Sdn Bhd was only 59 million (37 million principal and RM22 million interest). As it was NOT A NON-PERFORMING LOAN Danaharta cannot now charge any further interest during the period when Danaharta wrongly took over and froze all the assets since 2001 and refused to allow us to sell the building, contrary to the Loan Documents.
8. MARINA SDN BHD had completed the building at a cost of RM25 million and obtained the Certificate of Completion. In February 2006 a Sale and Purchase Agreement between Marina Sdn Bhd and Pekeliling Triangle Sdn Bhd was made whereby the building was sold to Marina Sdn Bhd. The sum of RM25 million was agreed to be the deposit to be paid to Pekeliling Triangle Sdn Bhd as a consideration and were accepted by all the shareholders and Directors. You were informed at the meeting we had with you at your office in February 2006 and copies of the Agreement were sent to you and your lawyers. Marina Sdn Bhd was at all times willing and able to pay the balance owing to Danaharta and informed you of the intended redemption.
9. MARINA SDN BHD went to great effort to rent out the building to Embassies and Diplomats and high profile businesses and was already getting a good income. Without justification you instructed the “Receiver” Duar Tuan Kiat of Ernst & Young to cut the Electricity and water knowing there were tenants in the building, and instructed them to take out an Injunction against me knowing very well I had to be at the building to complete the final touches requested by DBKL for the issuance of the final Certificate of Completion. You even rang and threatened DBKL not to issue the Certificate of Completion.
10. The closing down of the building has caused irredeemable damage to the mechanical and electrical fittings and great loss and humiliation to the shareholders. The guards chased out all the tenants including the diplomats, Embassies and occupants without giving them due notice. Marina Sdn Bhd incurred great losses, damages and humiliation.
11. Your proposal of refurbishing the building at a budget of RM100 million is a sheer waste of good money as there is nothing wrong with the building or design done by a Gold Star Architect Dato Baharuddin Kassim. What you have to rectify is the damage and losses caused by the security guards in cutting the electric cables and stealing the electrical fittings and assets and jamming the electrical devices and lifts. They were employed as agent for Danaharta on your instructions. These should be rectified immediately
As such my counter proposal is that :
A) You accept the redemption sum of RM59 million as settlement . In consideration of that we are willing to waive claims of the LAD incurred for freezing the project for the last 8 years and to withdraw all legal actions.
b) To allow the shareholders to sell the building on an ‘as is basis” immediately as we already have ready buyers
I trust you will consider my proposal seriously and give an affirmative reply within one week from date hereof.
Thank you. WASSALAM.
Hajjah Marina Yusoff,
for and on behalf of all the Directors and shareholders
of Pekeliling Triangle Sdn Bhd
c.c.1. Miinister of Finance I
2. Minister of Finance II