 BTEL issued $380 million in 11.

5% Guaranteed Senior Notes in 2010 and 2011

through its subsidiary, Bakrie Telecom Pte. Ltd. The Notes were governed by
New York law.
 The Indenture Trustee, Bank of New York Mellon, was appointed to represent
the interests of noteholders and had the right to submit proofs of claim on
their behalf in a restructuring proceeding.
 The Issuer loaned the proceeds of the Notes to BTEL under an Intercompany
Loan Agreement governed by Indonesian law.
 BTEL's financial difficulties led to defaults on interest payments on the Notes.
 An Indonesian creditor, PT Netwave Multi Media, initiated a PKPU proceeding
in the Indonesian Commercial Court, a court-enforced suspension of
payments process designed to facilitate debt restructuring.
 Creditors, including the Objecting Noteholders, engaged in discussions
regarding BTEL's financial and operational situation, ultimately leading to the
proposed PKPU Plan.
 The Issuer, representing a significant portion of the unsecured indebtedness,
voted in favor of the PKPU Plan, which was approved by a majority of
creditors.
 A dispute arose over the Issuer's standing to vote and submit claims, as it did
so without the consent of the Indenture Trustee.
 The Objecting Noteholders initiated legal actions in New York, asserting
claims of fraud and breach of contract in connection with the Notes offering.
 The New York court granted summary judgment in favor of the Objecting
Noteholders, leading to the Chapter 15 petition filed by BTEL.
 As a result of the Chapter 15 filing, the parties reached a stipulated judgment
in New York, although its enforcement was postponed.
 The Objecting Noteholders filed a motion to deny recognition of the PKPU
Proceeding in the Chapter 15 case.
 PT Bakrie Telecom Tbk (BTEL), an Indonesian telecommunications company,
faced financial difficulties due to a default on payments under certain senior
notes. In an attempt to restructure its debt, BTEL initiated a debt restructuring
process in Indonesia, known as the "PKPU Proceeding." During this process, a
group of noteholders, known as the "Objecting Noteholders," contested the
legitimacy of the debt restructuring plan.
 The Objecting Noteholders claimed that the debt restructuring plan, which
included converting a significant portion of the debt into Mandatory
Convertible Bonds, was unfair and against their interests. They argued that the
restructuring process in Indonesia did not properly consider their rights and
that they should have had more say in the outcome.
 Concurrently, a legal battle took place in New York, where the Objecting
Noteholders sued BTEL, its subsidiary, and the Subsidiary Guarantors for
breach of contract and fraud related to the debt issuance. The New York court
 granted summary judgment in favor of the Objecting Noteholders on the
breach of contract claim but also ruled that the fraud claims were valid.
 In response to these legal challenges, BTEL initiated a Chapter 15 bankruptcy
case in the United States. The main issue was whether the debt restructuring
plan approved in Indonesia should be recognized in the U.S. bankruptcy
proceedings. The Objecting Noteholders opposed the recognition, arguing
that the plan was fundamentally unfair and that it should not be enforced in
the U.S.