Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"At the end of twentieth century there were acquisition dominated business transaction within national scale and also international scale. In the international term there is known acquisition across border. corporate acquisition is one amongst many business strategies for developing corporation within home country and abroad without necessitated to set up a new legal business entity. Acquisition becomes a faster and easier selection in getting financial return. A rampant acquisition of corporation at this moment need to be supervised closely and carefully by many parties since the trend of dominant acquisition many break Antimonopoly Law and Banking law as happening with Maybank acquisition of BII. There is indication that the acquisition of BII's shares have broken Bank Indonesia regulation concerning single presence policy on Indonesia Banking. Nevertheless until now, the growing activities of shares acquisition across border have not comprehensively been regulated yet into regulation of Limited Corporation Law, Antimonopoly Law and Indonesia Banking Law."

"At the end of twentieth century there were acquisitions dominated business transaction whithin national scale and also international scale....."

"Akuisisi Tokopedia oleh TikTok menimbulkan berbagai implikasi dalam konteks persaingan usaha di Indonesia. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis dampak akuisisi tersebut terhadap persaingan di pasar Indonesia berdasarkan perspektif hukum persaingan usaha. Metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah penelitian doktrinal, yang mengkaji secara mendalam aturan-aturan hukum yang relevan serta dokumen dan literatur yang berkaitan dengan kasus ini. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa akuisisi ini berpotensi meningkatkan efisiensi operasional kedua perusahaan, namun juga menimbulkan kekhawatiran terhadap praktik monopoli dan penurunan tingkat persaingan di pasar. Analisis dilakukan terhadap peraturan perundang-undangan di bidang persaingan usaha di Indonesia, termasuk Undang-Undang Nomor 5 Tahun 1999 tentang Larangan Praktik Monopoli dan Persaingan Usaha Tidak Sehat. Penelitian ini menyimpulkan bahwa meskipun ada manfaat dari segi efisiensi, pengawasan ketat diperlukan untuk memastikan tidak terjadi pelanggaran terhadap prinsip-prinsip persaingan usaha yang sehat. Rekomendasi diberikan kepada otoritas terkait untuk meningkatkan pengawasan dan penerapan regulasi agar tercipta pasar yang kompetitif dan adil.

---

The acquisition of Tokopedia by TikTok has various implications for business competition in Indonesia. This study aims to analyze the impact of the acquisition on competition in the Indonesian market from the perspective of competition law. The research method employed is doctrinal research, which involves an in-depth examination of relevant legal rules as well as documents and literature related to this case. The findings indicate that while the acquisition has the potential to enhance the operational efficiency of both companies, it also raises concerns about monopolistic practices and a decline in market competition. The analysis focuses on competition law regulations in Indonesia, including Law No. 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition. This study concludes that despite the efficiency benefits, strict supervision is required to ensure adherence to healthy competition principles. Recommendations are made to relevant authorities to enhance supervision and enforcement of regulations to create a competitive and fair market."

"Akuisisi saham di Indonesia memainkan peran kunci dalam mendorong pertumbuhan ekonomi dan ekspansi bisnis. Saat perusahaan secara strategis mengakuisisi saham, mereka berkontribusi pada diversifikasi dan pengembangan pasar Indonesia, yang pada akhirnya membentuk lingkungan bisnis yang lebih kompetitif. Salah satu masalah yang umum terjadi dalam akuisisi di Indonesia adalah kurangnya kesadaran di kalangan pelaku usaha mengenai kewajiban pemberitahuan yang diatur dalam perundang-undangan. Skripsi ini bertujuan untuk memberikan pemahaman lebih baik terkait tantangan yang ada dalam pelaksanaan pemberitahuan akuisisi saham, serta mengenai kerangka hukum seputar akuisisi saham di Indonesia. Dengan menggunakan metode penelitian yuridis normatif, skripsi ini akan membahas kerangka regulasi yang mengatur akuisisi saham dalam hukum perseroan terbatas dan hukum persaingan usaha, serta menganalisis bagaimana penerapan Undang-Undang No. 5 tahun 1999 dan Peraturan Pemerintah No. 57 tahun 2010 dalam kasus keterlambatan pemberitahuan akuisisi yang dilakukan oleh Taiko Plantations Pte. Ltd dalam akuisisi saham PT Putra Bongan Jaya. Hasil penelitian ini menunjukkan adanya inkonsistensi antara ketentuan Pasal 6 Peraturan Pemerintah No. 57 tahun 2010 dengan implementasinya dalam Putusan KPPU No.18/KPPU-M/2020.

---

Share acquisition in Indonesia plays a pivotal role in fostering economic growth and business expansion. As companies strategically acquire shares, they contribute to the diversification and development of the Indonesian market, ultimately shaping a more competitive business environment. A prevalent problem observed about acquisitions in Indonesia is the lack of awareness among business actors regarding notifying obligations as stipulated in the law. This thesis aims to shed light on the challenges associated with share acquisitions notifications, as well as to contribute to a better understanding of the legal landscape surrounding share acquisitions in Indonesia. By using normative juridical research method, this thesis will discuss about the regulatory framework governing share acquisitions within the limited liability company law and business competition law, as well as analyzing how Law No. 5 of 1999 and Government Regulation No. 57 of 2010 are applied in the case of a delayed acquisition notification done by Taiko Plantations Pte. Ltd in the share acquisition of PT Putra Bongan Jaya. The results of this research reveal that there is an inconsistency between the provisions of Article 6 of Government Regulation No.57 of 2010 and their actual implementation in KPPU Decision No.18/KPPU-M/2020."

"Bardasarkan Pasal 10 UU No.36 Tahun 1999 tentang Telekomunikasi menegaskan adanya larangan praktek yang menjurus kearah monopoli dan persaingan usaha tidak sehat diantara pengusaha penyelanggara telekomunikasi. Hal ini sejalan dengan asas yang terkandung di dalam UU No. 5 Tahun 1999 tentang Larangan Praktek Monopoli Dan Persaingan Usaha Tidak Sehat. Menurut Undang-Undang tentang Telekomunikasi, jasa instalasi dilaksanakan oleh Penyelenggara Telekomunikasi. Siapa saja penyelenggara telekomunikasi, dinyatakan di dalam Pasal 8 dengan peraturan pelaksanaannya diatur di dalam PP No. 52 Tahun 2000. Penyelenggara tersebut adalah pengusaha yang berbadan hukum, tetapi juga dapat dilakukan oleh pengusaha perorangan. Perekrutan pengusaha sebagai penyelenggara telekomunikasi oleh PT. Telkom Tbk., lazimnya dibuat perjanjian dengan memuat kesepakatan-kesepakatan yang dituangkan secara tertulis dan tidak tertulis. Perjanjian kerja yang dibuat dengan tidak tertulis inilah yang menjadi peluang adanya praktek persaingan usaha tidak sehat. Pengusaha cenderung membuat penetapan harga jasa maupun barang, melalui perjanjian tidak tertulis, dapat diduga agar sulit dilacak sekalipun oleh pihak berwenang yaitu KPPU (Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha), sekalipun terdapat laporan, KPPU tidak dapat bertindak diluar kewenangannya sebagaimana peran penyidik. Dari sudut pandang dua Peraturan yaitu UU No. 5 Tahun 1999 dan UU No. 36 Tahun 1999, terjadi dualisme dalam menghadapai satu permasalahan mengenai penetapan harga. Menurut UU No. 5 Tahun 1999 perjanjian mengenai penatapan harga adakalanya dapat diterapkan pendekatan perse illegal atau rule of reason.atau keduanya. Demikian juga menurut UU No. 36 Tahun 1999 tentang Telekomunikasi, yang dikenal dengan pendekatan bundling service dan unbundling service.

---

AArticle 10 of Law 36 of 1999 on Telecommunications confirms the prohibition of the practice that leads towards monopoly and unfair competition among telecommunications carriers entrepreneurs. This is in line with the principles contained in the Law no. 5 in year 1999 on Prohibition of Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition. According to the Law on Telecommunications, installation service carried out by the Telecommunication Providers. Anyone telecommunications operator, expressed in Article 8 of the implementing regulations set in PP. 52 of 2000. The organizers are incorporated businesses, but can also be done by an individual entrepreneur. In the recruitment of employers as providers of telecommunications by PT. Telkom Tbk., typically made agreements that containing the written and unwritten. Employment agreement made with the unwritten that is the opportunity for unfair business practices. Employers tend to make the pricing of goods and services through an unwritten agreement, it can be presumed that difficult to trace even by the authorities that the Commission (KPPU), though there is a report, the Commission can not do outside the authority, which should investigator. From the point of view of the two regulations, namely Law no. 5 of 1999 and Law no. 36 In 1999, there was a duality in the face of the existing problems. According to Law no. 5 In year 1999 an agreement on price fixing is sometimes applied approach illegal per se or rule of reason or both. Similarly, according to Law no. 36 of 1999 on Telecommunications, as known as service bundling and unbundling approach to service."