Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Skripsi ini membahas mengenai efektivitas perlindungan investor dalam aksi pembelian kembali saham melalui pasar modal, baik dalam kondisi pasar yang normal maupun kondisi pasar yang berpotensi krisis. Hal ini terkait dengan kebijakan pemerintah yang menghimbau untuk dilaksanakannya pembelian kembali saham dan melonggarkan ketentuan-ketentuan untuk melaksanakan pembelian kembali saham melalui penerbitan Peraturan Bapepam Nomor XI.B.3 tentang Pembelian Kembali Saham Yang Dikeluarkan Oleh Emiten Atau Perusahaan Publik Dalam Kondisi Pasar Yang Berpotens Krisis. Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian yuridis normatif dengan menggunakan pendekatan peraturan perundang-undangan, pendekatan perbandingan, dan pendekatan kasus. Penelitian ini menyimpulkan bahwa perlindungan investor yang diberikan dalam aksi pembelian kembali saham pada situasi pasar yang normal maupun situasi pasar yang berpotensi krisis sudah cukup efektif. Walaupun Peraturan Bapepam Nomor XI.B.3 memberikan banyak kelonggaran-kelonggaran, namun penurunan perlindungan investor yang terjadi tidak sampai ke level tidak efektif dan merugikan investor.

---

This thesis discusses the effectiveness of the protection of investors in a share buyback action through the capital market, either in a normal market conditions or in a market conditions which has the crisis potential. This is related to government policies that encourage the implementation of shares repurchase and re-stretch the conditions to conduct shares repurchase through the issuance of Bapepam Rule Number XI.B.3 about Repurchase of Shares Issued By The Public Company In a Market Conditions Which Has The Crisis Potential.

This thesis is a normative legal study and employs statutes, a comparative approach, and a case study in its analysis. This study concluded that the protection given to investors in a share buyback action through the capital market, either in a normal market conditions or in a market conditions which has the crisis potential, has been quite effective. Although Bapepam Rule Number XI.B.3 gives much leeway-loose, but the decrease in investor protection is not yet reached the level of ineffective and still does not harm the investors."

"[Tesis ini membahas mengenai pengaturan tentang pembelian kembalisaham atau yang sering disebut dengan buyback di pasar modal Indonesia yang dilakukan oleh Bank Tbk. yang secara khusus diatur dalam Peraturan Bapepam Nomor XI.B.2, namun dalam kondisi krisis global yang terjadi akhir-akhir ini, Bapepam mengeluarkan peraturan baru yang mengatur mengenai buyback pada kondisi pasar yang berfluktuasi secara signifikan, yaitu Peraturan Otoritas Jasa Keuangan Nomor 2/POJK.04/2013. Peraturan baru tersebut memberi sejumlahkelonggaran dalam pelaksanaan buyback, terutama batas pembelian kembali saham yang dinaikkan menjadi 20% serta tidak perlu meminta persetujuan Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham (“RUPS”) terlebih dahulu. Digunakan metode penelitian kepustakaan yang bertujuan untuk menemukan masalah (problem finding) untuk kemudian menuju pada suatu penelitian untuk mengatasi masalah (problem solution). Permasalahan kemudian tibul dikarenakan adanya kelonggaran tentangkewajiban dilaksanakannya RUPS dalam pelaksanaan buyback saham yang mengakibatkan tersinggungnya / berkurangnya perlindungan terhadap pemegang saham perusahaan karena beralihnya kewenangan RUPS menjadi kewenangan Direksi perusahaan. Selanjutnya, bagaimana apabila setelah melakukan buyback, perseroan tetap mengalami kerugian, sehingga dalam hal ini direksi dapat saja dimintakan pertanggungjawabannya, namun untuk itu harus terlebih dahuludibuktikan bahwa direksi telah melanggar fiduciary duty-nya. Penelitian ini membahas mengenai tata cara dan persyaratan dalam pelaksanaan buyback oleh Bank sebagai emiten atau perusahaan publik berdasarkan Peraturan Bapepam Nomor XI.B.2 dan Peraturan Otoritas Jasa Keuangan Nomor 2/POJK.04/2013, perlindungan pemegang saham dan tanggung jawab Direksi terhadap buyback yang dilakukan oleh perusahaan.;This thesis discusses on regulations related to share buyback by a PublicBank in Indonesian capital market that is specifically regulated in Bapepam Regulation Number XI.B.2, however in the current global crisis conditions, Bapepam has issued new regulations regulating on share buyback in the market conditions which fluctuating significantly, namely Financial Service Authority Regulations (“POJK”) Number 2/POJK.04/2013. Such new regulation gives some flexibilities in the buy back execution, particularly the limit of shares buy backincreased to be 20% and it is not necessary to get prior approval from the General Meeting of Shareholders. In this thesis is used literature research methodology with the aims to find out the problem (problem finding) and then to go to a research to overcome the problem (problem solution). The problem arises when the regulation causes a loose on the company’s obligation in conducting a Shareholders’ Meeting (related to share buyback), thus giving the Borad of Director of the company, on their sole discretion, to conduct share buyback. Thisaction gives an impact to the shareholders’ rights, in the meaning that the shareholders in this case do not have the right to participate nor give votes in the company’s corporate actions (in this case, share buyback). Furthermore, if the share buyback costs losses to the company, the Board of Directors of the company should be asked for its accountability, but to do so, it must be previously provedthat the Board of Directors has violated its fiduciary duty, in which it also corresponds to a doctrine namely the doctrine of business judgment rule. This study discusses the procedures and requirements in the implementation of the share buyback by the Issuer or public company based on Bapepam Regulations Number XI.B.2 and POJK Number 2/POJK.04/2013, the protection towards the company’s shareholders and the responsibility of the Board of Directors towardthe share buyback in relation to the doctrine of business judgment rule;This thesis discusses on regulations related to share buyback by a PublicBank in Indonesian capital market that is specifically regulated in BapepamRegulation Number XI.B.2, however in the current global crisis conditions,Bapepam has issued new regulations regulating on share buyback in the marketconditions which fluctuating significantly, namely Financial Service AuthorityRegulations (“POJK”) Number 2/POJK.04/2013. Such new regulation gives someflexibilities in the buy back execution, particularly the limit of shares buy backincreased to be 20% and it is not necessary to get prior approval from the GeneralMeeting of Shareholders. In this thesis is used literature research methodologywith the aims to find out the problem (problem finding) and then to go to aresearch to overcome the problem (problem solution). The problem arises whenthe regulation causes a loose on the company’s obligation in conducting aShareholders’ Meeting (related to share buyback), thus giving the Borad ofDirector of the company, on their sole discretion, to conduct share buyback. Thisaction gives an impact to the shareholders’ rights, in the meaning that theshareholders in this case do not have the right to participate nor give votes in thecompany’s corporate actions (in this case, share buyback). Furthermore, if theshare buyback costs losses to the company, the Board of Directors of the companyshould be asked for its accountability, but to do so, it must be previously provedthat the Board of Directors has violated its fiduciary duty, in which it alsocorresponds to a doctrine namely the doctrine of business judgment rule. Thisstudy discusses the procedures and requirements in the implementation of theshare buyback by the Issuer or public company based on Bapepam RegulationsNumber XI.B.2 and POJK Number 2/POJK.04/2013, the protection towards thecompany’s shareholders and the responsibility of the Board of Directors towardthe share buyback in relation to the doctrine of business judgment rule, This thesis discusses on regulations related to share buyback by a PublicBank in Indonesian capital market that is specifically regulated in BapepamRegulation Number XI.B.2, however in the current global crisis conditions,Bapepam has issued new regulations regulating on share buyback in the marketconditions which fluctuating significantly, namely Financial Service AuthorityRegulations (“POJK”) Number 2/POJK.04/2013. Such new regulation gives someflexibilities in the buy back execution, particularly the limit of shares buy backincreased to be 20% and it is not necessary to get prior approval from the GeneralMeeting of Shareholders. In this thesis is used literature research methodologywith the aims to find out the problem (problem finding) and then to go to aresearch to overcome the problem (problem solution). The problem arises whenthe regulation causes a loose on the company’s obligation in conducting aShareholders’ Meeting (related to share buyback), thus giving the Borad ofDirector of the company, on their sole discretion, to conduct share buyback. Thisaction gives an impact to the shareholders’ rights, in the meaning that theshareholders in this case do not have the right to participate nor give votes in thecompany’s corporate actions (in this case, share buyback). Furthermore, if theshare buyback costs losses to the company, the Board of Directors of the companyshould be asked for its accountability, but to do so, it must be previously provedthat the Board of Directors has violated its fiduciary duty, in which it alsocorresponds to a doctrine namely the doctrine of business judgment rule. Thisstudy discusses the procedures and requirements in the implementation of theshare buyback by the Issuer or public company based on Bapepam RegulationsNumber XI.B.2 and POJK Number 2/POJK.04/2013, the protection towards thecompany’s shareholders and the responsibility of the Board of Directors towardthe share buyback in relation to the doctrine of business judgment rule]"

"Perkembangan dunia usaha yang semakin pesat menuntut kreativitas para pelaku usaha untuk menciptakan suatu terobosan terhadap hal-hal yang tidak diatur dalam Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Perdata. Sistem terbuka yang dimiliki Hukum Perjanjian sebagaimana tercermin dalam Pasal 1338 ayat 1 Kitab Undang-undang Hukum Perdata telah memberikan kebebasan sedemikian rupa sehingga setiap orang berhak dan bebas untuk membuat atau mengadakan perjanjian yang segala sesuatunya sesuai dengan kehendak para pihak yang membuat. Buyback guarantee yang diberikan developer kepada bank merupakan salah satu bentuk perjanjian penjaminan yang lahir berdasarkan kebebasan berkontrak tersebut. Pemberian buyback guarantee oleh developer sebagai jaminan terhadap pembelian unit apartemen yang masih dalam tahap pembangunan adalah muncul sebagai kebutuhan dalam praktik untuk menjembatani kepentingan tiga pihak, yaitu pertama pihak bank sebagai pemberi kredit kepemilikan apartemen, buyback guarantee berguna untuk membantu kedudukan bank yang sangat berisiko karena tidak/belum dapat mengikat jaminan Hak Tanggungan atas obyek unit apartemen yang dibiayainya. Kedua bagi pihak developer, dana pencairan kredit kepemilikan apartemen akan diterima langsung oleh developer, dimana dana tersebut sangat diperlukan developer baik untuk membiayai pembangunan apartemen maupun untuk mencicil kembali kredit konstruksi yang diberikan oleh bank pemberi kredit konstruksi. Ketiga, dari pihak konsumen apartemen dapat mewujudkan impian memiliki apartemen dengan keleluasaan dana dan jangka waktu pembayaran apartemen karena pembiayaan dari bank. Aspek-aspek hukum buyback guarantee tersebut menarik untuk dibahas mengingat buyback guarantee merupakan hasil kreativitas pelaku usaha di dalam praktik. Melalui penulisan tesis ini dapat diketahui mengenai mengapa diperlukan buyback guarantee, apa dasar pertimbangan developer memberikan buyback guarantee dan sejauh mana buyback guarantee dapat memberi kepastian hukum bagi para pihak yang terlibat di dalamnya.

---

The ever increasingly fast development of the business world demands the creativity of the business perpetrators to create a breakthrough towards matters not regulated in the Indonesian Civil Code.The open system of the contract law as reflected ini Article 1338 paragraph 1 of the Indonesian Civil Code is granting the right and the freedom to any person to draw up or conclude agreement all in accordance with the wishes of the concluding parties. Buyback guarantee granted by the developer to the bank constitute of a guarantee agreement from which is born based on the above freedom of contracts. The granting of a buyback guarantee by the developer as collateral for the purchase of an apartment unit which is still in the development stafe has arisen as practical need. The granting of a buyback guarantee is for bridging the interest of three parties, that is the bank as first party providing the apartment ownership credit, in which case the buyback guarantee serves in assisting the vital risky position of the bank due to its inability/temporary inability to bind Hak Tanggungan on the apartement unit it has financed. Secondly, for the developer, the ownership credit of the apartment unit will be paid to and received direct by the developer, who is in urgent need of the said fund either for financing the construction of the apartment as well as to settle the credit installment it owes for the construction to the credit provider bank. Third, the apartment consumer will be able to realize its dream of owning an apartment based on adequate funds and payment period due to bank financing. The legal aspect of the said buyback guarantee is interesting for further analyzes, considering that the buyback guarantee is result of creativity of the business perpetrators in practical. This thesis has uncovered the reason for the necessity of this institute, what the basic consideration of developer to give buyback guarantee and in how far buyback guarantee can provide legal security to the involved parties."

"ABSTRAKKelembagaan dan pengoperasian Pasar Modal sebenarnya telah dimulai sejak 1878, yakni dengan adanya Dunlop & Kolff yang melakukan usaha sebagai Commodity and Securities Broker, suatu lembaga perdagangan perantara di bidang komoditi dan sekuritas. Sedangkan Pasar Modalnya sendiri baru dibuka tahun 1912 dengan terbentuknya bursa-bursa di Semarang, Surabaya dan Jakarta. Pengaturan tentang perdagangan saham diatur dalam Wetboek van Koophandell (WvK) yang sekarang disebut Kitab Undang-undang Hukum Dagang (KUHD) dan terdiri dari pasal, yang menjelaskan tentang: a. pengertian istilah bursa dagang sebagai tempat pertemuan para pedagang, makelar (brokers), dan pelaku lainnya dalam melakukan transaksi dagang; b. tentang cara menetapkan "koers" wesel, saham-saham, obligasi atau surat berharga lainnya, baik di dalam maupun di luar negeri; c. tentang pemberian wewenang kepada Menteri Keuangan untuk mengatur jalannya bursa dan segala sesuatu yang menyangkut ketertibannya. Selanjutnya dalam Burgerlijk Wetboek Indonesia, sekarang disebut Kitab Undang-undang Hukum Perdata (KUH Perdata) hanya ditemukan satu pasal, yang mengatur di mana benda gadai yang merupakan efek-efek dapat diperdagangkan. Walaupun begitu munculnya resesi dunia sebagai akibat Perang Dunia 1 telah menghambat perkembangan pasar modal yang baru tumbuh tersebut. Kemudian ketika Perang Dunia ke II berlangsung pasar modal tersebut terpaksa ditutup juga. Seusai Perang Dunia II, Indonesia masih mengalami revolusi fisik yang berlangsung sampai tahun 1949, sehingga pasar modal baru dapat diaktifkan kembali dengan UU Darurat No. 13 Tahun 1951 yang kemudian dirubah menjadi UU No. 15, tahun 1952 tentang Penetapan UU darurat tentang Bursa."

"Skripsi ini membahas mengenai perlindungan hukum investor, khususnya investor yang menanamkan modalnya di pasar modal melalui perusahaan efek. Selanjutnya, dana investor dapat disalahgunakan oleh perusahaan efek. Terkait dengan hal ini, para investor dapat menuntut hak atas dana mereka tersebut dengan mengajukan klaim dana atau efek mereka pada perusahaan efek yang bersangkutan. Namun banyak perusahaan efek yang tidak terlalu memperhatikan nasabah yang meminta pengembalian klaim tersebut. Akibatnya banyak investor yang dananya disalahgunakan oleh perusahaan efek bernasib tidak jelas. Maka muncul wacana pembentukan Investor Protection Fund (IPF) yang bertujuan menjamin pengembalian dana nasabah perusahaan efek yang tidak bertanggung jawab. Dalam penelitian ini metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah pendekatan yuridis normatif. Hasil penelitian ini menyimpulkan bahwa dengan dibentuknya Investor Protection Fund (IPF) maka akan meningkatkan perlindungan bagi investor dalam berinvestasi, sehingga akan berdampak pada peningkatan kepercayaan investor terhadap pasar modal Indonesia.

---

This thesis discusses the legal protection of investors, especially investors who invest their fund in capital market trough securities companies. After that, their fund could be misused by securities companies. Related to this problem, the investors can demand their rights to these funds by submitting a claim on the securities company. But many securities company just paid little attention to its customers who request a claim refund. As a result, the faith of many investors whose fund was misused by securities companies are not clear. The impact of this problem, appear the discourse about Investor Protection Fund (IPF), the aims of Investor Protection Fund was to ensure the return of customer funds that misused by irresponsible securities companies. This study uses juridical norms approach as research implementation method. This study concluded that with establishment of Investor Protection Fund (IPF), will increase investor?s protection in investing and then will impact investor?s trust in the Indonesian capital market."

"Perkembangan di Pasar Modal beriringan dengan banyaknya perusahaan yang membutuhkan pendanaan dan meningkatnya minat masyarakat untuk berpartisipasi melalui investasi di Pasar Modal. Kedua hal tersebut ditandai dengan bervariatifnya jenis pendanaan untuk perusahaan di Pasar Modal dan juga meningkatnya risiko bagi investor. Otoritas Jasa Keuangan menjawab masalah tersebut dengan menerbitkan Peraturan Otoritas Jasa Keuangan yang mengatur mengenai Penerbitan Efek Bersifat Utang dan/atau Sukuk kepada Pemodal Profesional. Penelitian ini akan membahas mengenai bagaimana perlindungan investor melalui klasifikasi investor di Pasar Modal, serta perbandingannya dengan negara Amerika Serikat, Singapura, Hong Kong, dan Kanada. Metode penelitian yang akan digunakan adalah yuridis-normatif yaitu menganalisis permasalahan hukum melalui peraturan perundang-undangan. Pendekatan komparatif selanjutnya digunakan untuk membandingkan aturan-aturan di sistem hukum negara lain untuk menemukan persamaan dan/atau perbedaan di antara sistem hukum negara pembanding. Melalui penelitian ini ditemukan bahwa perlindungan dengan klasifikasi investor dicapai melalui pembatasan akses bagi investor yang minim pengalaman, kekayaan, atau portofolio terhadap investasi yang berisiko tinggi. Kemudian, ditemukan bahwa klasifikasi investor di Indonesia, Amerika Serikat, Singapura, Hong Kong, dan Kanada memiliki persamaan seperti kriteria yang ditentukan negara-negara tersebut untuk mengategorikan investor. Adapun, perbedaannya adalah nomenklatur dari klasifikasi investor misalnya accredited investor. Indonesia juga menyebutkan di peraturannya mengenai jenis investasi apa saja yang dapat diakses oleh pemodal profesional.

---

Developments in the Capital Market coincide with the many companies that need funding and the increasing public interest in participating through investment in the Capital Market. Both of these are marked by the varied types of funding for companies in the Capital Market as well as increased risks for investors. Otoritas Jasa Keuangan responded to this problem by issuing Otoritas Jasa Keuangan regulations governing the Issuance of Debt and/or Sukuk Based Securities to Professional Investors. This research will discuss how to protect investors through the categorization of investors in the Capital Market, as well as a comparison with the United States, Singapore, Hong Kong, and Canada. The research method to be used is juridical-normative, namely analyzing legal issues through statutory regulations. A comparative approach is then used to compare rules in other countries' legal systems to find similarities and/or differences between the legal systems of the comparison countries. Through this research, it was found that the protection of investor through categorization is achieved by limiting regular investors with minimum experience, net worth, and portofolio access to high risk investments. Also, the regulations regarding the categorization of investors in Indonesia, the United States, Singapore, Hong Kong, and Canada have similarities, such as the criteria set by these countries to categorize investors. Meanwhile, the difference is in the nomenclature of categorized investors, for example, accredited investor. Indonesia also stated in the regulations regarding what types of investments can be accessed by professional investors."