Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Skripsi ini bertujuan untuk menambah pengetahuan mengenai aspek-aspek yang terkait dengan leveraged buyout, baik mengenai perlindungan hukum bagi pemegang saham minoritas perusahaan target leveraged buyout, penerbitan obligasi dalam rangka leveraged buyout, maupun junk bond yang sangat terkait dengan pelaksanaan leveraged buyout. Metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah penelitian yang bersifat yuridis normatif dengan menggunakan data-data sekunder, antara lain peraturan perundang-undangan dan buku-buku. Berdasarkan hasil penelitian dapat disimpulkan mengenai macam-macam perlindungan hukum yang diperoleh pemegang saham minoritas dan bahwa penerbitan obligasi oleh perusahaan objek leveraged buyout tidak tergolong sebagai penawaran umum.

---

The purpose of this mini-thesis is to enrich knowledge related to some aspects of leveraged buyout, such as the protection for minority shareholders of leveraged buyout target company, bond issuing in leveraged buyout framework, and also about junk bond that really related to leveraged buyout. Research method has been used for the mini-thesis is normative juridical by using secondary data, such as legislations and books. Based on the research, could be concluded some legal protections for minority shareholders and that the bond issuing by leveraged buyout object is not classified as public offering."

"Suatu akuisisi umumnya membutuhkan dana yang relatif besar. Skripsi ini membahas tentang pembatasan pemberian kredit oleh bank untuk pembiayaan transaksi leveraged buyout. Terdapat dua permasalahan yang dibahas dalam skripsi ini yakni (1) batasan-batasan dan larangan-larangan pemberian kredit oleh bank berdasarkan ketentuan perundang-undangan terkait saat ini dan (2) implikasi hukum pembatasan pemberian kredit perbankan untuk pembelian saham perusahaan tertutup dalam rangka transaksi leveraged buyout. Bentuk penelitianini adalah yuridis-normatif.Hasil dari penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa praktik pembiayaan transaksi leveraged buyout belum diatur secara jelas dalam ketentuan perbankan di Indonesia. Penulis menyimpulkan bahwa pada dasarnya pemberian kredit untuk transaksi leveraged buyout dapat dilakukan oleh bank di Indonesia selama tujuan dari pemberian kredit adalah untuk pengembangan usaha.

---

An acquisition predominantly requires an extensive amount of funds. This paper discusses restrictions imposes by Indonesia's regulations on bank loans for leveraged buyout transactions in Indonesia. There are two concerning issues: (1) restrictions and bans on bank loans based on current legislations and (2) juridical implications on bank loans restriction for funding an acquisition of a private company in a leveraged buyout scheme. This research uses juridical-normative approach.This result of this research reveals that there is no distinctive law regulating bank loans for leveraged buyout transaction in Indonesia. It is concluded that leveraged buyout transaction is allowed to be funded by bank loans in Indonesia only if the objective of the acquisition is to expand the debtor's current business."

"[Skripsi ini bertujuan untuk menambah pengetahuan mengenai aspek-aspek yangterkait dengan leveraged buyout, baik mengenai peraturan yang berlaku untuktransaksi leveraged buyout di Indonesia, Singapura, Perancis, Australia, danAmerika. Metode penelitian yang digunakan dalam skripsi ini adalah penelitianyang bersifat yuridis-normatif dengan menggunakan data-data sekunder, yaituperaturan perundang-undangan dan buku-buku. Berdasarkan hasil penelitian dapatdisimpulkan mengenai peraturan-peraturan yang berlaku dan aspek-aspek hukumyang terkait transaksi leveraged buyout., The purpose of this mini-thesis is to enrich the general knowledge on the subjectrelating to a few aspects of leveraged buyout, such as the regulations that can beimplemented on levereraged buyout in Indonesia, Singapore, France, Australiaand the USA, and issues relating to the leveraged buyout transaction. The types ofresearch method that has been used for the mini-thesis are normative-juridical andcomparative research by using secondary data, such as legislations and books.Based on the research, it can be said that on the matter of regulations that can beimplemented on levereraged buyout in Indonesia, Singapore, France, Australiaand the USA, is comprehensible.]"

"Skripsi ini membahas mengenai backdoor listing di mata hukum Indonesia, dan bagaimanakah perlindungan hukum yang diberikan kepada pemegang saham minoritas di pasar modal dalam haldilakukannya backdoor listing terhadap emiten dan juga mengkaji lebih mendalam terkait aksi korporasi yang dapat dikategorikan sebagai tindakan backdoor listing, menganalisis terkaitkemungkinan pelanggaran prinsip good corporate governance atas proses backdoor listing suatu perusahaan. Perlindungan hukum terhadap pemegang saham minoritas dalam praktik backdoorlisting di Indonesia dapat terlihat dalam beberapa bentuk, seperti Penerapan Prinsip Keterbukaanoleh Perusahaan Terbuka, penerapan pre-emptive right, dilarangnya benturan kepentingan pada pemegang saham mayoritas, penerapan prinsip Good Corporate Governance oleh perusahaan jika hendak melakukan praktik backdoor listing. Akan tetapi, di Indonesia secara regulasi jelas memberi ruang untuk tidak memenuhi penarapan prinsip- prinsip tersebut, terutama penarapanprinsip Good Corporate Governance. Hal ini dikarenakan berdasarkan regulasi yang ada tidak terdapat sanksi tegas apabila prinsip- prinsip tersebut tidak diterapkan. Situasi ini juga akanberdampak pada pemenuhan perlindungan hukum kepada investor khususnya pemegang saham minoritas. Dengan demikian, dalam pelaksanaan praktik backdoor listing di Indonesia menimbulkan tidak adanya kepastian hukum bagi perlindungan hak- hak pemegang saham minoritas.

---

This thesis discusses about backdoor listing in Indonesian Law, and its law protection to minority

shareholders on capital market if there’s a backdoor listing towards issuer, and also examines more

deeply related corporate actions that can be categorized as backdoor listing actions, analyzing the

possibility of violations of the principle of good corporate governance in the process of backdoor

listings. Law protection for minority shareholders in backdoor listing practices in Indonesia can be seen in several forms, such as the application of the principle of transparancy by a public company, the application of pre-emptive rights, the prohibition of conflicts of interest in the majority shareholder, the application of the principles of Good Corporate Governance by the company if it wants to do backdoor listing practices. However, in Indonesia, regulations clearly

provide room for not complying with the application of these principles, especially the application

of the principles of Good Corporate Governance. This is because based on existing regulations there are no strict sanctions if these principles are not applied. This situation will also have an impact on the fulfillment of law protection for investors, especially minority shareholders. Thus,

in the implementation of backdoor listing practices in Indonesia, there is no legal certainty for the

protection of the rights of minority shareholders."

"Dalam suatu transaksi merger, pemegang saham minoritas cenderung tidak memiliki banyak opsi untuk mengambil peran pengambilan keputusan. Undang- Undang No.40 Tahun 2007 tentang Perseroan Terbatas mengamanatkan bahwa dalam melakukan merger, kepentingan dari pemegang saham minoritas harus menjadi salah satu perhatian utama. Dalam pelaksanaannya, jika pemegang saham minoritas menolak ikut serta dalam merger, maka dia memiliki hak untuk menjual sahamnya, dan perusahaan wajib membeli saham tersebut dengan harga yang wajar. Dalam penelitian ini penulis akan meneliti bagaimanakah proses penentuan harga yang wajar tersebut dan mencari tahu apakah terhadap proses penentuan nilai wajar tersebut hak-hak dari pemegang saham minoritas tetap menjadi perhatian. Penulis akan menggunakan contoh kasus pada merger dari PT Bank OCBC NISP Tbk dengan PT Bank OCBC Indonesia. Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian kualitatif dengan desain deskriptif analitis. Hasil penelitian penulis menemukan bahwa dalam penentuan nilai pasar wajar untuk konversi saham dalam suatu transaksi merger, tidak ditemukan adanya ruang yang secara tegas diatur oleh hukum yang memberikan kesempatan bagi pemegang saham minoritas untuk menegosiasikan nilai pasar wajar atas saham-saham mereka dalam hal mereka hendak menjual saham tersebut. Hal yang ditemukan oleh penulis adalah ruang penyelesaian sengketa yaitu menggunakan hak pemegang saham minoritas untuk mengajukan gugatan ke pengadilan.

---

In a merger transaction, the minority shareholder tends to not to have lots of option for taking a decision-making role in the transaction. The Law No. 40 year 2007 regarding Limited Liability Company addressed that in executing a merger, the minority shareholders right must be taken into serious consideration. In the implementation, if there?s any minority shareholders that decides to not take part in the merger process, he have the rights to sell his shares and the company is obliged to buy that particular shares in a fair market value.

This thesis is going to find out what is the process in determining a fair market value and will try to finding out whether the rights of the minority shareholders is still considered to put into account on determining the fair market value. The writer will use an example of the merger of PT Bank OCBC NISP Tbk with PT Bank OCBC Indonesia. This research is a qualitative research with analytical descriptive design.

As a result of this research, the writer finds out that in the process of determining a fair market value for the share conversion in a merger transaction, there are no governing law that gives a room for the minority shareholders to negotiate the price for their shares in the event if they want to sell their shares to the majority by way of not agreeing with the merger plan. What the writer found is that the minority shareholders can use the court to settle the dispute over the fair market value by using his rights to submit a lawsuit to the court."

"[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]"

"Penelitian ini membahas mengenai pengaturan pemberian insentif green bond terhadap penerbitan green bond di Indonesia. Selain itu, guna melihat apakah pengaturan green bond di Indonesia sudah dapat membantu meningkatkan perkembangan green bond secara signifikan di Indonesia, dilakukanlah perbandingan hukum terkait pengaturan pemberian insentif green bond di Indonesia dengan Singapura dan Jepang. Dalam penelitian ini terdapat pokok permasalahan yang dirumuskan, yaitu bagaimanakah pengaturan pemberian insentif green bond terhadap penerbitan green bond di Indonesia dan bagaimanakah pengaturan mengenai pemberian insentif green bond di Indonesia dibandingkan dengan di Singapura dan Jepang. Metode penulisan yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah yuridis normatif dan keseluruhan proses penelitian dilakukan dengan menggunakan metode analisis data kualitatif. Penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa pengaturan pemberian insentif green bond di Indonesia belumlah dapat meningkatkan perkembangan green bond secara signifikan, sedangkan peraturan pemberian insentif green bond yang dikeluarkan oleh pemerintah Singapura dan Jepang telah berhasil meningkatkan perkembangan green bond secara signifikan di negaranya masing-masing. Saran dari penelitian ini adalah pemerintah dapat memberikan insentif dari segi moneter atau fiskal dengan berkoordinasi bersama kementerian/lembaga terkait serta pemerintah dapat memberikan pemberian insentif green bond dalam skema subsidi atau pengurangan biaya-biaya wajib untuk mendapatkan label “green” sebagaimana yang telah dijalankan oleh Singapura dan Jepang.

---

This research is made to show about the Provision of Incentives in Issuing Green Bonds to Issuers in the Indonesian’s Capital Market. Moreover, to find out whether green bond regulations in Indonesia have been able to significantly increase the development of green bonds in Indonesia, a law comparison is done in this research regarding the Provision of Incentives in Issuing Green Bonds to Issuers in the Singapore’s and Japan’s Capital Market. In this research, there are two research questions, consisting of how is the Provision of Incentives in Issuing Green Bonds to Issuers in the Indonesian’s Capital Market and how is the comparison regarding Provision of Incentives in Issuing Green Bonds to Issuers between in Indonesia’s Capital Market and Singapore’s and Japan’s Capital Market. The entire process of research is conducted through a qualitative normative juridical method. This study shows that the regulation regarding green bond incentives in Indonesia has not been able to significantly increase the development of green bonds. Meanwhile, the regulation regarding granting green bond incentives issued by the governments of Singapore and Japan have succeeded in significantly increasing the development of green bonds in their countries. Recommendations from this research are the government can grant incentives from a monetary or fiscal perspective by coordinating with relevant ministries/agencies and the government can grant green bond incentives in a subsidy scheme or reduce mandatory costs to get a "green" label as has been implemented by Singapore and Japan."

"Tesis ini membahas mengenai bagaimana bentuk perlidungan yang diberikan bagi Pemegang saham public/minoritas di pasar modal. Mengingat Pasar modal yang esensinya dapat memberikan kontribusi yang besar dalam bidang ekonomi, maka diperlukan dukungan sarana hukum yakni sistem perdagangan efek yang lebih efisien dan transparan, yang mengatur seluruh kegiatan pasar modal serta memberi perlindungan terhadap kepentingan pemodal, dan dengan menerapkan pelaksanaan prinsip keterbukaan sehingga investor dan pelaku bursa lainnya mempunyai informasi yang cukup dan akurat untuk pengambilan keputusan, disamping itu perlu adanya dukungan dari lembaga-lembaga terkait. Penerapan prinsip keterbukaan di pasar modal ini sangat penting dalam upaya pencegahan terjadinya pelanggaran dan kejahatan di pasar modal yang mana bentuk kejahatan yang akan khusus di bicarakan dalam penulisan skripsi ini adalah bentuk kejahatan manipulasi. Ada keterkaitan erat terjadinya kejahatan manipulasi pasar karena tidak disiplin pelaku pasar modal melaksanakan prinsip keterbukaan untuk melindungi kepentingan investor. Upaya yang diwujudkan demi melindungi kepentingan pemilik modal dan agar terciptanya suasana perdagangan efek yang efisien dan transparan di Pasar Modal Indonesia, maka diberlakukan ketentuan mengenai mekanisme perdagangan efek di Pasar Modal Indonesia dalam Undang-Undang No.8 Tahun 1995 tentang Pasar Modal. Dalam hal upaya perlindungan mengenai ketentuan ini, maka dibentuk pula suatu lembaga resmi Otoritas Jasa Keuangan yang menggantikan BAPEPAM-LK sebagai penegak hukum dalam pasar modal. Pasar Modal mengharuskan setiap pihak, yakni pihak penyelenggara pasar modal, investor, lembaga dan profesi penunjang pasar modal, terutama emiten untuk melaksanakan prinsip keterbukaan dan perlindungan investor. Pengaturan mengenai mekanisme perdagangan efek pasar modal sebagaimana dalam Undang-Undang No. 8 tahun 1995 tentang Pasar Modal yang dirasa sudah cukup untuk melindungi investor di Pasar Modal Indonesia. Namun, bila disandingkan dengan pengaturan mengenai manipulasi pasar yang kurang terperinci dirasa kurang sempurna terlebih lagi pembuktian dalam kasus manipulasi ini agak rumit pembuktiannya. Penulisan ini menggunakan metode pendekatan Yuridis Normatif, yaitu menjabarkan dan menganalisis permasalahan dari sudut pandang atau menurut ketentuan atau perundang-undangan yang berlaku dan juga pandangan menurut ahli-ahli hukum lainnya(doktrinal) atau disebut juga penelitian kepustakaan.

---

This thesis describes how the protection afforded to public / minority shareholders in the capital market. That its essence can give great contribution in the field of Economics, then the necessary means of legal support i.e. system trading more efficient and transparent, that set the whole capital market activities as well as giving protection to the interests of financiers, and by applying the implementation of the principle of transparency so that investors and other market participants get enough information and accurate for decision-making, the need for support from the institutions concerned. The application of the principle of transparency in the stock market is very important in prevention efforts violations and crimes in the capital market which is a form of crime that will specifically talked about in this thesis writing is a form of manipulation of the crime. There is a close relation of the crime of market manipulation because it does not disciplined capital market participants carry out the principle of transparency in order to protect the interests of investors. Efforts are realized in order to protect the interests of the investors and that the creation of an efficient securities trading atmosphere and transparent capital market in Indonesia, then enacted the provisions regarding securities trading mechanisms in the Indonesia capital market law No. 8 year 1995 regarding capital market. In terms of protective measures regarding this provision, then formed an official institution also the Otoritas Jasa Keuangan(OJK) which replaced the BAPEPAM-LK as law enforcement in the capital markets. The capital market requires each party, i.e. capital market operators, investors, institutions and capital market supporting professional, especially issuers to implement the principle of transparency and the protection of investors. Arrangements regarding the effect of capital market trading mechanisms as in law No. 8 year 1995 regarding capital market where enough is enough to protect investors in the Indonesia capital market. However, when juxtaposed with the less detail arrangements regarding market manipulation is felt less than perfect what's more proof in the case of this manipulation rather complicated to be evidenced. The writing of this Juridical Normative approach using the method, that lays out and analyze the problem from the point of view or according to the applicable legislation or provisions, and also the views according to other legal experts (doctrinal) or also known as research libraries."

"Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis filosofi dan asas hukum khususnya hukum perusahaan di Indonesia, yang berkaitan dengan perlindungan pemegang saham minoritas di dalam sebuah perusahaan joint venture PMA-PMDN, dimana sebagian besar kepemilikan sahamnya dikuasai oleh pihak asing. Perlindungan kepada kepentingan pemilik saham minoritas diasumsikan sebagai cerminan terhadap kepentingan nasional. Tipe penelitian adalah yuridis normatif, yaitu suatu penelitian dengan mempergunakan studi kepustakaan terhadap peraturan perundang - undangan yang terkait dengan permasalahan yang diatur dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 25 tahun 2007 tentang Penanaman Modal, Undang-Undang Nomor 40 Tahun 2007 Tentang Perseroan Terbatas, dan Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Perdata (KUHP) khususnya mengenai Hukum Perjanjian. Pemegang saham nasional yang umumnya merupakan pemegang saham minoritas, dalam sebuah perusahaan joint venture antara Perusahaan Modal Asing (PMA) dan Perusahaan Modal Dalam Negeri (PMDN), tidak lagi mendapatkan landasan hukum yang kuat dalam UU No. 25 Tahun 2007 tentang Penanaman Modal. Berdasarkan Pasal 1 Ayat 3 UU No. 25 Tahun 2007 tentang Penanaman Modal, telah memberikan kebebasan bagi penanam modal asing dengan menempatkan 100 persen modal mereka. UU Nomor 25 Tahun 2007 tentang Penanaman Modal mensyaratkan PMA yang menanamkan modal di Indonesia, termasuk yang berbentuk perusahaan joint venture dengan PMDN, wajib berbentuk Perseroan Terbatas (PT), sebagaimana diatur dalam Bab IV Pasal 5 Ayat 1. Segala hak dan kewajiban antar para pemegang saham dalam PT joint venture tersebut harus dituangkan di dalam Anggaran Dasar (AD) PT sehingga AD menjadi sebuah perjanjian di antara mereka. AD PT harus tunduk pada Undang-Undang No.40 Tahun 2007 tentang Perseroan Terbatas, Undang-Undang serta peraturan lain yang terkait dengan hak dan kewajiban masing-masing pemegang saham, baik pemegang saham mayoritas maupun pemegang saham minoritas. Perlindungan terhadap pemegang saham minoritas sangat bergantung atas bentuk-bentuk perjanjian yang telah dicapai antara kedua belah pihak. Kendati UU PT secara jelas melindungi pemegang saham minoritas melalui sejumlah hak dasar yang ada, namun hal itu tidak berlaku jika diantara pihak-pihak membuat perjanjian lain yang mengatur masalah persengketaan, baik di atur melalui AD PT maupun perjanjian tersendiri (Basic Agreement for Joint Venture).

---

This study aims to analyze the philosophy and principles of law, especially Corporate Law in Indonesia, which is related with the protection of minority shareholders in a joint venture company PMA-PMDN, where the majority of its shares owned by foreign parties. Protection on the interests of minority shareholders is assumed as reflect of national interest. This type of research is a normative juridical, a study by means of literature study of the regulations and regulations relating to issues regulated in Law No. 25 of 2007 concerning Investment, Law No.40 Year 2007 concerning Limited Liability Company, and the Civil Law (KUH Perdata), particularly regarding the Law of Treaties. National shareholder who is usually a minority shareholder, in a joint venture between Foreign Investment Company's (PMA) and the Domestic Investment Company (PMDN), no longer have a strong legal basis in Law No. 25 of 2007 concerning Investment. Under Article 1 Paragraph 3 of Law no. 25 of 2007 on Investment, has provided the freedom for foreign investors to put 100 percent of their capital.

Law no. 25 of 2007 concerning Investment requires foreign investors who are investing in Indonesia, including in the form of a joint venture with domestic investment, shall form a Limited Liability Company (PT), as provided in Chapter IV Article 5 Paragraph 1. All rights and obligations between the shareholders of Joint Venture Company shall be set forth in the Company?s Articles of Association (AD) therefore the Articles of Association becomes an agreement between them. Articles of Association of a should be subject to the Act No.40 of 2007 on Limited Liability Companies, Laws and other regulations relating to the rights and obligations of each shareholder, whether the majority shareholders and minority shareholders. Protection of minority shareholders is very dependent on other forms of agreement has been reached between both parties. Although Law No.40 of 2007 expressly protects minority shareholders through a number of basic rights that exist, but it does not apply if the parties made another agreement which governs the dispute, either in the set through the Articles of Association of the company or separate agreement (Basic Agreement for Joint Venture)."

"Keberadaan pemegang saham layaknya jantung bagi perseroan. Ketentuan perundang - undangan mesyaratkan suatu perseroan haruslah didirikan sedikitnya oleh 2 (dua) orang. Bermula dari ketentuan inilah kemudian muncul istilah pemegang saham minoritas dan mayoritas. Idealnya pemegang saham baik mayoritas maupun minoritas dapat memiliki keinginan yang selaras dalam suatu perseroan. Hal ini diwujudkan dengan pengambilan keputusan dilakukan dengan musyawarah mufakat. Namun, hal ini sangatlah sulit dicapai karena adanya perbedaan kepentingan diantara masing - masing pemegang saham. Seringkali dalam RUPS pengambilan keputusan dilakukan dengan voting. Mekanisme ini menimbulkan adanya dominasi dari pemegang saham mayoritas untuk menetukan arah kebijakan perseroan. Khususnya dalam keputusan untuk membubarkan suatu perseroan seringkali pemegang saham minoritas menjadi salah satu pihak yang dirugikan. Untuk mengantisipasi hal inilah maka diperlukan suatu mekanisme untuk melindungi hak - hak pemegang saham minoritas.

---

The shareholders are the main part for the company. Invite the constitution, the company must be established at least by two person. Starting from this provision appears the majority and the minority shareholders. Ideally majority shareholders and minorities have the same purpose, so decision making can be done by deliberation. But that is very difficult to reach because there is the difference of interest between them. In company meeting, frequently decision making done by voting. This mechanism raises the dominance of the majority shareholders to determine company policy. Especially in liquidation of the company minority shareholders often as the injured party. To prevent this condition required some protection mechanism to protect the rights of minority shareholders."