Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"[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]"

"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."

"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."

"[Penerapan prinsip-prinsip tata kelola perusahaan yang baik oleh emiten merupakan pendukung pertumbuhan ekonomi suatu negara. Setiap emiten memiliki kewajiban kepada pemegang saham publik untuk melakukan prinsip-prinsip tata kelola yang baik kepada para pemegang sahamnya. Prinsip-prinsip tata kelola yang baik dapat dilakukan dengan berbagai cara, salah satunya yaitu laporan dokumen yang diumumkan kepada publik, akan tetapi, masih banyak emiten yang lalai atau sengaja memberikan laporan yang terlambat dan atau tidak sesuainya isi laporan dengan kondisi emiten tersebut. Tidak menerapkan prinsip-prinsip tata kelola perusahaan yang baik merupakan pelanggaran di dunia pasar modal bahkan bila suatu emiten terus-menerus melakukan pelanggaran dapat dikategorikan suatu kejahatan di bidang pasar modal. Hal tersebut sering terjadi disebabkan oleh karena rendahnya sanksi yang dapat dikenakan kepada emiten yang lalai melakukannya, rendahnya kuantitas penyidik di bidang pasar modal, dan rendahnya pengetahuan pemegang saham publik atas prinsip-prinsip tata kelola perusahaan yang baik.

---

The application of the principles of good corporate governance by listed companies are supporting a country's economic growth. Each issuer has an obligation to shareholders to do the principles of good governance to its shareholders. The principles of good governance can be done in various ways, one of which is a report that documents be made public, however, still a lot of issuers who are negligent or deliberately delayed reporting and content of the report or incompatibility with the condition of the issuer. Not to apply the principles of good corporate governance is an infringement on the world capital markets even if an issuer's continuous violations can be categorized a crime in the capital market. It is often caused by the lack of sanctions that can be imposed on issuers who fails to do so, the low quantity of investigators in the field of capital markets, and lack of knowledge of public shareholders on the principles of good corporate governance., The application of the principles of good corporate governance by listed

companies are supporting a country's economic growth. Each issuer has an

obligation to shareholders to do the principles of good governance to its

shareholders. The principles of good governance can be done in various ways, one

of which is a report that documents be made public, however, still a lot of issuers

who are negligent or deliberately delayed reporting and content of the report or

incompatibility with the condition of the issuer. Not to apply the principles of

good corporate governance is an infringement on the world capital markets even if

an issuer's continuous violations can be categorized a crime in the capital market.

It is often caused by the lack of sanctions that can be imposed on issuers who fails

to do so, the low quantity of investigators in the field of capital markets, and lack

of knowledge of public shareholders on the principles of good corporate

governance.]"

"Penggabungan Usaha PT Bank BRISyariah Tbk (BRIS) dengan PT Bank Syariah Mandiri (BSM) dan PT Bank BNI Syariah (BNIS) dapat dikategorikan sebagai aksi backdoor listing BSM dengan mekanisme penggabungan terbalik (reverse merger), dengan kondisi seluruh bank yang melakukan transaksi merupakan pihak terafiliasi. Penelitian ini memfokuskan analisis terhadap Pertama, tidak dilakukannya RUPS Independen BRIS dalam pengambilan keputusan penggabungan usaha; dan Kedua, pemenuhan hak menilai harga saham (appraisal right) oleh BRIS. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode penelitian doktrinal serta bertipologi deskripsis analitis. Dari hasil penelitian diketahui seharusnya RUPS dalam rangka menyetujui Penggabungan Usaha BRIS dilaksanakan dengan tata cara RUPS Independen (kecuali terdapat penetapan Kementerian BUMN bahwa penggabungan adalah dalam rangka restrukturisasi -yang tidak di temukan dalam penjelasan RUPS-). BRIS juga sudah melaksanakan penyelesaian hak menilai harga saham (appraisal right) terhadap pemegang saham yang tidak setuju dengan penggabungan, namun jika dibandingkan dengan pelaksanaan hak yang sama pada aksi korporasi PT Indosat Tbk, PT Telkom (Persero) Tbk, dan PT Bank OCBC NISP Tbk, ditemukan perbedaan dalam penggunaan referensi/dasar harga pembelian, periode pembelian kembali saham, tempo pembayaran, dan Pihak yang melakukan pembelian kembali. Oleh sebab itu perbedaan perlakuan yang diterapkan Perusahaan Terbuka, meski tidak bertentangan dengan aturan terkait, namun dapat menimbulkan ketidakadilan bagi pemegang saham minoritas.

---

The merger of BRIS with BSM and BNIS can be categorized as a backdoor listing action of BSM with a reverse merger mechanism, and all affiliated parties. This study focuses on the absence of the BRIS Independent GMS in making business merger decisions; and the fulfillment of the appraisal right by BRIS. This study uses doctrinal research methods. From the results of the research, it is known that the GMS to approve the BRIS Merger shall be Independent GMS. BRIS has also carried out the settlement of the appraisal right for shareholders who do not agree with the merger, but when compared to the exercise of the same rights in the corporate action of PT Indosat Tbk, PT Telkom (Persero) Tbk, and PT Bank OCBC NISP Tbk, there are differences in the use of reference/basis for the purchase price, share repurchase period, payment tempo, etc. and the Party that makes the repurchase. Therefore, the difference in treatment applied by Public Companies, although not contrary to related rules, can cause injustice to minority shareholders."

"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."

"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."

"Skripsi ini membahas mengenai proses penjatuhan sanksi berupa penghentian sementara perdagangan saham suspensi saham kepada PT. Sekawan Intipratama Tbk. Bursa Efek Indonesia telah melakukan suspensi saham sejak November 2015, namun berdasarkan hasil wawancara dengan divisi pengawasan transaksi Bursa Efek Indonesia, diketahui bahwa alasan yang melatarbelakangi dilakukannya suspensi tidak sesuai dengan peraturan di bidang pasar modal. Hal ini menunjukan masih kurang jelasnya proses penjatuhan suspensi saham yang tidak memberikan perlindungan kepada emiten dan investor Padahal tujuan didirikannya Bursa Efek Indonesia adalah untuk menyelenggarakan perdagangan Efek yang teratur, wajar, dan efisien. Oleh karena itu, sangatlah diperlukan pengaturan yang lebih jelas dan rinci perihal suspensi perdagangan saham yang diharapkan dapat memberikan perlindungan terhadap investor.

---

The main issue of this thesis is about how Indonesia Stock Exchange, also known as IDX, suspend PT. Sekawan Intipratama Tbk from dealing its securities. IDX already suspended PT. Sekawan Intipratama Tbk since November 2015, but according to the interview with transaction supervision division of IDX's, it is clearly shows that the reason behind the suspension is still unclear and not regulated by the law yet. Whereas according to the law, IDX shall be founded for the purpose of organizing an orderly, fair and efficient trading market for securities. That's why it is necessary to regulate concerning stock trades suspension which as expected can protect the shareholders and listed companies in the future. "

"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."

"Tulisan ini menganalisis bagaimana langkah yang dapat dilakukan untuk menghindari pembelian kembali dan bagaimana perlindungan hukum yang dapat diberikan kepada investor terkait dengan risiko praktik manipulasi pasar yang diakibatkan oleh pembelian kembali. Tulisan ini disusun dengan menggunakan metode penelitian doktrinal. Pembelian kembali bukan merupakan hal yang baru dalam pasar keuangan. Pada tahun 2021 dan 2022, Pemerintah Indonesia melakukan pembelian kembali global bond dengan metode tender offer sekaligus mengeluarkan global bond yang baru. Pembelian kembali tersebut dilakukan dengan tujuan untuk merestrukturisasi waktu jatuh tempo sekaligus untuk mengurangi biaya utang Pemerintah Indonesia. Pembelian kembali tersebut memberikan keuntungan kepada Pemerintah Indonesia, tetapi di sisi lain membawa kerugian kepada investor. Kerugian yang diterima investor meliputi hilangnya arus kas yang seharusnya didapatkan oleh investor di masa depan. Selain itu, pembelian kembali yang dilakukan juga memiliki risiko menimbulkan praktik manipulasi pasar. Risiko manipulasi pasar terjadi karena dalam pembelian kembali dilakukan dengan tidak cermat, yakni dengan tidak melakukan pengumuman mengenai aksi pembelian kembali yang akan dilakukan.

---

This paper analyzes on how the steps could be done to avoid global bond buyback and how legal protection could be given to investors related to the risk of market manipulation practices caused by buyback. This paper employs a doctrinal research method. Buybacks are not a new thing in the financial market. In 2021 and 2022, the Government of Indonesia repurchased global bonds using the tender offer method and at the same time issued new global bonds. The buyback was carried out with the aim of restructuring the maturity time as well as to reduce the cost of debt of the Government of Indonesia. The buyback provides benefits to the Government of Indonesia, but on the other hand brings losses to investors. The losses received by investors include the loss of cash flows that should have been obtained by investors in the future. In addition, the buyback also has the risk of causing market manipulation practices. The risk of market manipulation occurs because the repurchase is not done carefully, namely by not making an announcement regarding the repurchase action that will be carried out."