Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Penelitian ini membahas mengenai suatu pengambilalihan yang dilakukan oleh Hary Tanoesudibjo selaku Chief Executive Officer (CEO) dari Media Nusantara Citra (MNC) Grup melalui salah satu anak perusahaannya, yaitu PT. Berkah Karya Bersama (BKB), terhadap PT. Cipta Televisi Pendidikan Indonesia (CTPI) yang keseluruhan sahamnya dimiliki oleh Siti Hardiyanti Rukmana, melalui suatu Investment Agreement tanggal 23 Juni 2002. Sebagai kelanjutan dari Investment Agrement tersebut, pihak Siti Hardiyanti Rukmana telah memberikan kuasa kepada pihak BKB, khusus untuk melakukan hal-hal yang berkaitan dengan pengendalian operasional TPI pada tanggal 3 Juni 2003. Namun seiring berjalannya perjanjian tersebut, pihak Siti Hardiyanti Rukmana merasa ada ketidakcocokan dengan pihak BKB sehingga pihak Siti Hardiyanti Rukmana berniat untuk mengakhiri perjanjian tersebut dengan membayar segala biaya yang telah dikeluarkan oleh BKB selama masa pengendaliannya terhadap TPI. Dikarenakan ditemukannya adanya indikasi kecurangan dari pihak BKB untuk menguasai TPI secara keseluruhan, maka pihak Siti Hardiyanti Rukmana mencabut surat kuasa yang telah diberikan kepada BKB tertanggal 3 Juni 2003 tersebut. Pokok masalah yang dihadapi adalah bagaimana kesesuaian proses pengambilalihan tersebut dengan UU No. 1/1995 yang merupakan peraturan yang mengatur mengenai pengambilalihan pada saat itu dan bagaimanakah kedudukan pencabutan surat kuasa oleh pihak Siti Hardiyanti Rukmana dalam perundangundangan. Untuk menjawab permasalahan diatas, maka penulis menggunakan metode penelitian normatif, yang dilakukan dengan mengutamakan meneliti bahan pustaka atau dokumen yang disebut data sekunder, berupa bahan-bahan hukum primer, sekunder dan tersier.

---

AbstractThis analysis discusses about the acquisition by Hary Tanoesudibjo, Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Multimedia Nusantara Citra (MNC) Group, through one of its subsidiaries, PT. Berkah Karya Bersama (BKB), towards PT. Cipta Televisi Pendidikan Indonesia (TPI) in which all shares are owned by Siti Hardiyanti Rukmana, through the Investment Agreement dated June 23, 2002. As a continuation of the Investment Agrement, Siti Hardiyanti Rukmana has provided a power of attorney to BKB, specifically to do things related to the operational control of TPI at the date of June 3, 2003. But over the agreement, Siti Hardiyanti Rukmana feels that there is incompatibility with BKB so Siti Hardiyanti Rukmana intends to terminate the agreement by paying all costs incurred by BKB over the control of the TPI. Due to the indications of fraud from BKB to dominate the TPI as a whole, then Siti Hardiyanti Rukmana revoke a power of attorney which has been given to BKB dated June 3, 2003. The principal problem faced is how the acquisition process in accordance with Law No. 1 / 1995, which is the rules regulating the acquisition at that time and and how the position of the revocation of the power of attorney by Siti Hardiyanti Rukmana as endorser, in laws and regulations. To answer the above-mentioned problems, therefore, the writer used a legal research conducted by prioritizing the observation of literature materials or documents named as secondary data, in form of primary, secondary and tertiary law materials. "

"Pemberian kuasa adalah persetujuan dengan mana seorang memberikan kekuasaan kepada seorang lain, yang menerimanya, untuk dan atas namanya menyelenggarakan suatu urusan. Saat ini terdapat surat kuasa yang banyak digunakan dalam praktik bisnis, yaitu “surat kuasa mutlak.” Surat kuasa ini mencantumkan klausul “tidak dapat dicabut kembali dan para pihak mengenyampingkan Pasal 1813 dan 1814 KUHPerdata.” Pada kasus, pemberi kuasa adalah SHR dan penerima adalah PT BKB. Kuasa tersebut dibuat berdasarkan suatu perjanjian investasi di antara SHR dan PT BKB. Permasalahan kemudian timbul ketika tiba-tiba SHR sebagai pemberi kuasa mencabut kuasanya pada PT BKB, padahal SHR telah mendapatkan manfaat dari penerima kuasa.

---

Power of attorney (POA) is an agreement by which gives power to an attorney, who accepted it, and on the principal’s behalf, to hold an affair. There is one type of POA agreement called “irrevocable power of attorney” which has “shall not be terminated for any reasons, waive Article 1813, 1814 and 1816 of the Civil Code” clause in it. In this case, the principal is SHR and the attorney is PT BKB. The POA was made based on an investment agreement. The problem happened when suddenly SHR revoke the POA after PT BKB gave their performance to SHR."

"Penelitian ini mencoba melakukan analisis terhadap pengambilalihan yang dilakukan oleh PT Bank Mandiri Tbk. terhadap PT Asuransi Jiwa Inhealth Indonesia. Pokok permasalahan dalam skripsi ini adalah untuk membahas mengenai peraturan-peraturan terkait yang ada dalam proses pengambilalihan yang dilakukan oleh sebuah bank terhadap lembaga keuangan non-bank, khususnya perusahaan asuransi. Mengingat bahwa industri lembaga keuangan diatur secara ketat di Indonesia, tentunya terdapat berbagai macam pengaturan terkait proses pengambilalihan ini. Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian normatif-yuridis menggunakan data primer dan sekunder. Penelitian ini menunjukkan pengaturan-pengaturan yang berlaku terkait dengan pengambilalihan oleh bank terhadap lembaga keuangan non bank (perusahaan asuransi) dan menunjukkan bahwa PT Bank Mandiri Tbk. telah melakukan pengambilalihan sesuai dengan peraturan yang berlaku.

---

This research tries to analyze PT Bank Mandiri Tbk.?s Acquisition of PT Asuransi Jiwa Inhealth Indonesia. Issue in this thesis is to explain regulations regarding acquisition process which a bank does to a non-bank institution, especially insurance company. Considering financial industry is a highly regulated industry in Indonesia, there are various regulations regarding this acquisition process. This research is a normative-juridical research, using primary and secondary data. This research shows related regulations regarding non-bank institution acquisition by bank and shows that PT bank Mandiri Tbk. had acquired PT Asuransi Jiwa Inhealth Indonesia in accordance with existing regulations."

"[Pemberian kuasa merupakan langkah hukum yang dibenarkan oleh Undang-Undang. Pemberi Kuasa atau Prinsipal dapat memberikan kuasa kepada pihak yang menurutnya bisa mewakili kepentingan hukumnya. Berdasarkan Pasal 1338 KUHPerdata mengenai prinsip kebebasan berkontrak, kuasa tersebut dapat diberikan dengan kuasa yang tidak dapat ditarik kembali. Akan tetapi Pasal 1338 KUHPerdatatersebut telahdiberi batasan dengan Pasal 1337 KUHPerdata yang menyatakan bahwa suatu sebab adalah terlarang, jika sebab itu dilarang oleh undang-undang dan Pasal 85 ayat 5 UUPT menyatakan bahwa dalam hal pemegang saham hadir sendiri dalam RUPS, surat kuasa yang telah diberikan tidak berlaku untuk rapat tersebut. Padapenulisan tesis ini, penulis menggunakan bentuk penelitian normatif, dengan tipe penelitian deskriptif analistis, dan jenis data yang digunakan data sekunder. Dijelaskan dalam pokok permasalahanmengenai kuasa yang tidak dapat ditarik kembali dalam meghadiri dan memberikan suara pada Rapat Umum PemegangSaham dilihat dari peraturan perundang-undangan yang berlaku dan pandangan pengadilan pada tiap-tiap putusannya.Penelitian dilakukan terhadap putusan Pengadilan, mulai dari Pengadilan Negeri, Pengadilan Tinggi, dan Mahkamah Agung terhadap Sengketa Antara Para Pemegang Saham PT. Cipta Televisi Pendidikan Indonesia melawan PT. Berkah Karya Bersama. Ditemukan jawaban bahwa kuasa yang tidak dapat ditarik kembali tersebut tetap dapat dicabut berdasarkan Pasal 1337 KUHPerdata dan Pasal 85 ayat 5 UUPT;The power of attorney as a legal step allowed by regulation, principal has been given power of attorney to a party as represent in person for legal interest. Based on article 1338 Indonesian Civil Code Authorization on principle freedom of contract, The Power of Attorney can be form of hereby confers an irrevocable power of attorney. But article 1338Indonesian Civil Code has been restricted with article 1337 Indonesian Civil Code a cause is not permissible if it is prohibited by law, or if it violates good conduct, or public orderand article 85 paragraph 5 concerning Limited Liability Companies in the event that shareholders are present at the GMS in person, any power of attorney they have given shall not be valid for that meeting.In this Thesis in writer adopt a juridical normative and descriptive analyst method or research and relies on secondary data sources. For research matter this researchwill be explain the irrevocable power of attorney to attend and give a vote to General Meeting of Shareholders has been seen form all of regulations and the courts viewfrom each decisions. Research conducted on the decision by judge, starting from the Court, High Court, and The Supreme Court to dispute between shareholders PT. Cipta Televisi Pendidikan Indonesia versus PT. Berkah Karya Bersama. Already found the answer irrevocable power of attorney still be revoked based on article 1337 Indonesian Civil Code and article 85 paragraph 5 concerning Limited Liability Companies.;The power of attorney as a legal step allowed by regulation, principal has been givenpower of attorney to a party as represent in person for legal interest. Based on article1338 Indonesian Civil Code Authorization on principle freedom of contract, ThePower of Attorney can be form of hereby confers an irrevocable power of attorney.But article 1338Indonesian Civil Code has been restricted with article 1337Indonesian Civil Code a cause is not permissible if it is prohibited by law, or if itviolates good conduct, or public orderand article 85 paragraph 5 concerning LimitedLiability Companies in the event that shareholders are present at the GMS in person,any power of attorney they have given shall not be valid for that meeting.In thisThesis in writer adopt a juridical normative and descriptive analyst method orresearch and relies on secondary data sources. For research matter this researchwill beexplain the irrevocable power of attorney to attend and give a vote to GeneralMeeting of Shareholders has been seen form all of regulations and the courts viewfrom each decisions. Research conducted on the decision by judge, starting from theCourt, High Court, and The Supreme Court to dispute between shareholders PT.Cipta Televisi Pendidikan Indonesia versus PT. Berkah Karya Bersama. Alreadyfound the answer irrevocable power of attorney still be revoked based on article 1337Indonesian Civil Code and article 85 paragraph 5 concerning Limited LiabilityCompanies.;The power of attorney as a legal step allowed by regulation, principal has been givenpower of attorney to a party as represent in person for legal interest. Based on article1338 Indonesian Civil Code Authorization on principle freedom of contract, ThePower of Attorney can be form of hereby confers an irrevocable power of attorney.But article 1338Indonesian Civil Code has been restricted with article 1337Indonesian Civil Code a cause is not permissible if it is prohibited by law, or if itviolates good conduct, or public orderand article 85 paragraph 5 concerning LimitedLiability Companies in the event that shareholders are present at the GMS in person,any power of attorney they have given shall not be valid for that meeting.In thisThesis in writer adopt a juridical normative and descriptive analyst method orresearch and relies on secondary data sources. For research matter this researchwill beexplain the irrevocable power of attorney to attend and give a vote to GeneralMeeting of Shareholders has been seen form all of regulations and the courts viewfrom each decisions. Research conducted on the decision by judge, starting from theCourt, High Court, and The Supreme Court to dispute between shareholders PT.Cipta Televisi Pendidikan Indonesia versus PT. Berkah Karya Bersama. Alreadyfound the answer irrevocable power of attorney still be revoked based on article 1337Indonesian Civil Code and article 85 paragraph 5 concerning Limited LiabilityCompanies., The power of attorney as a legal step allowed by regulation, principal has been givenpower of attorney to a party as represent in person for legal interest. Based on article1338 Indonesian Civil Code Authorization on principle freedom of contract, ThePower of Attorney can be form of hereby confers an irrevocable power of attorney.But article 1338Indonesian Civil Code has been restricted with article 1337Indonesian Civil Code a cause is not permissible if it is prohibited by law, or if itviolates good conduct, or public orderand article 85 paragraph 5 concerning LimitedLiability Companies in the event that shareholders are present at the GMS in person,any power of attorney they have given shall not be valid for that meeting.In thisThesis in writer adopt a juridical normative and descriptive analyst method orresearch and relies on secondary data sources. For research matter this researchwill beexplain the irrevocable power of attorney to attend and give a vote to GeneralMeeting of Shareholders has been seen form all of regulations and the courts viewfrom each decisions. Research conducted on the decision by judge, starting from theCourt, High Court, and The Supreme Court to dispute between shareholders PT.Cipta Televisi Pendidikan Indonesia versus PT. Berkah Karya Bersama. Alreadyfound the answer irrevocable power of attorney still be revoked based on article 1337Indonesian Civil Code and article 85 paragraph 5 concerning Limited LiabilityCompanies.]"

"Skripsi ini membahas mengenai 3 hal, yakni mengenai pengaturan mengenai Konsultasi dan Pemberitahuan dalam rangka pengambilalihan saham perusahaan,penerapan hukum persaingan usaha dalam Putusan KPPU nomor 08/KPPUM/2012 mengenai dugaan keterlambatan melakukan Pemberitahuan oleh PT Bumi Kencana Eka Sejahtera, dan perbandingan pengaturan mengenai Konsultasi dan Pemberitahuan dalam rangka pengambilalihan saham perusahaan di beberapa negara dengan pengaturan di Indonesia. Pengaturan mengenai Konsultasi dan Pemberitahuan perlu dimengerti dan dipahami baik oleh pelaku usaha maupun Investigator KPPU. Dengan demikian, pelaku usaha terhindar dari pelanggaran pengaturan yang ada dan KPPU dapat melaksanakan fungsi pengawasan terhadap pengambilalihan saham dengan maksimal, sehingga pelanggaran terhadap hukum persaingan usaha pun dapat dihindari. KPPU telah menerapkan pengaturan pengambilalihan saham dalam memutuskan kasus dugaan keterlambatan melakukan Pemberitahuan pengambilalihan saham oleh PT Bumi Kencana Eka Sejahtera. Jika pengaturan mengenai Konsultasi dan Pemberitahuan di Indonesia dibandingkan dengan pengaturan di berbagai negara yaitu Australia, Brazil, dan Jepang, terdapat beberapa persamaan dan perbedaan.

---

This thesis is mainly discuss about 3 (three) problems. First, regulation of Consultation and Notification about acquisition based on Antitrust Law, the implementation of Antitrust Law in KPPU?s decision No. 08/KPPU-M/2012 about failure to notify acquisition case by PT Bumi Kencana Eka Sejahtera, and comparison between regulation of Consultation and Notification about acquisition based on Indonesian Antitrust Law and regulation of Consultation and Notification about acquisition based on other country?s Antitrust Law. Regulation of Consultation and Notification about acquisition shall be understood by companies and KPPU?s Investigator. Therefore, companies can avoid violation of the regulation and KPPU can perform its best control function, so that in the end violation of Antitrust Law can be avoided. KPPU has implemented the regulation of acquisition in failure to notify acquisition case by PT Bumi Kencana Eka Sejahtera in a right way. In a comparison between regulation of Consultation and Notification about acquisition based on Indonesian Antitrust Law and regulation of Consultation and Notification about acquisition based on other country?s Antitrust Law, there are some similarities and differences."

"Tesis ini bertujuan untuk menganalisa ketentuan Undang-Undang atas Sengketa Surat Kuasa 3 Juni 2003 dan penyelenggaraan RUPSLB 17 Maret 2005 dan RUPSLB 18 Maret 2005 PT. CTPI dalam Putusan MA No. 238/PK/Pdt/2014. Penelitian yuridis normatif ini memakai metode Penalaran Deduktif dari Soetandyo Wignjosubroto dan menggunakan sumber hukum Undang-Undang, Yurisprudensi, buku-buku teori hukum, surat kabar, dan kamus. Temuan inti menyatakan Surat Kuasa Yang Tidak Dapat Ditarik Kembali tidak diperbolehkan, dan dapat ditarik melalui cara berakhirnya Pemberian Kuasa (Psl. 1813-1819 KUHPer) dan Perikatan (Psl. 1381- 1403 KUHPer). Namun demikian penarikan Surat Kuasa 3 Juni 2003 tidak dibenarkan karena tidak ada tanda bukti bahwa penerima kuasa telah mengetahui tentang penarikan ini (Psl 1818 KUHPer). Penelitian juga menunjuk RUPSLB 17 Maret 2005 cacat formil karena melampaui tenggang waktu pengesahan Kementrian dalam pendaftaran dan pengumumannya; begitu pula RUPSLB 18 Maret 2005 yang tidak mengirimkan undangan 14 (empat belas) hari sebelumnya kepada pemegang saham (Ps 68 jo. 69 UU PT 1995). Disarankan untuk penarikan surat kuasa selalu dilengkapi dengan tanda terima tertulis telah diketahui penerima kuasa, dan penerima kuasa yang merasa dirugikan dapat menuntut ganti rugi sesuai Psl. 1812 KUHPer. RUPS hendaknya diselenggarakan sesuai Anggaran Dasar yang mematuhi ketentuan UU Perseroan Terbatas dalam pemanggilan, penyelenggaraan, pendaftaran, dan pengumumannya. RUPS yang mencakup agenda pembayaran hutang pribadi pemegang saham disarankan mengadakan perjanjian subrogasi terpisah antara investor dan pemegang saham untuk kepastian perpindahan hak kreditur ke investor (ps. 1400 KUHPer).

---

The thesis analyzes the legal dispute of Irrevocable Power of Attorney 3rd June 2003, EGM 17th March 2005, and EGM 18th March 2005 of PT. CTPI in the Supreme Court Decision No. 238/PK/Pdt/2014. This legal normative research utilizes Logical Deductive method by Soetandyo Wignjosubroto with resources including Constitutional Law, Jurisprudence, newspapers, dictionary, as well as books and journals on law. The finding notes that Irrevocable Power of Attorney is not in alignment with the law; it can therefore be revoked in methods described in Art. 1813-1819 KUHPer and in Art. 1381-1403 KUHPer governing the termination of Power of Attorney and Contract respectively. That being said, the Irrevocable Power of Attorney 3rd June 2003 was not properly revoked due to lack of evidence that the beneficiary knew of its termination (Art. 1818 KUHPer). The research also notes EGM 17th March 2005 as illegal because it surpassed the time frame to be registered and announced (Art. 21 jo. 22 Company Act 1995); so was EGM 18th March 2005 that failed to mail its invitation 14 (fourteen) days beforehand to its shareholders (Art. 68 jo. 69 Company Act 1995). It is advised that the revocation of Power of Attorney should be accompanied by written notification signed by the beneficiary, while beneficiary that suffered losses can sue the principal for compensation in accordance to Art. 1812 KUHPer. EGM that covers payment of shareholders? personal debt should include separate and clearly stated subrogation agreement between investor and shareholders to ensure transfer of creditors? rights to the investor (Art. 1400 KUHPer). EGM should attend to the Company Act in all process of invitation, execution, registration, and announcement."

"Salah satu bentuk keputusan bisnis pelaku usaha untuk meningkatkan efektivitas dan efisiensi adalah melakukan pengambilalihan saham perusahaan lain (akuisisi). Fokus pembahasan dalam penelitian ini adalah pengambilalihan saham PT Pertamina Gas (Pertagas) oleh PT Perusahaan Gas Negara (PGN) dalam perspektif hukum persaingan usaha. Terdapat beberapa hal dalam hukum persaingan usaha yang harus diperhatikan diantaranya adalah dampak pengambilalihan saham PT Pertamina Gas oleh PT Perusahaan Gas Negara, menilai apakah pengambilalihan saham PT Pertamina Gas oleh PT Perusahaan Gas Negara telah sesuai dengan UU Nomor 5 Tahun 1999 dan peraturan terkait dibawahnya, serta mengetahui apakah terdapat kewajiban yang harus dilakukan pelaku usaha atas pengambilalihan saham PT Pertagas oleh PT PGN berdasarkan hukum persaingan usaha Indonesia. Hal tersebut penting untuk diperhatikan agar iklim persaingan yang sehat tetap terjaga. Persaingan yang sehat menciptakan keuntungan bagi seluruh pihak, yakni konsumen, pelaku usaha, serta negara. Dalam penulisan ini, penulis menggunakan peraturan perundang-undangan, buku dan jurnal sebagai sumber bacaan, serta wawancara. Pada akhir penelitian ini, Penulis berkesimpulan bahwa pengambilalihan saham PT Pertamina Gas oleh PT Perusahaan Gas Negara belum dapat dikatakan sebagai pelanggaran ketentuan hukum persaingan usaha. Selain itu, tidak ada kewajiban notifikasi yang harus dilakukan pelaku usaha karena keduanya telah merupakan perusahaan terafiliasi.

---

One form of business decision that can be taken by a business actor to increase effectivity and efficiency is acquisition. The focus of this thesis is about the acquisition PT Pertamina Gas (Pertagas)s shares conducted by PT Perusahaan Gas Negara (PGN) in the perspective of business competition law. There are number of things in business competition law that must be considered including impacts of acquisition, assessing whether the acquisition is in accordance with Law Number 5 Year 1999 and related regulation below, and is there any follow-up action that should be taken by the business actor in accordance with Indonesia business competition law. These are very important to be considered in order to keep a fair competition. Fair competition will create benefits for all parties, namely consumers, business people, and the state. The author uses legislation, books and journals as sources of reading, and also interviews to write this thesis. At the end of this study, the authors conclude that acquisition of PT Pertamina Gas (Pertagas)s shares by PT Perusahaan Gas Negara (PGN) is not a violation of the provisions of business competition law. There is also no obligation to make a notification because the two companies already affiliated."

"Tesis ini membahas mengenai Kebijakan Privatisasi PT. Indosat Tbk, oleh pemerintah Indonesia paska krisis ekonomi akhir tahun 90-an. Divestasi saham pemerintah terhadap PT. Indosat Tbk, pada tahun 2002 merupakan privatisasi kedua yang dilakukan oleh pemerintah Indonesia. Penjualan saham PT. Indosat Tbk, dilakukan dengan mekanisme Strategic Sale, yang pada akhirnya tender ini dimenangkan oleh Singapore Technologies Telemedia (STT) yang merupakan anak perusahaan Temasek Holding salah satu BUMN negara Singapura. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode kuantitatif dengan pendekatan deskriptif analitis, pengambilan data dilakukan melalui studi literatur dan studi kepustakaan.Hasil penelitian menunjukan bahwa ada beberapa faktor yang membuat pemerintah melakukan kebijakan privatisasi BUMN. Kondisi eksternal dan internal BUMN, kondisi krisis finansial dan privatisasi merupakan salah satu desakan dan syarat yang diajukan IMF dalam memberikan bantuan finansialnya kepada pemerintah Indonesia di masa krisis. Bagi pemerintah khusus untuk penjualan saham PT. Indosat Tbk, melalui mekanisme strategic sale, adalah karena adanya niatan pemerintah guna mendapatkan dana dalam rangka menutup defisit APBN 2002 karena krisis ekonomi.

---

This thesis is focusing about the privatisation regulation toward PT. Indosat Tbk, by the Indonesian government after economic crisis in the end 90s. The divestation of the government?s stock of PT. Indosat Tbk, in 2002 was the second privatisation had been carried out by the government. The Selling of PT. Indosat Tbk's stock has been done by using strategic sale mechanism, which in the end this bid won by Singaporean Technologies Telemedia (STT) which is the sister company of Temasek Holding, one of Singapore?s State-Owned Enterprise. This research uses quantitative method and deductive analytical approach, which using literature study to collect datas.The outcome of this research is to confirm that there are several reasons made Indonesian Government committed through the privatisation of state-owned enterprise. Both the external and internal of the state-owned enterprise situation, financial crisis and particularly privatisation was one of the requisites that issued by IMF in related to given aid in financial sector for the Indonesian government during the economic crisis. Privatisation of PT. Indosat Tbk's through the strategic sale mechanism had been chosen due to the government's need in obtaining fund in order to cover the deficit of APBN year 2002 which had emerged by the economic crisis."