Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Terhadap Putusan KPPU Nomor 16/KPPU-M/2015 tentang keterlambatan dalamkewajiban pemberitahuan pengambilalihan saham oleh LG International Corp.,KPPU menjatuhkan sanksi denda sebesar Rp.8.000.000.000,00. kepada LGInternational Corp. Dalam penulisan hukum ini Penulis membahas mengenaikeabsahan penerapan prinsip ekstrateritorial dalam persaingan usaha di Indonesiaserta kesesuaian substansi pokok perkara atas LG International Corp. denganperaturan persaingan usaha di Indonesia. Penulisan hukum ini bersifat yuridisnormatifyang menggunakan data sekunder. Kesimpulan dari penulisan inimenunjukkan bahwa penerapan prinsip ekstrateritorial di Indonesia tidak dapatditerapkan, hal ini dikarenakan adanya pembatasan dari definisi Pelaku Usahadalam UU Nomor 5 Tahun 1999 yang tidak dapat menjangkau aktor danperbuatan yang dilakukan di luar wilayah yurisdiksi Indonesia, sekalipun jugamenimbulkan dampak persaingan usaha tidak sehat. Kemudian dari pembahasankesesuaian substansi pokok perkara, LG International Corp. dapat dijatuhkansanksi denda berdasarkan peraturan persaingan usaha Indonesia, namun karenaKPPU tidak memiliki kewenangan ekstrateritorial, dalam kasus ini eksekusiputusan akan menjadi masalah dikarenakan terlapor berkedudukan di Korea.

---

Regarding the Indonesian business competition supervision commission (KPPU)'s

Decision Number 16/KPPU-M/2015 concerning the obligation to notify the

takeover of shares by LG International Corp., KPPU imposed a fine of

Rp.8,000,000,000.-. to LG International Corp. In this study, the author discusses

the validity of the application of the extraterritorial principle in business

competition in Indonesia as well as the suitability of the substance of the case

against LG International Corp. with business competition regulations in

Indonesia. This legal writing is juridical-normative using secondary data. The

conclusion from this assumption shows that the application of the extraterritorial

principle in Indonesia cannot be applied, this is because the principle that states

the definition of business actors in Law Number 5 of 1999 which cannot reach

actors and acts committed outside the jurisdiction of Indonesia, even though it

also has an impact on competition which is contributes to unhealthy business

environment. Then from the discussion of the suitability of the subject matter of

the case, LG International Corp. Fines can be removed based on Indonesian

competition regulations, however, because KPPU does not have extraterritorial

authority, in this case the execution of the verdict will be a problem because the

reported party is domiciled in Korea."

"Pengambilalihan saham berbeda dengan merger karena pengambilalihan saham tidak menyebabkan pihak lain bubar sebagai entitas hukum. Perusahaan-perusahaan yang terlibat dalam akuisisi secara yuridis masih tetap berdiri dan beroperasi secara independen, tetapi telah terjadi pengalihan pengendalian oleh pihak pengakuisisi. Pengambilalihan saham Axis oleh XL dilakukan melalui notifikasi post merger, maka agar proses merger dan akuisisi dapat berjalan efektif disarankan agar dilakukan pre notification dengan melakukan amandemen UU Nomor 5 Tahun 1999. KPPU mewajibkan XL memberikan laporan perkembangan pasar, produk dan tarifnya setiap 3 (tiga) bulan selama jangka waktu 3 (tiga) tahun. Apabila di kemudian hari terdapat perilaku anti persaingan uang dilakukan oleh XL maupun anak perusahaannya, maka perilaku tersebut tidak dikecualikan dari UU Nomor 5 Tahun 1999. Setelah pengambilaihan saham sampai dengan saat ini, XL hanya menguasai 30% (tiga puluh tiga persen) pangsa pasar selular di Indonesia. Namun terjadi peningkatan konsentrasi pasar setelah pengambilalihan saham, sehingga terdapat potensi terjadinya coordinated effect pasca pengambilalihan saham. Oleh karena itu, diperlukan pengawasan terhadap perkembangan industri selanjutnya untuk mencegah timbulnya praktek persaingan usaha yang tidak sehat di dalam industri telekomunikasi seluler di Indonesia.

---

Different from the merger,the acquisition of shares does not cause the other party broke up as a legal entity. The companies that are involved in the acquisition, legally still stands and operates independently, but there has been a transfer of control by the acquirer. Axis taken over by XL through post merger notification, in order to be effective, it is suggested that the process of mergers and acquisitions is done by pre-notification process which required amandement of the Act No. 5 of 1999. The Commission believes that in this case is XL must report market developments, products and rates every 3 (three) months for a period of 3 (three) years. If in the future there are anti-competitive behavior made by XL or it subsidiary, then the behavior is not excluded from the Act No. 5 of 1999. After the acquisition up to this time, XL only has a 30% (thirty three percent) of shares of the mobile market in Indonesia. However, there is an increase in market concentration after the acquisition, so there are potential for coordinated effects to occur after takeover. Therefore, the oversight to the development of the next industry practice to prevent unhealthy competition in the mobile telecommunications industry in Indonesia is necessary."