Javascript must be enabled to continue!
Analisis Yuridis Dugaan Keterlambatan Notifikasi Akuisisi Oleh Nippo Corporation Studi Kasus Putusan Perkara Nomor 16/KPPU/M/2023
View through CrossRef
This study discusses the Decision of the Business Competition Supervisory Commission (KPPU) Number 16/KPPU-M/2023 regarding the delay in notification of the takeover of PT Kadi Indonesia Manufaktur shares by Nippo Corporation. The acquisition transaction was legally effective on June 3, 2021, but was only notified to the KPPU on October 18, 2021, which exceeded the 60-day working limit according to KPPU Regulation Number 3 of 2020. The purpose of this study is to analyze the legal principles used by the KPPU and assess the application of Article 29 of Law Number 5 of 1999 in conjunction with Article 5 of Government Regulation Number 57 of 2010. The method used is normative juridical with a case study approach. The results of the study show that the KPPU applies the repressive principle, namely that legal action is taken after the violation occurs. Although no bad intentions were found on the part of Nippo Corporation, elements of violation were considered proven, including asset values exceeding the threshold and negligence in fulfilling administrative obligations. As a result, KPPU imposed an administrative sanction in the form of a fine of Rp1 billion. This finding emphasizes the importance of business actors' compliance with the provisions of acquisition notifications and shows the need to strengthen socialization and preventive warnings to prevent similar violations in the future.
Title: Analisis Yuridis Dugaan Keterlambatan Notifikasi Akuisisi Oleh Nippo Corporation Studi Kasus Putusan Perkara Nomor 16/KPPU/M/2023
Description:
This study discusses the Decision of the Business Competition Supervisory Commission (KPPU) Number 16/KPPU-M/2023 regarding the delay in notification of the takeover of PT Kadi Indonesia Manufaktur shares by Nippo Corporation.
The acquisition transaction was legally effective on June 3, 2021, but was only notified to the KPPU on October 18, 2021, which exceeded the 60-day working limit according to KPPU Regulation Number 3 of 2020.
The purpose of this study is to analyze the legal principles used by the KPPU and assess the application of Article 29 of Law Number 5 of 1999 in conjunction with Article 5 of Government Regulation Number 57 of 2010.
The method used is normative juridical with a case study approach.
The results of the study show that the KPPU applies the repressive principle, namely that legal action is taken after the violation occurs.
Although no bad intentions were found on the part of Nippo Corporation, elements of violation were considered proven, including asset values exceeding the threshold and negligence in fulfilling administrative obligations.
As a result, KPPU imposed an administrative sanction in the form of a fine of Rp1 billion.
This finding emphasizes the importance of business actors' compliance with the provisions of acquisition notifications and shows the need to strengthen socialization and preventive warnings to prevent similar violations in the future.
Related Results
PENERAPAN SANKSI DENDA TERHADAP KASUS PERSEKONGKOLAN TENDER JALAN NASIONAL
PENERAPAN SANKSI DENDA TERHADAP KASUS PERSEKONGKOLAN TENDER JALAN NASIONAL
ABSTRAKKomisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha (KPPU) dalam Putusan Nomor 09/KPPU-L/2013 menyatakan bahwa terlapor I, terlapor II, terlapor III, terlapor IV, terlapor V, terlapor VI, terl...
KEKUATAN PUTUSAN KOMISI PENGAWAS PERSAINGAN USAHA (KPPU) DALAM PENEGAKAN HUKUM PERSAINGAN USAHA
KEKUATAN PUTUSAN KOMISI PENGAWAS PERSAINGAN USAHA (KPPU) DALAM PENEGAKAN HUKUM PERSAINGAN USAHA
Kedudukan atau status dari KPPU dalam menjalankan fungsi kewenangannya menjadi hal yang sangat penting, mengingat Undang-Undang nomor 5 Tahun 1999 telah memberikan KPPU kewenangan...
Perbandingan Sanksi Administratif KPPU dan Antitrust Law Amerika Serikat
Perbandingan Sanksi Administratif KPPU dan Antitrust Law Amerika Serikat
This study examines the elements of business conspiracy and the effectiveness of administrative sanctions imposed by the Indonesian Competition Commission (KPPU) in Decision Number...
Populisme Mahkamah Konstitusi dalam Penafsiran Perkara-Perkara pada Wilayah Open Legal Policy
Populisme Mahkamah Konstitusi dalam Penafsiran Perkara-Perkara pada Wilayah Open Legal Policy
In the past seven years, the striking characteristic of cases filed before the Constitutional Court (MK) has developed into cases at the open legal policy level. In open legal case...
Pembentukan Perangkat Kepatuhan Persaingan Usaha sebagai Strategi untuk Meningkatkan Kepatuhan Persaingan Usaha
Pembentukan Perangkat Kepatuhan Persaingan Usaha sebagai Strategi untuk Meningkatkan Kepatuhan Persaingan Usaha
Persekongkolan merupakan salah satu kegiatan yang seringkali terjadi pada proses pengadaan barang dan jasa Pemerintah. Terjadinya Persekongkolan berpotensi menimbulkan kerugian neg...
Kewenangan Satgas Yuridis Dalam Memproses Data Yuridis Pada Program Ptsl Di Bpn Kabupaten Pandeglang
Kewenangan Satgas Yuridis Dalam Memproses Data Yuridis Pada Program Ptsl Di Bpn Kabupaten Pandeglang
Pelaksanaan dalam memproses data yuridis pada program PTSL dilakukan oleh Satgas Yuridis PTSL namun dalam kewenangannya, Satgas Yuridis memiliki hambatan sehingga dapat mengakibatk...
Frase ‘Antara Lain’ Sebagai Awal Alasan Yang Lain Dalam Pembatalan Putusan Arbitrase
Frase ‘Antara Lain’ Sebagai Awal Alasan Yang Lain Dalam Pembatalan Putusan Arbitrase
Manusia adalah makhluk sosial yang selalu membutuhkan manusia lainnya untuk bertahan hidup.Oleh sebab itulah Aristoteles menyebut manusia dengan “zoon politicon.” Memang menjadi se...
Pemilihan Kepala Desa Antar Waktu (PAW) Pasca Pembatalan SK Bupati oleh Putusan Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara
Pemilihan Kepala Desa Antar Waktu (PAW) Pasca Pembatalan SK Bupati oleh Putusan Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara
Pemilihan kepala desa tidak jarang menimbulkan perselisihan, hingga berujung pada pembatalan SK Bupati oleh putusan PTUN. Sebagaimana kasus dalam perkara nomor 50/G/2020/PTUN.Sby j...

