Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Skripsi ini adalah penelitian hukum dengan metode pendekatan yuridis normatif yang bersifat deskripstif dan prespektif analisis. Bapepam-LK merupakan lembaga tertinggi yang memiliki peran untuk mengawasi, membina dan mengatur segala kegiatan dalam Pasar Modal, serta melindungi kepentingan investor dan masyarakat. Sehubungan dengan itu, Bapepam merupakan pihak yang berhak mengajukan permohonan pernyataan pailit terhadap Manajer Investasi. Dalam kasus PT. Eurocapital Peregrine Securities dan PT. Pertamina Dana Ventura, Bapepam tidak mau mengajukan permohonan pernyataan pailit, dimana kepentingan PT. Pertamina Dana Ventura sebagai investor tidak terlindungi.

---

This mini thesis is a legal research with normative, juridical approach that is descriptive and analytical perspective. Bapepam-LK is the highest legal institution that adopts the role of supervising, fostering, and regulating the entire activities inside the capital market, including protecting the interests of the investor and citizens. In correlation to it’s role, Bapepam-LK correspondingly appeal petition on declaration of bankruptcy against Fund Manager. In the case of PT. Eurocapital Peregrine Securities and PT. Pertamina Dana Ventura, Bapepam-LK refuses to appeal a petition on declaration of bankruptcy, which results in PT. Pertamina Dana Ventura’s interset as investor uncovered."

"Skripsi ini adalah penelitian hukum dengan metode pendekatan yuridis normatif yang bersifat deskriptif dan perspektif analitis. Dalam skripsi ini membahas mengenai kewenangan Badan Pengawas Pasar Modal & Lembaga Keuangan (Bapepam-LK) terhadap pencabutan izin usaha Manajer Investasi. Dalam melaksanakan pekerjaannya, Manajer Investasi diawasi oleh Bapepam. Bapepam merupakan lembaga dengan otoritas tertinggi di pasar modal yang melakukan pengawasan dan pembinaan atas pasar modal. Bapepam melakukan pengawasan terhadap kinerja Manajer Investasi melalui instrumen undang-undang untuk memberikan batasan-batasan wewenang dan tanggung jawabnya, larangan¬larangan, dan teknis pada aktivitas pengelolaan dana yang dihimpun dari para investornya. Berlakunya Undang-Undang Nomor 8 Tahun 1995 tentang Pasar Modal seharusnya menjadi tonggak penting bagi terjadinya penegakan hukum dalam seluruh kegiatan di pasar modal, sehingga tercipta kepastian hukum bagi para pelaku pasar modal. Hasil penelitian dalam skripsi ini menyimpulkan bahwa PT Eurocapital Peregrine Securities dapat dimintai tanggung jawab hukum atas segala kerugian yang timbul karena tindakannya karena Eurocapital tidak melaksanakan kewajibannya dengan baik sebagai Manajer Investasi.

---

This mini thesis is the legal research with a normative juridical approach method that is descriptive and perspective analytical. In this mini thesis, a writer discussed about Authority of the Capital Market Supervisory Board and the Financial Institutions Supervisory Board (Bapepam) of the Fund Managers Business License Revocation. In conducting its work, the Fund Managers is supervised by the Capital Market Supervisory Board. The Capital Market Supervisory Board (Bapepam) is the institution with the highest authority in the supervision of capital markets and development of capital markets. The Capital Market Supervisory Board (Bapepam) to monitor the implementation of the Fund Manager through the instrument of legislation to give the limits of authority and responsibilities, restrictions, and technical management in the funds raised from their investors. By the issuance of Law Number 8 Year 1995 concerning Capital market should be an important development of the rule of law in all the activities in the capital markets, in order to create legal certainty for the capital market. In this mini thesis concludes that PT Eurocapital Peregrine Securities may be held liable for any loss as a result of his actions, because Eurocapital does not properly fulfill its obligations as Fund Manager."

"[ABSTRAKTesis ini membahas mengenai pembebanan tanggung jawab hukum kepada ManajerInvestasi akibat pelanggaran hukum yang dilakukan oleh Anggota Direksi sehinggamenyebabkan Manajer Investasi tersebut dijatuhi sanksi administratif oleh OtoritasJasa Keuangan. Dalam tesis ini akan menggunakan studi kasus pencabutan izin usahaManajer Investasi PT. Eurocapital Peregrine Securities (PT EPS). Terdapat duapertanyaan utama dalam tesis ini, yaitu mengenai kesesuaian putusan OJK mencabutizin PT EPS sebagai Manajer Investasi dengan peraturan di bidang pasar modal danmengenai ketepatan putusan Lembaga Peradilan yang menyatakan pelanggaranAnggota Direksi PT EPS menjadi tanggung jawab pribadi Anggota Direksi dan bukantanggung jawab Manajer Investasi. Tesis ini menggunakan metode penelitian hukumnormatif untuk menunjukkan bahwa suatu Manajer Investasi dapat dibebankantanggung jawab akibat pelanggaran yang dilakukan oleh Anggota Direksimenggunakan Teori Badan Hukum Sebagai Kenyataan Yuridis (juridischeRealiteitsleer). Berdasarkan penelitian, ditemukan Putusan OJK yang mencabut izinPT EPS sebagai Manajer Investasi telah sesuai dengan peraturan di bidang pasarmodal karena dalam UUPM pembebanan tanggung jawab atas pelanggaran yangdilakukan oleh Anggota Direksi Manajer Investasi merupakan beban ManajerInvestasi. Sedangkan Putusan Lembaga Peradilan yang menyatakan pelanggaranAnggota Direksi PT EPS menjadi tanggung jawab pribadi Anggota Direksi sehinggamenyatakan batal pencabutan izin usaha Manajer Investasi atas nama PT EPS adalahkurang tepat. Hal ini dapat karena PT EPS sendiri lemah dalam pengawasankegiatannya. Namun, pembebanan tanggung jawab kepada Manajer Investasi bukanberarti membebaskan tanggung jawab Anggota Direksi atas pelanggaran yangdilakukannnya. Anggota Direksi bertanggung jawab secara pribadi kepada ManajerInvestasi yang telah dirugikannya.

---

ABSTRACTThis thesis discusses about legal liability assessed to an Investment manager dueto tort committed by its Member of Board of Directors, causing the InvestmentManager administrative sanctions by the Financial Services Authority. This thesiswill use case studies permit revocation Investment Manager PT. EurocapitalPeregrine Securities (PT EPS). There are two main questions in this thesis,regarding the suitability of the FSA's decision to revoke permit PT EPS asInvestment Manager with the capital market regulations and the suitability of theInstitute of Justice ruling stating tort of the member of the Board of Directors(member of BOD) of PT EPS is the liability of the member of BOD in personaland not the liability of Investment Manager. This thesis using normative legalresearch methods to indicate that an Investment Manager can be charged with theliability for tort committed by the member of BOD using the Theory of LegalEntity In fact Juridical (Juridische Realiteitsleer). Based on the research, it wasfound that the FSA verdict revoked the licenses of PT EPS as Investment Managerin accordance with the regulations of the capital market since the impositionUUPM liability for tort committed by the member of BOD of the InvestmentManager an Investment Manager burden. Meanwhile, the Institute of Justiceruling stating tort of member of BOD of PT EPS is the liability of the member ofBOD to declare null and revocation of business licenses on behalf of theInvestment Manager PT EPS is less precise. This could be because PT EPSthemselves weak in monitoring activities. However, the imposition of liability tothe Investment Manager not absolve the liability of member of BOD for his tort.The member of BOD is personally liable to the Investment Manager who has beenharmed., This thesis discusses about legal liability assessed to an Investment manager dueto tort committed by its Member of Board of Directors, causing the InvestmentManager administrative sanctions by the Financial Services Authority. This thesiswill use case studies permit revocation Investment Manager PT. EurocapitalPeregrine Securities (PT EPS). There are two main questions in this thesis,regarding the suitability of the FSA's decision to revoke permit PT EPS asInvestment Manager with the capital market regulations and the suitability of theInstitute of Justice ruling stating tort of the member of the Board of Directors(member of BOD) of PT EPS is the liability of the member of BOD in personaland not the liability of Investment Manager. This thesis using normative legalresearch methods to indicate that an Investment Manager can be charged with theliability for tort committed by the member of BOD using the Theory of LegalEntity In fact Juridical (Juridische Realiteitsleer). Based on the research, it wasfound that the FSA verdict revoked the licenses of PT EPS as Investment Managerin accordance with the regulations of the capital market since the impositionUUPM liability for tort committed by the member of BOD of the InvestmentManager an Investment Manager burden. Meanwhile, the Institute of Justiceruling stating tort of member of BOD of PT EPS is the liability of the member ofBOD to declare null and revocation of business licenses on behalf of theInvestment Manager PT EPS is less precise. This could be because PT EPSthemselves weak in monitoring activities. However, the imposition of liability tothe Investment Manager not absolve the liability of member of BOD for his tort.The member of BOD is personally liable to the Investment Manager who has beenharmed.]"

"Masyarakat pemodal sangat memerlukan informasi mengenai kegiatan perdagangan, keadaan pasar, atau harga efek di Bursa Efek yang tercermin dari kekuatan penawaran jual dan penawaran beli efek sebagai dasar untuk mengambil keputusan investasi dalam efek. Sehubungan dengan itu, meskipun Undang-undang No. 8 Tahun 1995 tentang Pasar Modal melarang tindakan yang dapat menciptakan gambaran semu mengenai kegiatan perdagangan, keadaan pasar, atau harga efek dengan tujuan mempengaruhi pihak lain untuk membeli, menjual atau menahan efek, kejahatan manipulasi pasar kerap terjadi. Mengingat pasar modal merupakan sumber pembiayaan dunia usaha dan sebagai wahana investasi bagi para pemodal yang memiliki peranan yang strategis untuk menunjang pelaksanaan pembangunan nasional, kegiatan pasar modal perlu mendapatkan pengawasan agar dapat dilaksanakan secara teratur, wajar dan efisien. Untuk itu, secara operasional Bapepam diberi kewenangan dan kewajiban untuk membina, mengatur dan mengawasi setiap pihak yang melakukan kegiatan di pasar modal.Skripsi ini membahas fungsi pengawasan dan kewenangan Bapepam-LK untuk melakukan penegakan hukum atas kejahatan manipulasi pasar dengan menempuhupaya-upaya, baik yang bersifat preventif dalam bentuk aturan, pedoman, pembimbingan dan pengarahan, maupun secara represif dalam bentukpemeriksaan, penyidikan dan pengenaan sanksi.

---

Public investors need information on trading activities, market conditions and securities prices on a Securities Exchange, as indicators by the strength of the supply and demand, and as a basis for making investment decisions. Bearing in mind, even though Law No. 8 of 1995 concerning Capital Market prohibits activities that create a deceptive representation of trading activities, market conditions or securities prices with intent to influence others to buy, sell, or hold securities, market manipulation felonies are often occurred. Considering the capital market is a source of business financing and an investment opportunity for investors, which plays a strategic role in supporting national development, its activities must be supervised to ensure that it is conducted in an orderly, fair, and efficient manner. Therefor, Bapepam-LK is given an administrative authority and the responsibility to guide, regulate and supervise persons engaged in capital market activities. The focuses of this study are the supervisory function and authority to conduct law enforcement of Bapepam-LK regarding market manipulation felonies, either in preventive in the form of regulations, guidelines, guidance and directions, or remedial in the form of inspections, investigations and the imposition of sanctions, as well as legal protections for investors."

"Di dalam pasar modal Indonesia dikenal aksi korporasi penambahan modal tanpa hak memesan efek terlebih dahulu yang dapat dilakukan oleh perseroan yaitu dengan penerbitan saham baru tanpa harus memberikan kesempatan terlebih dahulu kepada pemegang saham lama atau pemegang saham terdahulu untuk membeli saham baru tersebut seimbang dengan pemilikan sahamnya. Mekanisme seperti ini sangat efisien dalam penggunaan waktu pelaksanaan sehingga perusahaan yang melakukan dengan menggunakan cara mekanisme ini dapat cepat terlaksana proses penambahan modal dengan tujuan untuk meningkatkan kondisi keuangan perusahaan. Umumnya mekanisme ini digunakan perseroan guna pembayaran utang-utangnya dengan cara mengkonversi utang menjadi saham (debt to equity swap).Dalam skripsi ini penulis membahas mengenai pelaksanaan aksi ini oleh PT. Bumi Resources, Tbk. Pembahasan dilakukan dengan menganalisis Peraturan Badan Pengawas Pasar Modal dan Lembaga Keuangan Nomor IX.D.4 tentang Penambahan Modal Tanpa Hak Memesan Efek Terlebih Dahulu yang kemudian dihubungkan dengan pelaksanaan aksi korporasi tersebut oleh PT Bumi Resources, Tbk.

---

In the Indonesian capital market, there is known a corporate actions capital increases without preemptive rights that can be performed by a company by issuing new shares without having to give an opportunity beforehand to the old shareholders or former shareholders to buy new shares equal to the ownership of its shares. The mechanism is very efficient in the use of execution time so that companies which uses this mechanism can be quickly implemented process of capital increase in order to increase the company's financial condition. Generally, this mechanism is used by the company to pay its debts by converting debt into equity (debt to equity swap).In this paper the author discusses about the implementation of this action by PT. Bumi Resources, Tbk. The discussion is done by analyzing Badan Pengawas Pasar Modal Dan Lembaga Keuangan Rule Number IX.D.4 On Capital Increases Without Preemptive Right which is then associated with the implementation of such corporate action by PT Bumi Resources, Tbk."

"Penelitian ini membahas mengenai peran Otoritas Jasa Keuangan dalam permohonan pernyataan pailit perusahaan asuransi. Permasalahan yang menjadi fokus penelitian yaitu peraturan di Indonesia yang mengatur tentang pengajuan permohonan pernyataan pailit perusahaan asuransi dan pertimbangan OJK dalam mengajukan atau tidak mengajukan permohonan pernyataan pailit perusahaan asuransi studi kasus PT AJ BAJ dan PT AJK. Metode penelitian tesis ini menggunakan penelitian hukum normatif dengan metode pengumpulan data studi kepustakaan dan wawancara. Hasil penelitian menyatakan bahwa peraturan perundang-undangan dan putusan pengadilan di Indonesia mengatur permohonan pernyataan pailit perusahaan asuransi merupakan kewenangan dari Otoritas Jasa Keuangan. Sehingga permohonan pernyataan pailit yang diajukan oleh pihak selain OJK haruslah ditolak Pengadilan. OJK dalam mengajukan permohonan pailit PT AJBAJ dilandasi pertimbangan untuk melindungi konsumen dan menjaga kepercayaan masyarakat terhadap usaha perasuransian sehingga terhadap PT AJ BAJ yang memenuhi Pasal 2 ayat (1) UU No. 37 Tahun 2004 dan melanggar peraturan di bidang perasuransian, OJK melakukan permohonan pailit. Sedangkan untuk PT AJK, OJK menolak mengajukan permohonan pailit dengan pertimbangan walaupun telah terpenuhi syarat untuk dipailitkan namun OJK mempertimbangkan dampak ekonomi dan kepercayaan masyarakat terhadap usaha perasuransian serta pertimbangan bahwa PT AJK sedang melakukan upaya penyehatan keuangan. Saran yang penulis ajukan bahwa kreditor, debitor dan pengadilan niaga harus memegang teguh bahwa kewenangan pengajuan permohonan pernyataan pailit merupakan kewenangan OJK dan hal tersebut tidak dapat disimpangi. Selain itu OJK seharusnya menetapkan batasan indikator mengenai dampak terhadap perekonomian dan menjaga kepercayaan sebagaimana dimaksud dalam penjelasan Pasal 55 ayat (1) huruf f angka 1 POJK No. 28 Tahun 2015. 

---

This study examines the function of the Financial Services Authority in the application for bankruptcy statements of insurance companies. The focus of this research is related to the regulations in Indonesia that regulate the filing of applications for bankruptcy statements for insurance companies and the OJK's considerations in the application submission related to bankruptcy statements for insurance companies by using the case studies of PT AJ BAJ and PT AJK. Normative legal research uses library research and interview data collection methods utilized as a research method. The study's findings indicate that Indonesia's Financial Services Authority has jurisdiction over the laws, rules, and court rulings concerning applications for bankruptcy declarations for insurance companies. As a result, the Court must reject the application for a bankruptcy declaration made by partakers other than the OJK. To protect consumers and preserve public confidence in the insurance industry, OJK filed a petition for bankruptcy on behalf of PT AJ BAJ, which complies with Article 2 Paragraph 1 of Law No. 37 of 2004 and violates the insurance industry rules. As for PT AJK, OJK declined to file for bankruptcy though the bankruptcy requirements are met, OJK considers the economic impact, public confidence in the insurance business, and the fact that PT AJK is undergoing financial restructuring measures. According to the author, the OJK's jurisdiction grants an inviolable petition for bankruptcy, which creditors, debtors, and commercial courts must uphold. Furthermore, as mentioned in the explanation of Article 55 paragraph (1) Letter F Number 1 POJK Number 28 of 2015, OJK should define indicator limitations while keeping the economy in mind and upholding trust."