Problemi di metodo nella regolamentazione del fenomeno della Thin capitalization in Thailandia
Raissa Yurizzahra Azaria Harris
Al fine di potenziare le proprie risorse finanziarie, molte imprese indonesiane ricorrono all’acquisizione di asset. Poiché tale pratica è diventata comune, molte imprese cercheranno una fondamento legale esauriente ed onnicomprensiva per porla in essere. Pertanto, questo contributo è diretto ad analizzare la disciplina legale indonesiana dell’acquisizione delle attività di bilancio. Lo studio comparato con il sistema legale vigente in Singapore non può che ritenersi imprescindibile, poiché l’obiettivo consiste nel formulare strategie sulla base della prassi vigente in Singapore. Questo articolo fa uso di un approccio normativo, facendo riferimento a molte regolamentazioni normative, incluse quelle relative alle acquisizioni in generale, alle acquisizioni di asset, alle società, al monopolio, alla concorrenza sleale. L’indagine sarà basata sulle differenze e similitudini tra i due sistemi legali. In particolare, si auspica che l’evoluzione del sistema legale indonesiano avvenga sulla base del modello di Singapore. Nell’ambito del sistema legale indonesiano ci sono diverse disposizioni normative che forniscono una definizione del termine “acquisizione”. Tuttavia, l’acquisizione ha solitamente ad oggetto azioni e non asset. Nonostante l’articolo 102 della Legge 40/2007 sulle società a responsabilità limitata non menzioni esplicitamente l’acquisizione di asset, la sua interpretazione porta a non escludere l’ammissibilità dell’acquisizione di asset. In ragione dell’assenza di norme procedurali in tema di acquisizione di asset, si presume che vada applicata la disciplina dell’acquisizione delle azioni. Al contrario, Singapore riconosce due possibile oggetti di acquisizione, ovvero le azioni e gli asset. Il sistema legale di Singapore evidenzia differenze significative tra l’acquisizione di azioni e quella di asset. Di conseguenza, il sistema legale di Singapore riconosce l’acquisizione di asset come uno dei due tipi di acquisizione, per cui c’è una disciplina legale generale e onnicomprensiva riguardante le acquisizioni di asset. Si crede che l’Indonesia abbia bisogno di imparare dalla good practice di Singapore, e che debba quindi sforzarsi per rafforzare le proprie norme in tema di acquisizione di asset. Riconoscimento esplicito all’acquisizione di asset è fortemente auspicata e può essere implementata attraverso una definizione precisa e regole procedurali. A disposizioni normative distinte di acquisizione di asset e di acquisizione di azioni dovrebbero corrispondere distinte disposizioni procedurali. Inoltre, poiché l’acquisizione di asset è strettamente connessa al monopolio e alla concorrenza sleale, andrebbe rivista la soglia che rende necessaria la comunicazione dell’acquisizione di asset al fine di evitare monopolio e pratiche di concorrenza sleale.
In order to strengthen their finance, many business entities in Indonesia resorts to asset acquisition. As the practices have become common, many business entities will seek for a comprehensive legal basis on asset acquisition. Therefore, this writing aims to analyze the laws and regulations of asset acquisition under Indonesian legal system. The comparative study with Singaporean legal system is deemed as necessary, since the goal is to formulate strategies based on the good practice in Singapore. This writing uses normative approach which focuses on the reliance of the documents and legislations. It relies on many regulations, including the regulations on acquisition, asset acquisition, company, monopoly and unfair competition. The analysis will be made based on the difference and similarities between the two legal systems. Accordingly, recommendation is given based on the findings from Singaporean legal system in order to support the legal development in Indonesia. Under Indonesian legal system, there are numerous laws and regulations that provide the definition of the term ‘acquisition’. However, the term ‘acquisition’ mostly refer to shares as its object, and none of the provisions explicitly recognize the ‘asset acquisition’. While, Article 102 of Act No. 40 Year 2007 on Limited Liability Company also does not explicitly mention asset acquisition, its interpretation leads to the basis of asset acquisition. Recalling the absence of procedural law on asset acquisition, then it is presumed to follow the regulation on shares acquisition. On the contrary, Singapore recognizes two objects of acquisition which are shares and asset. Singaporean legal system emphasizes significant differences between shares acquisition and asset acquisition. Subsequently, Singaporean legal system acknowledges asset acquisition as one of the type of acquisition, therefore there is a comprehensive laws and regulation concerning asset acquisition. It is believed that Indonesia needs to learn from the good practices of Singapore, and therefore conduct the efforts to strengthen the regulation on asset acquisition. Explicit recognition toward asset acquisition is strongly suggested and can be implemented by giving precise definition and its procedural regulation. Separate provisions between asset acquisition and shares acquisition shall also be made to distinguish between the two different procedures. Additionally, as asset acquisition is closely related to monopoly and unfair competition, further review on the threshold of the notification for asset acquisition is needed in order to avoid monopoly and unfair competition.
KEYWORDS: Indonesia ľ business entities ľ assets acquisition.
In 2015, ASEAN states entered ASEAN Economic Community which resulted to the more competitive business. It is unavoidable effect for business entities that the free flow of goods and services may have significant impact to their business. Consequently, business entities look for alternative to strengthen their finance, secure the market shares, and develop their product. While some of the business entities start from internal measures such as increasing their capital, some also seek for external measures.
Under Indonesian legal system, there are some options for external measures which can be done such as merger, acquisition and consolidation. It shall be understood that these terms may differ depending on the state, for example under the legal system in Singapore  and United States of America , both only use the term ‘merger’, and Japan has several terms that cover different method, including acquisition of a business .
The external measure which is extremely popular in the business practice is acquisition, which is defined as  any transaction in which a buyer (limited to a corporation) acquires all or part of the assets and business of a seller (also limited to a corporation) or all or part of the stock or other securities of the seller, where the transaction is closed between a willing buyer and a willing seller. Included within the general term of ‘acquisition’ are more specific forms of transactions such as merger, consolidation, an asset acquisition, and a stock acquisition.
Many business entities resort to merger and/or acquisition to develop and strengthen their company since it is deemed as having more impact rather than any internal measures. These business entities then rely to the prevailing laws and regulation in conducting merger and/or acquisition. The lack of legal certainty will therefore harm the business practice. It is unfortunate that the lack of legal certainty has emerged in Indonesia as there is no clear regulation on asset acquisition. Therefore, this writing is aimed to analyze the laws and regulations of asset acquisition under Indonesian law. Subsequently, Singaporean legal system is chosen since Singapore is deemed as the most developed country in South-East Asia and therefore will be used as comparative study.
The objective of this writing is to find a conclusive finding on the best practice of Singaporean legal system, and subsequently formulate recommendations for Indonesian legal system based on the finding. In order to achieve the objective, the Author compare the legal system of both states and try to identify the issue within Indonesian legal system that can be improved by learning from Singaporean legal system.
This writing uses normative approach which focuses on the reliance of the documents and legislations. Accordingly, the main data used in this writing is a primary legal material which is laws and regulations of each state. It relies on the regulations on acquisition, asset acquisition, company, monopoly and unfair competition. The analysis will be made based on the difference and similarities of the aforementioned regulations. The difference is beneficial to see the lack within Indonesian legal system that can be improved by adopting Singaporean legal system, while the similarities can be used to affirm the similar stance between the two states.
It is hoped that the analysis can result to the comprehensive conclusion that shows the gap between Indonesian and Singaporean legal system, and provide strategies and recommendation for the ..