Legal Certainty of Notification of Company Share Acquisition Transactions Related to The Value of Assets and Sales Below A Certain Amount

Business expansion both nationally and internationally contributes significantly to global economic growth through increased investment and employment. One of the business expansion strategies often used is mergers, consolidations, and acquisitions, which aim to create synergies between companies, increase efficiency, and achieve maximum profits. However, these activities also have the potential to create unfair business competition and monopoly, as regulated in Law Number 5 Year 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition, as well as Government Regulation Number 57 Year 2010. The research method that the author uses is a normative juridical approach, so the research approach used in this research is the Legislation approach (statue approach), Case approach (case approach) and Comparative Approach (Comparative Approach). The purpose of this study is to analyze the juridical implications of Share Acquisition Transactions if the Asset Value and/or Sales Value below a Certain Amount is not notified to KPPU and to examine and analyze the Legal Certainty of Regulating Share Acquisition Transactions if the Asset Value and/or Sales Value below a Certain Amount is not notified to KPPU. The results of the research that the author describes are the juridical implications for companies conducting mergers, consolidations, or acquisitions are required to make written notifications to KPPU if the value of assets or sales exceeds a certain threshold as stipulated in PerKPPU Number 3 of 2019. The calculation of the value of assets and sales is carried out on a consolidated basis, including the parent, subsidiaries, and related business entities. However, for companies whose transaction value is below the threshold, they are not required to make post-acquisition notifications, thus not removing the possibility of violating the provisions of Article 28 of Law Number 5 Year 1999. However, there is some potential for monopolistic practices to occur after the acquisition. Furthermore, legal certainty related to the obligations of companies that make acquisitions with an asset value and/or sales below a certain amount has not been regulated in the laws and regulations, so companies do not have legal certainty to do so. When compared to Singapore, the Competition Act 2004 overseen by the CCCS ensures market efficiency with strict sanctions. Both countries are committed to fair and effective competition regulation. From the research results, the author recommends that the Indonesian government through KPPU make improvements or revisions to a number of articles in PerKPPU Number 3 of 2019 to expand more comprehensive criteria in identifying anti-competitive practices, including companies with significant market dominance even though the value of their assets or sales does not reach the threshold, as well as implementing a more massive supervision system for post-acquisition companies.