July 23rd, 2014 david
SSEK Legal Consultants has been recognized by IFLR1000 as a leading Energy and Infrastructure firm in Indonesia.
In recognizing SSEK, IFLR1000 noted that the firm is known for its “standout expertise in the energy, natural resources and telecommunications sectors” and that “mining, oil and gas, and power projects dominate their projects work”.
Michael D. Twomey, a senior foreign legal advisor at SSEK, was recognized as a Leading Lawyer for Mining, Oil and Gas, and Power. One client told IFLR1000 that Michael Towmey is “the most talented foreign legal consultant in Jakarta”.
Darrell R. Johnson, also a senior foreign legal advisor at SSEK, was recognized for his work in Oil and Gas, and Power.
IFLR1000 is an independent legal publication. It carries out extensive research to identify and recognize the world’s leading financial and corporate law firms and lawyers.
July 22nd, 2014 david
This is the fourth post in our 2014 Legal Guide to Vertical Agreements. Fahrul S. Yusuf and Meta N. Mustikaningrum will address a new topic each week.
19. How is restricting the buyer’s ability to determine its resale price assessed under antitrust law?
In general, Indonesia’s Antimonopoly Law prohibits resale price maintenance in the form of a minimum resale price. The Antimonopoly Law does not prohibit resale price maintenance in the form of maximum resale price or specified resale price.
20. Have the authorities considered in their decisions or guidelines resale price maintenance restrictions that apply for a limited period to the launch of a new product or brand, or to a specific promotion or sales campaign; or specifically to prevent a retailer using a brand as a ‘loss leader’?
No decisions have been rendered or guidelines issued by the Business Competition Supervisory Commission (“KPPU”) to address this specific issue. In general, resale price maintenance in the form of maximum resale price is permitted. Read more »
July 21st, 2014 wira
Please find attached the latest Legal Alert for May 2014.
SSEK’s Legal Alert is a monthly survey designed to keep you up to date with the latest legal developments in Indonesia.
Click here: Legal Alert May 2014
July 21st, 2014 david
By Dewi Mayangsari and Dewi Savitri Reni
Law No. 37 of 2004 regarding Bankruptcy and Suspension of Debt Payments (“Bankruptcy Law”) stipulates that the fees for Administrators and Receivers are decided after the bankruptcy or the Suspension of Debt Payment (Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang or “PKPU”) is concluded.
While there is some subjectivity in determining the fees of Administrators and Receivers, the fees must follow the guidelines set by the Ministry of Law and Human Rights (“MOLHR”) in Regulation No. 1 of 2013 regarding Guidelines for Fees of Receivers and Administrators (“MOLHR Reg 01/2013″). Under this Regulation, the fees for Administrators and Receivers depend on the particular case, as elaborated below.
While establishing fee guidelines, MOLHR Reg 01/2013 also seems to have discouraged creditors from pursuing bankruptcy proceedings, for fear that they will be saddled with the Receiver fees. This situation, however, has been rectified by the issuance of Supreme Court Decision No. 54 P/HUM/2013 dated December 19, 2013 (“SC Decision”), as elaborated below. Read more »
July 17th, 2014 david
Richard D. Emmerson, a senior foreign legal advisor at SSEK Legal Consultants, has been recognized by Who’s Who Legal as one of the leading Labor and Employment practitioners in Indonesia.
Mr. Emmerson has been an advisor to SSEK since 1996 and is routinely recognized for his labor and employment work. Mr. Emmerson works with a diverse range of multinational and domestic companies on issues including personnel polices and work rules, severance matters, employment contracts, secondment arrangements, work permits and labor disputes.
Mr. Emmerson was one of just three lawyers in Indonesia recognized by Who’s Who Legal in its latest edition of the International Who’s Who of Management Labour & Employment Lawyers. Mr. Emmerson has been honored by Who’s Who Legal since 2009. He is also recognized by Chambers Asia, Asialaw and Euromoney as a leading labor and employment lawyer in Indonesia. Read more »
July 15th, 2014 david
This is the third post in our 2014 Legal Guide to Vertical Agreements. Fahrul S. Yusuf and Meta N. Mustikaningrum will address a new topic each week.
Analytical Framework for Assessment
15. Explain the analytical framework that applies when assessing vertical restraints under antitrust law.
For each possible violation of the Antimonopoly Law, an analysis should be undertaken of whether all of the elements of a particular provision have been met (e.g., business actors, agreement, unfair business activities, welfare loss, etc.). Typically, the Business Competition Supervisory Commission (“KPPU”) will also identify whether there are any possible links with other provisions of the Antimonopoly Law that presumably are being violated as well. As part of its analysis the KPPU would first determine the relevant market in which the contracting business actors are engaged and whether either holds a dominant position and thus has the ability to use its market power to restrict access by potential competitors (level of barriers to entry). Assuming that a business actor does have that kind of power, next in the analysis would be whether such business actor has the incentive to exercise its power in the identified relevant market. The KPPU will also look into whether the strategy pursued by the business actors to the vertical restraint in order to lessen the competition is economically rational. The cost to foreclose access in the upstream market may not be recoverable by the profits expected in the downstream or distribution market.
One last important point if such a business actor does exercise its market power is whether there are any losses associated with consumers. This is an analysis of the pro-competitive and anticompetitive effects and whether consumers are better off or worse off by retaining those kinds of vertical restraints between the two contracting business actors. Read more »
July 14th, 2014 david
The Employment Law Alliance (ELA) is offering a free 90-minute webinar on Tuesday, July 22, on “Workplace Safety and Health: What Companies Doing Business in Bangladesh, China, and India Need to Know.” The webinar will be offered twice – covering the same information both times.
Companies regularly look for different ways to expand their manufacturing and supply networks to more efficiently and effectively serve global markets. But how much do they actually know about and adhere to the labor and employment laws of the countries in which they and their supply chains operate?
This free webinar will feature experienced lawyers from Bangladesh, China and India, all of which are at the heart of many organizations’ supply chains. They will provide practical insight and guidance on the main worker safety-related issues in all three countries.
For more information and to register, please click here. Read more »
July 10th, 2014 david
By Michael S. Carl and Nico Mooduto
Anti-corruption compliance is rightly a focus of companies operating in Indonesia. One of the more interesting questions for such companies, particularly foreign investment companies, is whether the company and/or individual company Directors can be prosecuted for corruption as a result of the actions of employees. Based on a plain- English reading of Law No. 31 Year 1999 regarding Eradication of the Criminal Act of Corruption, as amended by Law No. 20 Year 2001 (the “Corruption Law”), a company and/or individual Directors may be exposed to potential criminal charges for corruption.
Potential Corporate Liability
Articles 2, 3 and 5 through 16 of the Corruption Law delineate the perpetrator of a criminal act of corruption with the phrase “setiap orang” (any person). “Orang” (person) itself is defined under Article 1 point 3 of the Corruption Law to include a company. Pursuant to Article 1, point 1 of the Corruption Law, a company is a group of persons and/or assets organized either as a legal entity or as a non-legal entity. Therefore, any person, which includes a company, committing a criminal act of corruption under one of the foregoing provisions of the Corruption Law may be punished with criminal sanctions. Read more »
July 8th, 2014 david
This is the second post in our 2014 Legal Guide to Vertical Agreements. Fahrul S. Yusuf and Meta N. Mustikaningrum will address a new topic each week.
Agreements Concluded by Public Entities
6. To what extent does antitrust law apply to vertical restraints in agreements concluded by public entities?
In general, public entities are allowed to engage in monopolistic practices or the centralization of economic power as long as it positively relates to the general public or a sector of production important to the state. In 2010 the Business Competition Supervisory Commission (Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha, KPPU) issued guidelines that set forth the criteria for public entities to engage in monopolistic practices. Under these guidelines, public entities must first have a legal mandate to engage in monopolistic practices and such legal mandate must clearly describe the purposes of the monopolistic practice or centralization of economic power.
7. Do particular laws or regulations apply to the assessment of vertical restraints in specific sectors of industry (motor cars, insurance, etc.)?
Most notably, in the trading sector a foreign principal may appoint a sole agent or sole distributor as the only party that can distribute or market its products in Indonesia. Principals for certain types of products like motor vehicles, heavy equipment, electronics and household appliances are required to appoint an exclusive agent to import and distribute the products in Indonesia. The agency or distribution agreement between the national trading company and the overseas principal must be registered at the Ministry of Trade. In the insurance industry, an insurance agent can act as an agent for only one insurance company. Read more »
July 7th, 2014 david
SSEK Legal Consultants, a full-service corporate law firm located in Jakarta, Indonesia, has been recognized as one of the top law firms in Asia.
SSEK was a Silver Award winner for Best Asian Law Firm at the International Legal Alliance Summit & Awards held recently in New York City. It was the second straight year that SSEK has been recognized at the prestigious event.
Law firms are selected by an independent jury made up of more than 100 general counsels of Fortune 500 companies or equivalent. Jury members consider a law firm’s national and regional awards in corporate practice, its expertise in mergers and acquisitions, tax law and antitrust, and its general achievements in the domestic and regional market. Read more »