Merger control in Indonesia: overview

A Q&A guide to merger control in Indonesia.

The Q&A gives a high level overview of merger control, regulatory framework and regulatory authorities, relevant triggering events and thresholds in Indonesia. It also covers notification requirements, procedures and timetables, publicity and confidentiality, third party rights, substantive test, remedies, penalties, appeals, joint ventures and proposals for reform.

For information on restraints of trade, monopolies and abuses of market power in Indonesia, visit Restraints of trade and dominance in Indonesia: overview.

This Q&A is part of the global guide to competition and cartel leniency. For a full list of jurisdictional Merger Control Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/mergercontrol-guide. For a full list of jurisdictional Restraints of Trade and Dominance Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/restraintsoftrade-guide.

For a full list of jurisdictional Cartel Leniency Q&As, which provide a succinct overview of leniency and immunity, the applicable procedure and the regulatory authorities in multiple jurisdictions, visit www.practicallaw.com/leniency-guide.

Contents

Regulatory framework

1. What (if any) merger control rules apply to mergers and acquisitions in your jurisdiction? What is the regulatory authority?

Regulatory framework

Merger control rules are included in Law No. 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition against Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Competition Law), particularly Articles 28 and 29, including its implementing regulations. A merger, consolidation or acquisition (MCA) of shares in other companies is prohibited if they may result in monopolistic practices and or unfair business competition (Article 28, Competition Law). Any MCA referred to in Article 28 of the Competition Law which results in the value of assets and/or sales value exceeding a certain amount must be reported to the Business Competition Supervisory Commission (Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha) (KPPU) within 30 working days of the effective date of the MCA (Article 29, Competition Law). MCAs are governed in further detail by a government regulation.

On 20 July 2010, the government issued Government Regulation No. 57 of 2010 on MCAs that may result in Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (GR 57). GR 57 details the:

  • Method used by KPPU for assessment analysis.

  • Sanctions for violations.

  • Threshold for asset value or revenue.

  • Procedure for submitting notifications and consultations.

To further implement the Competition Law and GR 57, the KPPU issued the following regulations on merger control (KPPU Regulations):

  • KPPU Regulation No. 13 of 2010 on Guidelines for the Implementation of MCA which may result in Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition, as lastly amended by KPPU Regulation No. 2 of 2013.

  • KPPU Regulation No. 4 of 2012 on the Principles for Administrative Fines due to the Late Filing of MCA notifications.

Regulatory authority

The KPPU was established to oversee the implementation of the Competition Law on 7 June 2000 (Article 30, Competition Law). The KPPU is an independent agency, free from the influence and control of the government or other parties and responsible directly to the President of the Republic of Indonesia. The KPPU is authorised to cancel or annul problematic MCAs (Articles 36 and 47, Competition Law).

See box, The regulatory authority.

 

Triggering events/thresholds

2. What are the relevant jurisdictional triggering events/thresholds?

Triggering events

Under the Business Competition Supervisory Commission (Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha) (KPPU) Regulations (see Question 1):

  • A merger occurs when two or more independent companies merge into one company.

  • Consolidation occurs when independent companies merge into one new company.

  • A (share) acquisition occurs when there is a share transfer accompanied by a transfer of control of a company from one business to another (through a share acquisition, takeover, public takeover or capital increase).

A change of control occurs when more than 50% of a company's shares are acquired. It can be fewer than 50% if the party that can determine or influence its management policy or personnel (because of contractual rights, not share ownership) changes.

There is no statute of limitations for theKPPU to take action in relation to mergers, consolidations or acquisitions (MCAs) of shares. For late reporting, the fine is IDR1 billion per day (up to IDR25 billion).

Thresholds

Unless all of the relevant parties are active in the banking business, under Government Regulation No. 57 of 2010 on MCAs that may result in Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (GR 57), a transaction must be reported if it meets one of the following thresholds:

  • The accumulated Indonesian assets of the target of the acquisition, or the entity resulting from the MCA (including those of any company it controls or the group of companies that controls it) exceed IDR2.5 trillion.

  • The accumulated Indonesian turnover of the target after the acquisition, or the entity resulting from the MCA (including the turnover of any company it controls or the group of companies that controls it, but excluding export sales) exceeds IDR5 trillion.

If all the parties involved in the MCA are active in the banking business, the applicable accumulated Indonesian asset threshold is IDR20 trillion.

 

Notification

3. What are the notification requirements for mergers?

Mandatory or voluntary

Post-closing notification is mandatory, but pre-closing consultation is voluntary. The submission of a pre-closing consultation does not remove the post-closing notification obligation. However, if the result of the consultation is approval or approval without any reservations (or request for certain remedies) from the Business Competition Supervisory Commission (Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha) (KPPU), the KPPU will usually approve the application directly (because of its "commitment" in the regulation not to revisit the substance of its decisions), and submission of the notification should lead to its approval. This is provided that no significant or meaningful change has been made to any of the data or information submitted and market conditions have not changed.

Timing

The merger, consolidation or acquisition (MCA) of shares must be reported to the KPPU within 30 working days of the date the MCA becomes legally effective.

Pre-notification formal/informal guidance

In practice, an informal consultation with the KPPU is possible to obtain further information on the notification format or procedure before formally submitting the notification, as long as the 30 working day time limit is complied with. In practice, it is also possible to ask KPPU for a written "private ruling", confirming whether a particular transaction must be reported.

Under the KPPU Regulations (see Question 1), the party that must submit the notification is the:

  • Entity that results from the consolidation.

  • Surviving entity (in a merger).

  • Purchaser (in a share acquisition).

Relevant authority

The KPPU is the relevant authority.

Form of notification

There are six forms of notification (which can be downloaded from www.kppu.go.id/id/peraturan-merger):

  • A merger consultation form (M2).

  • A consolidation consultation form (K2).

  • An acquisition consultation form (A2).

  • A merger notification form (M1).

  • A consolidation notification form (K1).

  • An acquisition notification form (A1).

Filing fee

According to Law No. 5 of 1999 on The Prohibition against Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition, Government Regulation No. 57 of 2010 on MCAs that may result in Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (GR 57) and the KPPU Regulations, no filing fee must be charged for filing the notification.

Obligation to suspend

Since the current merger control regulation follows a post-transaction regime, there is no obligation to suspend the transaction pending the outcome of the notification, consultation or investigation.

 

Procedure and timetable

4. What are the applicable procedures and timetable?

Consultation

The consultation phase is the voluntary pre-closing phase. A written application for a consultation regarding the proposed merger, consolidation or acquisition (MCA) is submitted using the appropriate form (M2 for a merger consultation, K2 for a consolidation consultation and A2 for an acquisition consultation). The application must be accompanied by the required documents, as well as other documents that the Business Competition Supervisory Commission (Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha) (KPPU) deems necessary. The KPPU publishes a notice of initial receipt (without confirming that the documents submitted are complete) and checks the completeness of the required documents. The KPPU can request additional data or documents, if necessary. Once the documents are deemed complete, the receipt is issued and the KPPU starts the formal assessment phase (the KPPU informs the party that submitted the form in writing).

The assessment for the consultation phase is divided into:

  • A preliminary assessment. This must be completed within 30 working days of receipt of all the documents. During this assessment, the degree of market concentration before and after the transaction is measured. If necessary, at its own discretion, the KPPU can then commence the full assessment.

  • A full assessment. This must be completed within 60 working days of the issuance of the result of the preliminary assessment. During this stage, data is collected from third parties (that is, competitors, consumers and the government).

Following its review, the KPPU issues one of three decisions (and publishes it on its website):

  • Approval.

  • Approval with a proposed remedy.

  • Rejection of the MCA plan.

Notification

The notification phase is the mandatory, post-closing phase. The written notification is submitted using the appropriate form. The notification form must be accompanied by the required documents, as well as other documents that are deemed necessary by the KPPU. The KPPU then publishes a notice of initial receipt (this receipt is a proof of filing, but not a confirmation that the documents submitted are complete). The KPPU clock does not start running from this date, and a fine will not be imposed for late reporting. The KPPU then checks the completeness of the required documents. The KPPU can request additional data or documents, if necessary. Once the documents are deemed complete, the receipt is issued and the KPPU will start the formal assessment phase. According to the KPPU Regulations, the assessment must be completed within 90 working days of the formal receipt being issued. If the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) threshold is met (see Question 7), the following aspects (among others) are reviewed during the assessment:

  • Market concentration.

  • Market entry barriers.

  • Potential anti-competitive behaviour.

Following its review, the KPPU issues one of three decisions:

  • Approval.

  • Approval with a proposed remedy.

  • Rejection.

In the same way as following a consultation, the KPPU then issues its opinion to the relevant business actor and publishes it on its website.

 

Publicity and confidentiality

5. How much information is made publicly available concerning merger inquiries? Is any information made automatically confidential and is confidentiality available on request?

Publicity

The Business Competition Supervisory Commission's (Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha) (KPPU) final decision is published at the end of the assessment, in either the consultation or the notification phase. The decision includes:

  • A brief discussion of the nature of the transaction.

  • The names of the parties.

  • Several relevant points that the KPPU considered or reviewed during the review.

  • The legal ground for the opinion.

On receipt of the complete application, the KPPU also publishes the name or title of the consultation or notification document on its website.

Automatic confidentiality

The KPPU Regulations (see Question 1) are silent on confidentiality However, in practice, when the consultation application or notification is submitted, it can indicate the information that is confidential and the KPPU will then maintain its confidentiality. In practice, all business information is automatically kept confidential during the review. Before issuing their opinion or decision, the parties can also (again) indicate what information is confidential and must not be published. However, there is no guarantee that the information will not be published eventually.

Confidentiality on request

This is available, but with some reservations (see above, Automatic confidentiality).

 

Rights of third parties

6. What rights (if any) do third parties have to make representations, access documents or be heard during the course of an investigation?

Representations

A third party can submit a representation (for example, by written letter) on the current notification or consultation application that the Business Competition Supervisory Commission (Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha) (KPPU) is reviewing.

Document access

Third parties do not have any right of access to documents being reviewed by KPPU.

Be heard

A third party can be heard by the KPPU on a notification or consultation application being reviewed by the KPPU. The procedure is at the KPPU's discretion.

 

Substantive test

7. What is the substantive test?

According to Government Regulation No. 57 of 2010 on MCAs that may result in Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (GR 57) and the Business Competition Supervisory Commission (Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha) (KPPU) Regulations (see Question 1), the KPPU's assessment involves an analysis of:

  • Market concentration.

  • Market entry barriers.

  • Potential anti-competitive behaviour.

  • Efficiency.

  • Bankruptcy.

Under the KPPU Regulations, to measure market concentration, the KPPU uses the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI), but if the HHI cannot be used, the KPPU will use the concentration ratio (CR). The KPPU divides the market concentration level spectrum into two:

  • Spectrum I, which is a low concentration with a HHI value below 1800.

  • Spectrum II, which is a high concentration with a HHI value above 1800.

If after the merger, consolidation or acquisition (MCA) of shares the HHI is below 1800, the KPPU will not have any concerns about the MCA and will not proceed to an in-depth phase II investigation (in consultations, this phase II assessment is referred to as a full assessment). However, if after the MCA the HHI is above 1800 and the difference in HHI (HHI delta) exceeds 150 points, the KPPU will conduct an assessment of:

  • Market entry barriers.

  • The possibility of any potential anti-competitive behaviour.

  • Performance efficiency.

  • Bankruptcy.

The HHI measure applies to horizontal mergers. For vertical mergers, the KPPU looks for indications of market closure by a dominant player.

An example is the acquisition of Terex Equipment Limited by Volvo Group UK Limited. The market concentration (HHI) after acquisition was 3,744 (categorised as spectrum II, or high concentration) and the HHI delta was material, in that it was above 150 (in this case, 243). The KPPU approved the transaction with certain reservations relating to the KPPU monitoring the realisation of efficiencies (in product quality, improved after-sales service and competitive pricing).

 
8. What, if any, arguments can be used to counter competition issues (efficiencies, customer benefits)?

The Business Competition Supervisory Commission (Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha) (KPPU) Regulations (see Question 1) require arguments concerning efficiencies to be provided to the KPPU before the final KPPU opinion on a merger, consolidation or acquisition (MCA) is issued. These must be supported by a sufficient efficiencies calculation (for example, resulting from the marginal, variable or fixed cost saving) of the relevant MCA.

 
9. Is it possible for the merging parties to raise a failing/exiting firm defence?

The Business Competition Supervisory Commission (Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha) (KPPU) Regulations (see Question 1) allow for the submission of arguments explaining how consumers would suffer a greater loss if a particular business failed or otherwise exited the market. Therefore, the business must convince the KPPU that there will be no lessening of competition in the relevant market.

 

Remedies, penalties and appeal

10. What remedies (commitments or undertakings) can be imposed as conditions of clearance to address competition concerns? At what stage of the procedure can they be offered and accepted?

Following its review, the Business Competition Supervisory Commission (Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha) (KPPU) can come to the conclusion that the merger, consolidation or acquisition (MCA) will have a negative impact on competition. In this case, the KPPU informs the relevant parties and requests proposals for remedies. The proposed remedies must be submitted to the KPPU within 14 days of the date of KPPU's request for a remedy. These 14 days are within the initial 60 and 90 working days allowed for the consultation application and notification review.

The remedies offered by the business can be behavioural or structural. Behavioural remedies include:

  • Intellectual property rights (IPR) licensing to consumers.

  • Terminating any:

    • exclusive contract arrangement;

    • bundling or tying arrangements; or

    • any other arrangement resulting in restrictions of competition.

In the past, the KPPU has imposed temporary periodic price reporting obligations. Structural remedies can include asset or share divestment.

The KPPU then examines whether the proposed remedy is acceptable and responds to its concerns. The KPPU will then issue its merger approval with a remedy. Compliance with remedies is left to the discretion of the KPPU.

 
11. What are the penalties for failing to comply with the merger control rules?

Failure to notify correctly

Any delay in submission of the notification (that is, after 30 working days of the effective date of the transaction) results in a fine of IDR1 billion per day of delay up to IDR25 billion. If the business cannot implement the remedies, if relevant, it can be held liable under Law No. 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition against Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Competition Law). In other words, the problematic behaviour or agreement can be investigated on the ground of an allegation of a violation of the Competition Law. There does not appear to be any examples of when the KPPU has taken action for an "incorrect" notification and it does not in practice object to incomplete notifications filed before the notification deadline, but will not issue a "final" receipt until the filing is complete (the missing or pending information can be completed following the deadline).

Implementation before approval or after prohibition

Not applicable. The merger control rules establish a post-transaction notification regime.

Failure to observe

If the business is unable to implement the requested remedies, it can be held liable (for misconduct or anti-competitive behaviour) under the Competition Law ( for example, for abuse of a dominant position).

 
12. Is there a right of appeal against the regulator's decision and what is the applicable procedure? Are rights of appeal available to third parties or only the parties to the decision?

Rights of appeal

An appeal is possible against the decision on the administrative fine assessed due to the late submission of the notification. Appeal rights are only granted to parties to the decision. The Business Competition Supervisory Commission's (Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha) (KPPU's) decision on the merger, consolidation or acquisition (MCA) can also be appealed.

Procedure

The business can file an objection in the District Court with jurisdiction over its domicile within 14 working days of the issuance of the KPPU decision. An appeal to the Supreme Court (MA) against the District Court's ruling is also possible. The same deadline applies, which is 14 working days from the issuance of the District Court ruling.

Third party rights of appeal

Not applicable (see above, Rights of appeal).

 

Automatic clearance of restrictive provisions

13. If a merger is cleared, are any restrictive provisions in the agreements automatically cleared? If they are not automatically cleared, how are they regulated?

There is no requirement for the notifying party to submit transaction agreements to the Business Competition Supervisory Commission (Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha) (KPPU) for the purposes of merger control filing, although the KPPU will generally expect some documents indicating that the transaction has closed. Therefore, restrictive provisions cannot be brought to the KPPU's attention immediately. If the documents submitted for a merger filing contain restrictive provisions, they cannot be considered cleared once the merger is cleared, as any restrictive covenants will not necessarily be reviewed in the context of merger filing. A merger clearance does not prevent the KPPU from later taking enforcement action for a breach of Law No. 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition against Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition.

 
14. What industries (if any) are specifically regulated?

If all the parties involved in a merger, consolidation or acquisition (MCA) are active in the banking sector, the applicable accumulative Indonesian asset threshold is IDR20 trillion (see Question 2, Thresholds). As well as obtaining clearance from the Business Competition Supervisory Commission (Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha) (KPPU), the relevant business may also need clearance from the Bank of Indonesia (Indonesia's central bank) or the Financial Services Authority (OJK).

 
15. Has the regulatory authority in your jurisdiction issued guidelines or policy on its approach in analysing mergers in a specific industry?

It appears that there is no specific policy for the analysis of a merger, consolidation or acquisition (MCA), or the assessment of market concentration, market entry barriers, potential anti-competitive behaviour, efficiency or bankruptcy in any specific industry.

 

Joint ventures

16. How are joint ventures analysed under competition law?

The Business Competition Supervisory Commission (Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha) (KPPU) Regulations (see Question 1) defines a joint venture (JV) loosely as a form of joint business undertaken by two or more companies. A greenfield JV establishment is exempt from the merger, consolidation or acquisition (MCA) merger control rule, and acquisitions must only be reported if they involve a share acquisition. However, if the greenfield JV establishment involves a sequence of actions that constitute a change of control, the transaction is not exempt. For example, where a JV is established between company A and company B and is under their joint control, and newly issued shares are later subscribed to by company B so that the JV is controlled solely by Company B. In this example, the second stage (new share issuance to company B that caused a change of control) must be reported.

 

Inter-agency co-operation

17. Does the regulatory authority in your jurisdiction co-operate with regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions in relation to merger investigations? If so, what is the legal basis for and extent of co-operation (in particular, in relation to the exchange of information, remedies/settlements)?

The Business Competition Supervisory Commission (Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha) (KPPU) and the Korea Fair Trade Commission (KFTC) agreed to elevate their co-operation by signing a co-operation arrangement to promote co-operation in competition law and policy in both countries. The co-operation was signed in Gwacheon on 8 November 2013. The co-operation focuses on four aspects (and does not only cover merger filing matters):

  • Updates on law enforcement trends.

  • Regular discussions.

  • Exchanging information through direct communication (this appears to include communication on merger control filings in both Indonesia and Korea).

  • Technical assistance.

This arrangement also implemented the Leaders' Joint Statement signed by both presidents in October 2013 in Indonesia.

The KPPU also works closely with competition authorities of other countries such as the:

  • Japan Fair Trade Commission.

  • US Federal Trade Commission.

  • German Cartel Office (Bundeskartellamt).

However, the co-operation of these authorities has not yet been formalised in a formal agreement. The co-operation is mainly in the development of human resources, for example:

  • Overseas training.

  • Educational discussions on guidelines for drafting regulations.

 

Recent mergers

18. What notable recent mergers or proposed mergers have been reviewed by the regulatory authority in your jurisdiction and why is it notable?

The latest acquisition reported to the Business Competition Supervisory Commission (Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha) (KPPU) is the acquisition of Terex Equipment Limited by Volvo Group UK Limited. This is notable because although the market concentration (HHI) is categorised as spectrum II (HHI above 1,800) HHI and the HHI delta is more than 150, the KPPU approved the transaction with certain reservations, which are that the KPPU will monitor the realisation of efficiencies (including product quality, improved after-sales service and competitive pricing).

The KPPU also believes that it is relatively easy to co-ordinate and co-operate in the relevant market because there are only six business players. Therefore, the KPPU monitors the market.

 

Proposals for reform

19. Are there any proposals for reform concerning merger control?

The Indonesian House of Representatives is currently discussing the draft amendment to Law No. 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition against Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition. One of the important anticipated changes is the introduction of pre-transaction clearance, before the merger, consolidation or acquisition (MCA) transaction closes. This means that parties will first need the KPPU's approval before implementing an MCA. However, there does not appear to be any definitive date of issuance, this will be sometime in late 2015 or early next year. The draft has been under discussion for some time.

 

Online resources

Business Competition Supervisory Commission (Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha) (KPPU)

W www.kppu.go.id/id; www.kppu.go.id/eng (English version)

Description. This website is maintained by the KPPU. The information is official, although some of it may be out-of-date. The English version is for guidance only.



The regulatory authority

Business Competition Supervisory Commission (Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha) (KPPU)

T +62 21 3503325
F +62 21 3507008
E infokom@kppu.go.id
W www.kppu.go.id

Outline structure. Please refer to the KPPU's website.

Responsibilities. The KPPU is an independent authority established to supervise the implementation of Law No.5 of 1999 concerning the Prohibition of Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition. The KPPU's duties include drafting implementing regulations, conducting examinations of any party alleged to have violated law No. 5, issuing binding decisions, and imposing legal sanction(s) on any violator of the law.

Procedure for obtaining documents. The KPPU can be contacted by e-mail to obtain any documents that are not available on its website.



Contributor profiles

Lia Alizia, Partner

Makarim & Taira S.

T +62 21 2521 272/520 0001
F +62 21 2522 750-51/252 1830
E Lia.Alizia@makarim.com
W www.makarim.com

Professional qualifications. Indonesia, Advocate

Areas of practice. Corporate and commercial law and litigation; foreign investment, restructuring companies; mergers and acquisitions; labour law; competition law; compliance issues; intellectual property rights.

Non-professional qualifications. SH, Jayabaya University, Jakarta, Indonesia, Faculty of Law, 1999

Recent transactions

  • Provided advices regarding general competition laws (for example, a multinational company in the consumer goods industry).

  • Provided advices to and assisted multinational companies in relation to merger notification to the KPPU.

Languages. English, Indonesian (native)

Professional associations/memberships.

  • Member of the Indonesian Advocates Association (PERADI).

  • Committee of the International Relations Department of the Indonesian Advocates Association.

  • Member of LAWASIA (The Law Association for Asia and the Pacific).

  • Registered Intellectual Property Rights Consultant in Indonesia, 2006.

  • Registered Sworn Translator for English – Indonesian language under Decree of Governor of DKI, 2006.

Publications.

  • Competition and Cartel Leniency Global Guides 2015/16, Practical Law Global Guides, Thomson Reuters, August 2015 (co-contributor).

  • Global Legal Insights to Litigation & Dispute Resolution 4th Edition – Indonesia chapter, published by Global Legal Group in April 2015 (co-contributor).

Jonathan Tjenggoro, Associate

Makarim & Taira S.

T +62 21 2521 272/520 0001
F +62 21 2522 750-51/252 1830
E Jonathan.Tjenggoro@makarim.com
W www.makarim.com

Professional qualifications. Indonesia, Advocate

Areas of practice. Competition; corporate and commercial; foreign investment; telecommunications.

Non-professional qualifications. LLM, National University of Singapore, Singapore, 2010; SH, University of Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia, 2008

Recent transactions

  • Assisted Otsuka and Mitsui with the drafting and submission of post-transaction notification to the KPPU of the acquisition of shares in Claris Otsuka Limited.

  • Assisted AerCap with the drafting and submission of post-transaction notification to the KPPU of the acquisition of shares in International Lease Finance Corporation.

  • Assisted a multinational corporation to obtain various private KPPU opinions, in respect of the acquisition of shares in:

    • a port engineering and port management company;

    • an Indonesian company running a steel-related business; and

    • a European energy company.

Languages. English, Indonesian (native)

Professional associations/memberships. Member of the Indonesian Advocates Association (PERADI).

Publications.

  • Competition and Cartel Leniency Global Guides 2015/16, Practical Law Global Guides, Thomson Reuters, August 2015 (co-contributor).

  • World Communication Regulation Report Volume 10 No. 4 on Amendments to Indonesia's Operating Telecom Networks Regulation and Their Impact, published by Bloomberg BNA in April 2015 (co-contributor).

Anang Triyono, Technical Adviser

Makarim & Taira S.

T +62 21 2521 272/520 0001
F +62 21 2522 750-51/252 1830
E Anang.Triyono@makarim.com
W www.makarim.com

Professional qualifications. ME (Master of Economics), University of Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia, 2010; SE (Bachelor of Economics), Mahasaraswati University, Denpasar, Indonesia, 1999; BSt (Bachelor of Statistics), Academy of Statistics BPS, Jakarta, Indonesia, 1997

Areas of practice. Anti-trust and business competition.

Recent transactions

  • Deputy Director of Data and Information Services, Government Official Information and Documentation Management KPPU, 2014-2015.

  • Senior Investigator and Head of Data and Information KPPU, 2014-2015.

  • Senior Investigator and Head of KPPU Balikpapan Office, 2009-2014.

Languages. English, Indonesian (native)

Publications. Competition and Cartel Leniency Global Guides 2015/16, Practical Law Global Guides, Thomson Reuters, August 2015 (co-contributor).


{ "siteName" : "PLC", "objType" : "PLC_Doc_C", "objID" : "1247714298360", "objName" : "Merger control Indonesia", "userID" : "2", "objUrl" : "http://uk.practicallaw.com/cs/Satellite/resource/8-522-5420?null", "pageType" : "Resource", "academicUserID" : "", "contentAccessed" : "true", "analyticsPermCookie" : "223c8752:15b1c8f8233:-a74", "analyticsSessionCookie" : "223c8752:15b1c8f8233:-a73", "statisticSensorPath" : "http://analytics.practicallaw.com/sensor/statistic" }