<![CDATA[Venture capital has been promoted in Indonesia since Keppres No. 61/1988 and KMK No. 1251/KMK.013/1988 to expand financing access for SMEs, yet the contractual balance between venture capital companies (PMV) and partner companies (PPU) often remains contested under KUHPerdata principles. This article examines (i) the allocation of rights and obligations in venture capital financing agreements, (ii) the positive law framework governing venture capital (KUHPerdata, UU 40/2007 on PT, Keppres 61/1988, KMK 1251/1988), and (iii) the effectiveness of legal protection for both parties. A normative juridical (doctrinal) approach with descriptive-analytical method is employed, complemented by a case study of PT Bahana Artha Ventura (BAV) to illustrate contractual practice (profit-sharing scheme, supervision rights, collateral, insurance, exit/divestment). The agreement structure reflects freedom of contract (Pasal 1338 KUHPerdata) but tends to be standardized by PMV, granting strong safeguards (collateral, monitoring rights, default remedies) while PPU bears bank-like burdens (periodic installments, asset security). Although the framework legitimizes venture capital and encourages managerial assistance, contractual weight often tilts toward PMV, potentially diluting the risk-sharing essence. Indonesia’s legal framework adequately recognizes venture capital; however, to better align with risk-sharing objectives and protect weaker counterparties, standard-setting for core clauses (fair supervision costs, proportional profit-sharing, conditional collateral, restructuring options) and supervisory guidance are recommended to achieve more equitable partnerships.]]>
Copyrights © 2025
