Managers of a company will be personally liable for the company’s debts if they do not specify on the company’s letterhead the fact that the company is a limited liability company and the share capital of the company – Case No. 197/19.

2004 ◽  
pp. 19-21
2020 ◽  
Vol 58 (3) ◽  
pp. 254-269
Author(s):  
Ilija Babić

A limited liability company is a company with share capital. Each member of an LLC can freely transfer his share to one, more or all other members by inter vivos and mortis causa transactions (mainly contracts). If share is transferred to a third party, all LLC members have the right of preemption. It is a rule of dispositive nature and, therefore, it can be excluded by the Memorandum of Association. A member of an LLC who plans to transfer his share to a third party shall previously send an offer to the other members in the form of LLC membership share transfer agreement. The signature of the transferee on an offer must be authenticated by a notary. The notary shall confirm that offer if share of the transferee includes real estate or when it is governed by the special act. If a LLC member believes his right of pre-emption has been violated, he can bring a complaint to the relevant court demanding: 1) that the contract or any other act related to the transfer of share should be cancelled, or 2) the obligation of the defendant (member against whom the claim is brought) to transfer his share to the plaintiff, i.e. that a judgment of the court replaces share transfer agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant. The complaint can be brought within 30 days (subjective term) from the moment when LLC member had been informed about the conclusion of share transfer agreement, but not later than six months after share transfer registration in Business Registers Agency (objective term). After the expiration of these terms, the complaint will be rejected, and therefore disposal of shares will be strengthened.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-12
Author(s):  
Peng Chen ◽  
Yingzhi Nie

Based on the company cases published in China over the past ten years, both theoretical methods and Artificial intelligence technologies were applied to analysis cases data on the effectiveness of clauses restricting equity transfer in articles of association of limited liability companies (LLCs). With its unique characters based on shareholders and strong vitality, limited liability company (LLC), as the “evergreen tree” among the market players, is a company form adopted by many investors. Nevertheless, due to its prominent closed characteristics, equity transfer has become a bottleneck for the development of LLCs. According to this paper, it is necessary to distinguish between the effectiveness of clauses restricting internal and external equity transfer in articles of association of LLCs. Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchical Process (AHP) is utilized for which involves process of analytic hierarchy modelled with utilizing theory of fuzzy logic. Moreover, instead of being confined to the existing legal norms, the judgment standard of clauses restricting equity transfer in articles of association of LLCs should be comprehensively measured by the golden rules, i.e. “fairness”, “autonomy” and “operability”.


Author(s):  
Fiany Alifia Lasnita ◽  
Muhamad Adji Rahardian Utama

The sense of the limited liability company is a legal entity to be able to run a business that has a capital consisting of a share, which its owners have lots of stock. Because it is composed of capital over shares that can be traded, and changes to the ownership of the company can be done without the need for a dissolution of a company. Limited liability company is a business entity and the magnitude of the capital company which are poured in a basic budget. The wealth of the company separate from the personal wealth of the owners of the company so that it can have its own treasures. Each person can have more than one stock which can be a proof of ownership of a company. The owner of the stock itself has a limited liability, i.e. as much as their shares. In the establishment of limited liability company also required permission and also some important documents that should be owned by a limited liability company to be its foundation.


2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 620
Author(s):  
I Gede Putra Wijaya ◽  
Christine S.T. Kansil

Foreign investors who want to invest in Indonesia must obey the existing rules, namely the Investment Law No. 25 of 2007. The investment law stipulates that if foreign investors want to do business in Indonesia, the foreign investor must establish a company in the form of a legal entity, namely a limited liability company. Requirements for foreign companies can be said as legal entities that must go through the stages of establishing a company until the company ratified by the Ministry of Law and Human Rights. If a foreign company is not a legal entity, the foreign company is not legal and cannot be considered a legal subject in carrying out business activities in Indonesia. Regarding the liability of the foreign company that is to be borne by the private party not by the shareholders because the foreign company is not a legal entity. It is better if foreign investors want to carry out business activities in Indonesia that the business must be in the form of a legal entity in accordance with the investment law’s order to comply with the applicable rules and foreign investors can carry out their business activities properly.


Acta Comitas ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Lidya Permata Dewi

In order to overcome and eradicate the crime of money laundering the president has issued Presidential Regulation No. 13 of 2018 concerning The Implementation of the Principles of Recognizing Beneficial Owners of Corporations in the Context of Prevention and Eradication of Acts Crime of Money Laundering and Crime of Terrorism Funding, so the problem in this study is how is the implementation of Presidential Regulation Number 13 of 2018 in the establishment of a limited liability company and whether the beneficial owner has implemented it. This study uses empirical legal research methods, because it wants to know how the implementation of Presidential Regulation No. 13 of 2018 in the establishment of a limited liability company and whether the beneficial owner has implemented it, to find out this study uses the facta approach and the statute approach. The results of this study are officials appointed by the company to inform the data of the beneficial owner of a company in accordance with Article 18 paragraph (3) of the Presidential Regulation No. 13 of 2018, one of which is a Notary, that the implementation of Presidential Regulation No. 13 of 2018 in the establishment of limited liability companies is in the form of a Statement in which the beneficial owner states that it is true as the owner and depositor of funds within the company, but not all notaries want to implement Presidential Regulation No. 13 of 2018 because, assuming that it will make a boomerang for the notary find out who is actually the beneficial owner of the company and here the notary is still subject to and cling to the Act of Notary Position which is only pouring out what the parties want into the deed. Demi menanggulangi dan memberantas kejahatan tindak pidana pencucian uang ini presiden telah membuat peraturan Presiden No. 13 pada tahun 2018 mengenai Penerapan Prinsip Mengenali Pemilik Manfaat Dari Korporasi Dalam Rangka Pencegahan dan Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Pencucian Uang dan Tindak Pidana Pendanaan Terorisme, sehingga permasalahan dalam penelitian ini adalah bagaimanakah implementasi Peraturan Presiden Nomor 13 Tahun 2018 dalam pendirian perseroan terbatas dan apakah pemilik manfaat sudah ada yang menerapkannya. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode penelitian hukum empiris, dikarenakan ingin mengetahui bagaimanakah implementasi Peraturan Presiden Nomor 13 Tahun 2018 dalam pendirian perseroan terbatas  dan apakah pemilik manfaat sudah ada yang menerapkannya, untuk mengetahuinya penelitian ini menggunakan suatu metode dengan pendekatan fakta atau istilah asingnya the facts approach dan dengan pendekatan peraturan perundang-undangan atau istilah asingnya the statute approach.  Hasil penelitian ini adalah pejabat yang ditunjuk oleh perusahaan untuk menginformasikan data pemilik manfaat dari suatu perusahaan sesuai pada Pasal 18 ayat (3) Peraturan Presiden Nomor 13 Tahun 2018 yang salah satunya adalah Notaris, bahwa implementasi Peraturan Presiden Nomor 13 Tahun 2018 dalam pendirian perseroan terbatas adalah dalam bentuk Surat Pernyataan yang di dalamnya adalah pemilik manfaat menyatakan bahwa memang benar selaku pemilik dan penyetor dana di dalam perusahaan, namun tidak semua notaris mau menerapkan Peraturan Presiden Nomor 13 Tahun 2018 tersebut karena, beranggapan bahwa akan menjadikan bumerang tersendiri bagi Notaris yang mengetahui siapa sebenarnya pemilik manfaat dari perusahaan tersebut dan disini notaris masih tunduk dan berpegang teguh dengan Undang-Undang Jabatan Notaris yaitu hanya menuangkan apa yang menjadi keinginan para pihak ke dalam akta.


Author(s):  
Iwo Jarosz

In recent years we have witnessed an almost unprecedented effort of legislators and legal academics in Europe to make limited liability companies in various jurisdictions more modern, simpler and more accessible. These endeavors are usually related to the liberalization of statutory requirements regarding the minimum share capital amounts. Lively debates among academics and practitioners, as well as regulatory competition, seem to be the factors making the legislative changes dynamic and evolutionary. The issue of limited liability companies’ regulatory reform were also the subject of proposed European legislation, including the now abandoned proposal of a harmonised single-member limited liability company model known as Societas Unius Personae SUP. In Poland there has also been, for  almost a decade, a discussion on whether and how to follow the example of Germany and its Unternehmergesellschaft and other European countries and liberalize the capital requirements for the Polish limited liability company. Lately the Polish legislator has introduced the so-called simple joint-stock company prosta spółka akcyjna, which had been drafted to be an attractive offer for start-ups, aiming, in the perception of its proponents, to achieve the modernization and simplification desired by contemporary legislators and supposedly accomplished in other jurisdictions, all the while maintaining serious levels of creditor protection. The author employs formal-dogmatic and comparative methods to describe the capital structure of the new company type and to confront it with certain other statutory developments, especially the Societas Unius Personae as a serious and well-thought-out, nonetheless failed venture, to try to assess the solutions set forth by the Polish legislator.Kapitał zakładowy prostej spółki akcyjnej w świetle dotychczasowych przepisów i projektów prawodawstwa europejskiegoW ostatnich latach europejscy ustawodawcy i przedstawiciele nauki prawa podejmowali nieomalże bezprecedensowe wysiłki w kierunku modernizacji, uproszczenia i zwiększenia dostępności spółek z ograniczoną odpowiedzialnością. Działania te zazwyczaj zmierzały do liberalizacji ustawowych wymogów dotyczących minimalnych kwot kapitału zakładowego. Czynnikami dynamizującymi zmiany legislacyjne wydają się żywe dyskusje w środowisku akademickim oraz na łonie praktyki, a także konkurencja regulacyjna. Kwestie reformy spółek z ograniczoną odpowiedzialnością były również przedmiotem projektów prawodawstwa europejskiego, w tym projektu dyrektywy w sprawie zharmonizowanego modelu spółki z ograniczoną odpowiedzialnością jednoosobowej znanego jako Societas Unius Personae SUP. Także w Polsce od prawie dekady toczy się dyskusja w przedmiocie zmian dotyczących spółek z o.o., w szczególności tego, czy polskie ustawodawstwo powinno podążyć za przykładem Niemiec i znanej z niemieckiego porządku prawnego Unternehmergesellschaft oraz innych krajów europejskich i zliberalizować wymogi kapitałowe dla tego typu spółek. Sejm przegłosował niedawno ustawę wprowadzającą tak zwaną prostą spółkę akcyjną. Ten nowy typ spółki ma w założeniu stanowić atrakcyjną propozycję dla start-upów, prowadząc — zdaniem jej zwolenników — do modernizacji i uproszczenia pożądanego przez współczesnych prawodawców przy jednoczesnym utrzymaniu stosownego poziomu ochrony wierzycieli. Autor próbuje ocenić rozwiązania zaproponowane przez polskiego ustawodawcę w zakresie struktury kapitałowej nowego typu spółki, konfrontując je z innymi rozwiązaniami, w tym w szczególności z projektem Societas Unius Personae — przedsięwzięciem ostatecznie nieudanym, choć przemyślanym i zasługującym na uwagę.


2020 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 369
Author(s):  
Maleakhi W. Sitompul

Research on the recording of changes to directors in the relevant Ministry, namely the Ministry of Law and Human Rights, aims to examine whether the authorized Directors in a company are Directors registered at the Ministry of Law and Human Rights. In addition, it is also to examine whether the provisions of Law no. 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Companies and / or the Company's Articles of Association is sufficient to resolve disputes of authority in the event of a dispute regarding the composition and number of directors in a company, which one has the right to act against other parties. Disputes regarding the composition and authority of the Board of Directors in a limited liability company often become disputes in court, even though Indonesia's positive legal provisions have provided clear and firm rules about who the Board of Directors can represent in and out of court. Based on research, it can be seen that the starting point is from the provisions in Law No. 40 of 2007 Articles 29 and 98, changes in the members of the board of directors can only be effective for third parties, as from the date the changes are recorded in the Company Register by the Minister of Law and Human Rights in accordance with Law No. 40 of 2007 Articles 29 and 98.


2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-62
Author(s):  
I Kadek Sridana ◽  
I Nyoman Putu Budiartha ◽  
I Putu Gede Seputra

Abstract-Mergers can be said as a strategy or one way to increase a company, therefore there is a need for legal protection for minority shareholders if they do not agree with the merger but the merger is still implemented, and the shareholders are forced to accept the merger. The formulation of the problem in this case is (1) what is the position of the minority shareholders for the limited liability company that merges? (2) What is the legal protection of minority shareholders in a limited liability company that merges? This research method uses a normative research method by approaching the problem in the form of a draft law that relates to the problem under study. The sources of legal material to be used are sourced from research, the literature in the form of primary legal material and secondary legal material. The result of this study are the legal position of the minority shareholders of the company (PT) that carried out the merger has been regulated in Law number 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Companies and in Government Regulation Number 27 of 1998 concerning merger, consolidation and takeover of the interests of minority shareholders. In general, the law of limited liability companies is a guideline in the framework of protecting minority shareholders. Protection of minority shares is one of the important things, especially when the company conducts legal actions such as mergers, both preventive legal protection and repressive legal protection. Keywords: Legal protection, shareholders, mergers Abstrak- Merger dapat dikatakan sebagai strategi atau salah satu cara untuk meningkatkan suatu perusahaan oleh karena itu perlu adanya perlindungan hukum terhadap pemegang saham minoritas apabila mereka tidak setuju dengan merger namun merger tetap dilaksanakan, dan pemegang saham tersebut dipaksakan untuk menerima merger tersebut. Adapun rumusan masalah dalam hal ini (1) Bagaimanakah kedudukan pemegang saham minoritas bagi perseroan terbatas yang melakukan merger? (2) Bagaimanakah perlindungan hukum terhadap pemegang saham minoritas pada perseroan terbatas yang melakukan merger? Metode penelitian ini menggunakan metode penelitian normatif dengan melakukan pendekatan masalah berupa pedekatan perundang-undangan yang berkaitan dengan masalah yang dikaji. Adapun sumber bahan hukum yang akan digunakan yakni bersumber dari penelitian, kepustakaan berupa bahan hukum primer dan bahan hukum sekunder. Adapun hasil dari penelitian ini adalah kedudukan hukum pemegang saham minoritas terhadap perusahaan (PT) yang melakukan merger, sudah diatur dalam Undang-undang nomor 40 tahun 2007 tentang Perseroan terbatas serta dalam Peraturan pemerintah Nomor 27 Tahun 1998 tentang penggabungan, peleburan, dan pengambilalihan tentang kepentingan pemegang saham minoritas. Secara umum hukum perseroan terbatas menjadi pedoman dalam rangka perlindungan pemegang saham minoritas. Perlindungan terhadap saham minoritas merupakan salah satu hal yang penting terutama saat persroan melakukan perbuatan hukum seperti merger baik perlindungan hukum secara preventif maupun perlindungan hukum secara represif. Kata kunci: Perlindungan hukum, Pemegang saham, Merger


2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 70-77
Author(s):  
Dragana Bešlić-Obradović ◽  
Ivana Bešlić-Rupić

The contemporary business environment has imposed the need to continuously find and define new concepts and tools that support the strategic management of a company. Among them, Economic Value Added - EVA is considered as the essential principle for the evaluation of company performance in terms of shareholder return. EVA is taxable profit less the total cost of capital (borrowed and owned). The contribution of the EVA concept is reflected by looking at economic rather than accounting profits. This concept was adopted by many companies in Serbia, among which is also "SBB" limited liability company - Belgrade.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document