scholarly journals BENTUK KETERLIBATAN PEMEGANG SAHAM DALAM PERBUATAN MELAWAN HUKUM PERSEROAN TERBATAS YANG DAPAT MEMPERLUAS PERTANGGUNGJAWABANNYA

Law Review ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 175
Author(s):  
Velliana Tanaya
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Personal Responsibility ◽  
Limited Liability ◽  
General Meeting ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Limited Liability Company ◽  
Conceptual Approach ◽  
Injured Party ◽  
Piercing The Corporate Veil ◽  
Personal Liability

<p><em>Limited Liability Company is the most popular form of business entity in Indonesia because law acknowledges the principle of limited liability of its shareholders, which gives advantages for entrepreneurs running a business. Article 3 Subsection 1 Law No. 40 Year 2007 concerning Limited Liability Company stated that company’s shareholders are not personally liable for agreements made on behalf of the Company and are not liable for the Company’s losses in excess of their prospective shareholding. However, in Article 3 Subsection 2 there are some waivers of the principle, one of the exceptions is if the relevant shareholders are involved in illegal actions committed by the Company. It is interesting because in fact, usually, shareholder do not get involved in company’s management. Through normative research with Statute and Conceptual Approach on Piercing the Corporate Veil, shareholders can be accountable for personal responsibility if shareholders in giving his/her voting rights in General Meeting of Shareholders neglect his/her duty of care, or if besides of being shareholders he/she also become Board of Directors and/or Board of Commissioners who runs the Company’s management, or if the shareholders give order or command to Board of Directors or Board of Commissioners or company’s employee to perform actions that causing the Company committed an unlawful act and harm others (tort). Personal liability can be requested if injured party filing a tort lawsuit and set the relevant shareholders as a defendant besides the Company.</em></p>

scholarly journals PROGRESIFITAS HUKUM PENGEMBALIAN DEVIDEN SAHAM INTERIM PERSEROAN TERBATAS PADA UUPT NO.40 TAHUN 2007

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Bella Mutiara Wahab
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Method ◽  
Stock Exchange ◽  
Limited Liability ◽  
Company Law ◽  
Limited Liability Company ◽  
Conceptual Approach ◽  
Dividend Distribution ◽  
The Board Of Directors ◽  
Annual Book

AbstractProgressive law must place the law in a very close position with the law's community or stakeholders. This position is called responsive, progressive law and is always associated with stakeholders' reality and needs to create justice and happiness as law aspired itself. Also, progressive law emphasizes social integration to overcome public moral insularity.Starting from the viewpoint of progressive law, the author looks at the laws and regulations that discuss the return of interim dividends as stated in the Limited Liability Company Law No. 40 of 2007, article 72, article 72 states that companies allow rules related to dividend distribution in a temporary (interim) way. The article is then interpreted as that if the company has positive profits, the company is allowed to distribute dividends before the company closes the book at the end of the year, provided that the board of directors officially announces the distribution with the approval of the GMS that the positive profits obtained by the company before closing the book will come as dividends interim. As a result, the company competes to distribute interim dividends to increase and show its credibility to investors. It was recorded on the Indonesian stock exchange (IDX) that in September 2020, 73 companies distributed interim dividends.However, article 72 paragraph 5 of the Limited Liability Company Law No. 40 of 2007 explains that if after the company distributes interim dividends to shareholders and at the end of the closing of the annual book the company suffers a loss, the shareholders must return the dividends they have received. If the shareholder does not return it, the directors and commissioners are jointly responsible for covering the company's losses.This viewpoint is the basis for finding the location of the value and form of legal progressivity regarding the mechanism of interim share dividends in limited liability companies as stated in UUPT No.40 of 2007 Article 72 using a normative research method with a conceptual approach. 

scholarly journals TINDAKAN ULTRA VIRES DIREKSI DAN AKIBAT HUKUMNYA BAGI PERSEROAN TERBATAS

Yurispruden ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 86
Author(s):  
Abdul Rokhim
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Limited Liability ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Legal Action ◽  
Limited Liability Company ◽  
Conceptual Approach ◽  
Legal Entity ◽  
The Board Of Directors ◽  
The Law

ABSTRACTThe Actions of the Board of Directors are legally qualified as the actions of the Company as a legal entity if carried out by the authority and objectives of the Company as stated in the company's articles of association. The actions of directors that are carried out outside the authority or beyond the authority(ultra vires)cannot be qualified as the actions of the company. As a result, such legal action is not binding on the Company and only binds the Board of Directors personally with third parties. The problems examined are the limits of authority of the Board of Directors according to the UUPT and the doctrine and concept of ultra vires directors. Types of normative juridical research with conceptual approach and statute approach. The actions of the board of directors as long as it is carried out within the limits of the authority granted by the law and the articles of association of PT(intra vires)are legally viewed as the actions of PT as a legal entity. Actions of the Board of Directors that are carried out outside the authority or exceed their authority as stipulated in the laws and articles of association of PT(ultra vires)the Board of Directors must be personally responsible with third parties.Keywords: Ultra Vires Action; Board of Directors; Limited Liability Company ABSTRAKTindakan Direksi secara hukum dikualifikasi sebagai tindakan perseroan selaku badan hukum apabila dilakukan sesuai dengan kewenangan dan tujuan perseroan sebagaimana tercantum dalam anggaran dasar perseroan. Tindakan direksi yang dilakukan di luar kewenangan atau melampaui kewenangan (ultra vires) tidak dapat dikualifikasi sebagai tindakan perseroan. Akibatnya, tindakan hukum tersebut tidak mengikat perseroan dan hanya mengikat Direksi secara pribadi dengan pihak ketiga. Permasalahan yang diteliti yaitu batas-batas kewenangan Direksi menurut UUPT dan doktrin dan konsep ultra vires direksi. Jenis penelitian yuridis normatif dengan pendekatan konsep (conceptual approach) dan pendekatan peraturan perundang-undangan (statute approach). Tindakan direksi sepanjang dilakukan dalam batas-batas kewenangan yang diberikan oleh undang-undang dan anggaran dasar PT (intra vires) secara hukum dipandang sebagai tindakan PT selaku badan hukum. Tindakan Direksi yang dilakukan di luar kewenangan atau melampaui kewenangannya sebagaimana diatur dalam undang-undang dan anggaran dasar PT (ultra vires) Direksi harus bertanggung jawab secara pribadi dengan pihak ketiga.Kata Kunci: Tindakan Ultra Vires; Direksi; Perseroan Terbatas

scholarly journals TANGGUNG JAWAB PEMEGANG SAHAM PERSEROAN TERBATAS MENURUT HUKUM POSITIF

2014 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 72
Author(s):  
Mr Kurniawan
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Limited Liability ◽  
General Meeting ◽  
Commercial Law ◽  
The Board Of Directors ◽  
Personal Assets ◽  
Personal Liability ◽  
Unlimited Liability

Limited Liability Companies have completeness instrument called organ corporation which consists of General Meeting of Shareholders (GMS), the board of directors, and the board of commissioners. According to Commercial Law (KUHD), Act No. 1 of 1995 jo. Act No. 40 of 2007 on Limited Liability Companies, the principle liability of General Meeting of Shareholders (GMS) is limited on their share. But, if it is proven that, among others, there has been a mixing of the shareholder’s personal assets and the Company’s assets, so the limited liability turns into unlimited liability or personal liability. Perseroan Terbatas (PT) memiliki alat kelengkapan yang disebut organ perseroan terdiri dari Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham (RUPS), Direksi dan Dewan Komisaris. Menurut Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Dagang (KUHD), UU PT No. 1 Tahun 1995 jo. UU PT No. 40 Tahun 2007, tanggung jawab Pemegang Saham (RUPS) pada prinsipnya adalah bersifat terbatas pada saham yang dimiliki. Akan tetapi, apabila dapat dibuktikan bahwa telah terjadi pembauran harta kekayaan pribadi Pemegang Saham dengan harta kekayaan perseroan, maka tanggung jawab terbatas tersebut akan berubah menjadi tanggung jawab tidak terbatas atau tanggung jawab pribadi.

scholarly journals PERKEMBANGAN TANGGUNG JAWAB PEMEGANG SAHAM PERSEOAN TERBATAS DALAM UNDANG-UNDANG NASIONAL MENGGANTIKAN HUKUM WARISAN KOLONIAL

Yustitia ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-15
Author(s):  
Acep Rohendi
Keyword(s):  
Personal Responsibility ◽  
Limited Liability ◽  
Company Law ◽  
Limited Liability Company ◽  
East Indies ◽  
The Third ◽  
Commercial Code ◽  
Limited Company ◽  
Piercing The Corporate Veil ◽  
Dutch East Indies

Law No. 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Companies (UUPT) revokes Law Number 1 Year 1995 concerning Limited Liability Companies (UUPTL). This UUPTL replaces the provisions of a limited liability company inherited from the Dutch East Indies contained in the Commercial Code (KUHD) stipulated in the Third Section concerning Limited Liability Companies starting from Article 36 to Article 56 KUHD. The shareholders who are regulated in the UUPTL and the KHUD are not personally responsible for the agreements made on behalf of the Company and are also not responsible for the Company's losses in excess of the value of the shares they have. The KUHD also states that shareholders are not responsible for more than the full amount of their shares. Its development after being determined by the Company Law in 2007, the responsibility of the shareholders is not absolutely valid. The liability is unlimited and personal responsibility is fully imposed on the shareholders of the limited company in the 2007 Company Law. If the shareholders of a limited company violate or fulfill the elements stipulated in Article 3 paragraph (2) of the Company Law, or known as the Piercing The Corporate Veil principle (disclosure of the company's veil). This development is a sanction to shareholders of a limited liability company, which in the previous provision was unknown.

Protecting the Limited Liability Feature of Your Family Business: Evidence from the U.S. Court System

2001 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 325-334 ◽  
Author(s):  
Deborah L. Murphy ◽  
J. Edward Murphy
Keyword(s):  
Organizational Structure ◽  
Family Business ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Potential Risk ◽  
Limited Liability ◽  
Court System ◽  
Limited Liability Company ◽  
Piercing The Corporate Veil ◽  
Personal Liability ◽  
The U.S

One of the benefits cited for the organizational structure of a corporation or limited liability company is the limited liability feature associated with these forms of organization. However, our legal system contains a judicial doctrine known as piercing the corporate veil, which essentially asks the courts to disregard the limited liability feature of the organization and impose personal liability on the shareholders, officers, andqor directors. This study provides evidence regarding the extent to which the U.S. courts have ruled to pierce the corporate veil and suggests steps that family-owned businesses can take to minimize this potential risk.

scholarly journals ANALISIS YURIDIS PEMBERHENTIAN ANGGOTA DIREKSI DENGAN TANPA DIDAHULUI ADANYA PEMBELAAN DIRI DALAM RUPS [JURIDIC ANALYSIS REGARDING TERMINATION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS WITHOUT SELF DEFENSE IN THE GENERAL MEETING OF SHAREHOLDERS]

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 133
Author(s):  
Felicia Darlene
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Limited Liability ◽  
General Meeting ◽  
Company Law ◽  
District Court ◽  
Limited Liability Company ◽  
Self Defense ◽  
The Board Of Directors ◽  
Bahasa Indonesia

<em>One of the sectors being developed by the Indonesian government is economic growth, which impact on increasing Limited Liability Companies. Provisions that contain procedures for managing a Limited Liability Company are regulated in Law Number 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Companies (UU PT), one of which is the procedure for dismissing members of the Board of Directors. Article 105 of the Company Law stipulates that the dismissal of a member of the Board of Directors is taken after the person concerned is given the opportunity to defend himself. Furthermore, regarding legal protection for the dismissal of members of the Board of Directors who violate the provisions of the Company Law. The Law on Judicial Power regulates the absolute competence of each judiciary. With absolute competence, each judicial body has different jurisdiction to judge. The method used in this study is normative juridical. The results and conclusions of this study are that the dismissal of members of the Board of Directors without any prior self-defense in the GMS is invalid if the members of the Board of Directors object to his dismissal. Legal protection for members of the Board of Directors who are dismissed not in accordance with the provisions of the Company Law is to file a lawsuit to the District Court.<br /><br /></em><strong>BAHASA INDONESIA ABSTRACT:</strong><p>Salah satu sektor yang sedang dikembangkan oleh pemerintah Indonesia adalah pertumbuhan ekonomi, yang berdampak pada meningkatnya Perseroan Terbatas. Ketentuan yang memuat tata cara pengurusan Perseroan Terbatas diatur dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 40 Tahun 2007 tentang Perseroan Terbatas (UU PT), salah satunya adalah tata cara pemberhentian anggota Direksi. Dalam Pasal 105 UU PT diatur bahwa keputusan pemberhentian anggota Direksi diambil setelah yang bersangkutan diberi kesempatan untuk membela diri. Selanjutnya mengenai perlindungan hukum atas pemberhentian anggota Direksi yang melanggar ketentuan UU PT. Undang-Undang Kekuasaan Kehakiman mengatur mengenai kompetensi absolut setiap peradilan. Dengan adanya kompetensi absolut, maka setiap badan peradilan mempunyai yurisdiksi mengadili yang berbeda-beda. Metode yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah yuridis normatif. Hasil dan kesimpulan dari penelitian ini adalah pemberhentian anggota Direksi dengan tanpa didahului adanya pembelaan diri dalam RUPS adalah tidak sah jika anggota Direksi keberatan atas pemberhentian dirinya. Perlindungan hukum bagi anggota Direksi yang diberhentikan tidak sesuai dengan ketentuan UUPT adalah mengajukan gugatan ke Pengadilan Negeri.</p>

scholarly journals STATUS HUKUM PEKERJA YANG DIANGKAT MENJADI ANGGOTA DIREKSI PADA PERSEROAN TERBATAS TANPA ADANYA PENGAKHIRAN PERJANJIAN KERJA

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 33
Author(s):  
Bima Nuranda ◽  
Anita Afriana ◽  
Holyness N Singadimedja
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Limited Liability ◽  
General Meeting ◽  
Limited Liability Company ◽  
Legal Problem ◽  
The Board Of Directors ◽  
Legal Consequences

<em>The appointment of a director in a Limited Liability Company can be chosen from its own workers. In reality, this raises a legal problem when the worker appointed to the Board of Directors is dismissed by the General Meeting of Shareholders (GMS), while the termination has been regulated in Law Number 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Companies, but when workers appointed as members of the board of directors do not accept such dismissals, the aforementioned directors choose to submit the fulfillment of their workers’ rights as stipulated in Law Number 13 of 2003 concerning Employment. From this problem, it can be inferred that there is a lack of clarity regarding the legal status of a worker who is appointed as a board of directors through GMS and the legal consequences when the worker appointed as director is dismissed.</em>

scholarly journals PERLINDUNGAN HUKUM TERHADAP DIREKSI YANG DIBERHENTIKAN TANPA MELALUI RAPAT UMUM PEMEGANG SAHAM (Studi Pada PT. Sumber Andalan Mandiri (SAM))

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 172-183
Author(s):  
Ikhsan Lubis ◽  
Neneng Oktarina
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Personal Responsibility ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Limited Liability ◽  
Secondary Data ◽  
General Meeting ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Primary Data ◽  
The Board Of Directors ◽  
Problem Formulations

One of the most incorporated legal entities as a business entity by business people today is a Limited Liability Company. In practice the mechanism for the appointment, replacement, and dismissal of the Board of Directors is not always adhered to properly by the Company's organs. In the case of PT. SAM with Phiedi as Director of PT. SAM has permanently and permanently dismissed one member of the Board of Directors from his position as a director without going through the GMS. Legal facts, the existence of e-mail dated April 22 and 24 2014 which essentially contained the dismissal of the Directors of PT. SAM is permanent or permanent. This paper discusses several problem formulations, namely: 1) What is the legal protection of directors who are dismissed without going through a general meeting of shareholders according to the positive legal framework in Indonesia? 2) What is the legal effort made by the directors who are dismissed without going through a general meeting of shareholders? This research is a descriptive research. The approach used in this study is a normative juridical approach supported by an empirical juridical approach. The data used in this study are secondary data and primary data. Against all data and materials obtained from the results of the study will be compiled and analyzed qualitatively. The results of the study explain that legal protection against directors who are replaced by directors who are dismissed without going through the GMS then: 1) Each member of the board of directors is personally responsible for the loss of the company; 2) Personal responsibility is attached to the member of the board of commissioners if he is guilty or negligent in carrying out the duties of supervision or giving advice; 3) Although the loss arises from the management of the board of directors, the members of the board of commissioners remain personally responsible if in the supervision of the implementation of the management of the board of directors there is an element of error or negligence of the board of commissioners; and 4) The extent of personal responsibility of the members of the board of commissioners, limited to their mistakes or negligence, and fifth, if the members of the board of commissioners consist of 2 (two) or more, personal responsibility, is jointly responsible for each member of the board of commissioners. Legal efforts made by directors who are dismissed without going through a general meeting of shareholders, then upon dismissal of the Board of Directors without the GMS, the Commissioner must immediately convene an Extraordinary General Meeting of Shareholders to follow up on the temporary dismissal of the Board of Directors by the Board of Commissioners, then as soon as possible the Board of Commissioners calls the shareholders in the framework of the Extraordinary GMS to strengthen its decision. Considering that the Director is a majority shareholder, of course the ordinary GMS will not succeed because there is a quorum rule and the validation of the vote

scholarly journals Perlindungan Hukum Pemegang Saham Minoritas Perseroan Terbatas Tertutup dan Keadilan Berdasar Pancasila

SASI ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 199
Author(s):  
Mustaqim Mustaqim ◽  
Agus Satory
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Qualitative Data ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Limited Liability ◽  
Secondary Data ◽  
General Meeting ◽  
Voting Rights ◽  
Limited Liability Company ◽  
Minority Shareholders ◽  
Full Control

Legal protection for the majority shareholders is sufficiently guaranteed, especially through the mechanism of the RUPS, but this is not the case for minority shareholders, thus creating an injustice problem for minority shareholders. The purpose of this study is to uncover and find out legal protection for minority shareholders in a limited liability company based on Pancasila justice. This research is normative juridical so it uses secondary data with the law approach and qualitative data analysis. The results showed that the General Meeting of Shareholders did not reflect legal protection for minority shareholders, because in every decision making through the General Meeting of Shareholders and various other decisions based on the attendance quorum about the majority of votes present at the General Meeting of Shareholders. Such matter is detrimental to the interests of minority shareholders because without the presence of minority shareholders, a General Meeting of Shareholders can be held, while minority shareholders also have the same rights and obligations and responsibilities. The majority of shareholders hold a large and full control over the company, resulting in minority shareholders, there is no guarantee to get justice based on Pancasila justice. Therefore, the General Meeting of Shareholders must be held if attended by all shareholders with voting rights present or represented. If this is not the case, the results of the General Meeting of Shareholders may be canceled.

scholarly journals THE LEGAL ENTITY OF BAITUL MAAL WAT TAMWIL (BMT) AS A MICRO FINANCIAL INSTITUTION IN INDONESIA

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 140-150
Author(s):  
Moh Syaifur Rijal
Keyword(s):  
Legal Status ◽  
Financial Institution ◽  
Limited Liability ◽  
Limited Liability Company ◽  
Conceptual Approach ◽  
Legal Entity ◽  
Non Profit ◽  
The Status

The purpose of this study is to analyze the legal status and accountability of Baitul Maal Wat Tamwil (BMT) as a financial institution in Indonesia, because so far BMT has two main functions,  the first, Baitul Maal as a non-profit institution that distributes zakat, infaq and alms, and the second, Baitul Tamwil is an institution whose function is to collect and to distribute commercial funds. This research uses normative research using a statutory approach and a conceptual approach. The results of this study indicate that the legal status of BMTs so far can only be established with the status of a cooperative or limited liability company. It refers to the characteristics possessed by BMT itself. The form of BMT accountability follows the form of liability that exists in the form of a BMT legal entity, if the loss is caused by the management or organs, the management or organs are jointly and severally responsible, but otherwise if the management or organs can prove then the management or organs are not jointly responsible for the losses incurred by BMT.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document