Minimum Authorized Capital After the Enactment of Job Creation Law:  Status Quo, Controversies, and Road Ahead

In a limited liability company, capital becomes one of the primary elements. However, the regulation regarding capital in Indonesia has changed several times, as its latest concern on the enactment of the omnibus bill on Job Creation Law in 2020. This paper discussed the following problems. First, what are the status quo and the development of regulations regarding minimum capital requirements in Indonesia? Second, what are the pros and cons of minimum capital requirement regulations and their developments in other countries? Third, what is the minimum capital requirements regulation that suits the conditions in Indonesia? This paper used legal research, emphasizing literature study. In so doing, the data were analyzed with the deductive method to construct conclusions. This paper showed that each limited liability company from the 1995 Limited Company Law, the 2007 Limited Company Law to the Job Creation Law had various minimum capital requirements provisions that lasted to its abolishment under the Job Creation Law. In this context, the initial policy on the minimum capital requirement was to protect creditors. In practice, however, this policy was not effective because of many other effective alternatives to protect creditors, by encouraging transparency in corporate transactions and offering easy access to corporate information. The dominance of micro and small business units in Indonesia (99% of business units) explained the urgency of eliminating minimum capital requirements regulations. The elimination of minimum authorized capital requirements was a tremendous effort to strengthen micro and small enterprises. KEYWORDS: Limited Liability Company, Job Creation Law, Company Law.

Download Full-text

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

Yustitia ◽

10.31943/yustitia.v4i1.26 ◽

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.

Download Full-text

NIEMIECKA USTAWA O SPÓŁCE Z OGRANICZONĄ ODPOWIEDZIALNOŚCIĄ – NAJNOWSZE ZMIANY

Zeszyty Prawnicze ◽

10.21697/zp.2008.8.2.08 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 8 (2) ◽

pp. 191

Author(s):

Aleksandra Gawrysiak-Zabłocka

Keyword(s):

German Law ◽

Limited Liability ◽

Case Law ◽

Company Law ◽

Complex Case ◽

Limited Liability Company ◽

The European Union ◽

Legal Regime ◽

Limited Company ◽

German Parliament

The German Private Limited Liability Act – Recent ChangesSummaryThe Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung (GmbH – Private Limited Company) is the most popular organizational form for businesses in Germany – numbering almost one million entities. Nevertheless, few changes had been made since its inception in the late 19th century, leading to complex case law. Moreover, in the famous Centros case the ECJ decided that a businessperson may legally incorporate his or her business anywhere in the European Union, even if this happens for the sole reason of avoiding a stricter national corporate regime. As a result many Germans decided to establish company in U.K. because Ltd. legal regime was by no means more transparent and accessible than the GmbH legal regime (no requirement of minimum share capital). In such a situation, after long discussions, German parliament adopted Gesetz zur Modernisierung des GmbH-Rechts und zur Bekämpfung von Missbräuchen (MoMiG – Law for the Modernisation of the German Limited Liability Company Law and the Prevention of Misuse) which came into force on the 1 November 2008. In the article some of the most important features of the new GmbH-Recht are analyzed. Changes in German law could be an important inspiration for Polish legislator since the discussion on how to make Polish spółka z ograniczoną odpowiedzialnością more competitive and how to prevent abuse of company law is currently underway in our country.

Download Full-text

Alasan Pembuatasan Dan Perubahan Ketentuan Terkait Modal Dalam Perseroan Terbatas

Jurnal Akta ◽

10.30659/akta.v5i1.2549 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 5 (1) ◽

pp. 203

Author(s):

Eka Purnamasari ◽

Gunarto Gunarto

Keyword(s):

Government Regulation ◽

Limited Liability ◽

Company Law ◽

Economic Organization ◽

Limited Liability Company ◽

Organization Capital ◽

Survival And Development ◽

The Government ◽

A Company ◽

Authorized Capital

AbstrakModal merupakan faktor yang sangat penting, sebagai salah satu sarana untuk meraih keuntungan dalam kegiatan usaha, juga bagi eksitensi kelangsungan kehidupan maupun pengembangan perseroan terbatas sebagai organisasi ekonomi. Adapun Struktur modal seperti yang ditegaskan dalam Penjelasan Pasal 41 ayat (1) UUPT 2007, bahwa yang dimaksud dengan modal perseroan adalah modal dasar, ditempatkan, modal disetor. Dalam Pasal 32 ayat (1) UUPT 2007 terdapat pengaturan mengenai batas mininal dari modal dasar perseroan yaitu paling sedikit Rp 50.000.000,00 (lima puluh juta rupiah) kurang dari jumlah tersebut tidak diperbolehkan. Untuk modal ditempatkan juga ada batas minimal yang dicantumkan dalam Pasal 33 ayat (1) UUPT 2007, yaitu paling sedikit 25% (dua puluh lima persen) dari modal dasar, harus ditempatkan. Kemudian untuk modal disetor berdasarkan Pasal 33 ayat (1) UUPT 2007 dihubungkan dengan ketentuan Pasal 33 ayat (3) UUPT 2007 dan penjelasannya harus disetor penuh, maksudnya adalah jika modal ditempatkan 50% dari modal dasar, maka modal yang harus disetor penuh 50% dan tidak dapat diangsur. Tetapi, pada Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 29 Tahun 2016 tentang Perubahan Modal Dasar Perseroan Terbatas ditentukan lain terkait modal dasar Perseroan Terbatas, yaitu modal dasar tersebut dikembalikan ke kesepakatan Para pendiri Perseroan Terbatas. Dari sekilas penjelasan diatas kita dapat melihat bahwa apabila kita ingin mendirikan sebuah Perseroan Terbatas ada pengaturan yang terkait mengenai batas minimal dari modal dalam peseroan terbatas, masalahnya adalah apakah alasan pembuatan dan perubahan ketentuan tentang modal Perseroan Terbatas?Kata Kunci : Modal, Perseroan Terbatas, Pengaturan. AbstractCapital is a very important factor, because one means to gain profit in business activities, also for the survival and development of a limited liability company as an economic organization. Capital structure as referred to in Elucidation of Article 41 paragraph (1) law number 49 of 2007 on limited liability company, company capital is the authorized capital, issued capital and paid up capital. In Article 32 Paragraph (1) of the Limited Liability Company Act of 2007 there is a regulation concerning the minimum limit of authorized capital of a company of at least Rp 50,000,000.00 (fifty million rupiah), less than the amount that is not permitted. For the issued capital there is also a minimum limit specified in Article 33 paragraph (1) UUPT 2007 which is at least 25% (twenty five percent) of the authorized capital. Furthermore, the paid up capital under Article 33 paragraph (1) of the Limited Liability Company Act of 2007 relates to the provisions of Article 33 paragraph (3) of the Limited Liability Company Law in 2007 and the explanation shall be paid, that is, if the capital is placed 50% of the authorized capital, must be paid in full 50% and can not be paid in installments. However, the government regulation number 29 of 2016 on changes in the authorized capital of a limited liability company is determined in relation to the authorized capital of a limited liability company, namely the athorized capital is returned to the agreement of the founders of the limited liability company. From the description above we can see that if we want to establish a Limited Liability Company there is a related regulation concerning the minimum limit of capital in a limited liability company, the problem is the reason why arrangements are made and needed in the Limited Liability Company?Keyword : Capital, Limited Liability company, arrangements.

Download Full-text

Pembuatan Surat Izin Usaha Perdagangan Bagi Perseroan Terbatas Dengan Terbitnya Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 29 Tahun 2016

Acta Comitas ◽

10.24843/ac.2019.v04.i03.p02 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 4 (3) ◽

pp. 364

Author(s):

Anak Agung Bagus Putra Wibawa

Keyword(s):

Government Regulation ◽

Limited Liability ◽

Limited Liability Company ◽

Normative Study ◽

Legal Concept ◽

Company Limited ◽

Limited Company ◽

Trading Activities ◽

The Government ◽

Authorized Capital

The issuance of Government Regulation Number 29 Year 2016 concerning Changes in the Authorized Capital of Limited Liability has an impact on the founders of the company related to the cost reduction of the establishment of a Limited Liability Company which gives freedom to the founders of the company in determining the legal basis of a Limited Liability Company. Limited Liability Company is a company that carries out trading activities. Every company that carries out trading activities is obliged to take care of the Trade Business License. The making of Trade Business License is regulated in the Minister of Trade's Regulation No. 46 / M-DAG / PER / 9/2009 concerning Issuance of Trading Business License. One of the conditions is to have a wealth of Rp 50,000,000 (fifty million rupiah). From this regulation arises a norm conflict between the Government Regulation and the Ministerial Regulation. The problems arising from this research are the process of establishing a limited company and how is the legal implication of establishing a limited company in making a trade business license with government regulation number 29 of 2016. This research is a normative study with a legal approach and a legal concept analysis approach. The process of establishing a limited liability company is by ordering the name of the company online, then making the deed of establishment of a Limited Liability Company with the conditions set. After all is fulfilled, then the registration is done online on the web https://www.ahu.go.id. the legal implications of establishing a Limited Company in making Trade Business License with Government Regulation Number 29 of 2016 is that the company's founder can make Trade Business License with an authorized capital based on the agreement of the company's founders. Terbitnya Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 29 Tahun 2016 tentang Perubahan Modal Dasar Perseroan Terbatas berdampak pada pendiri perseroan terkait keringanan biaya pendirian Perseroan Terbatas (PT) yang memberikan kebebasan bagi para pendiri perseroan dalam menentukan bersaran modal dasar Perseroan Terbatas. Perseroan Terbatas merupakan perusahaan yang didalamnya melakukan kegiatan perdagangan. Setiap perushaaan yang melakukan kegiatan perdagangan wajib untuk mengurus Surat Izin Usaha Perdangan (SIUP). Pembuatan SIUP diatur dalam Perautran Menteri Perdagangan Republik Indonesia Nomor 46/M-DAG/PER/9/2009 tentang Penerbitan Surat Izin Usaha Perdagangan. Salah satu syaratnya adalah memiliki kekayaan sebesar Rp 50.000.000, (lima puluh juta rupiah). Dari peraturan tersebut timbul konflik norma antara Peraturan Pemerintah dengan Peraturan Menteri tersebut. Adapun permasalahan yang timbul dari penelitian ini adalah Bagaimanakah Proses Pendirian Persoran Terbatas dan Bagaimanakah Implikasi Hukum Pendirian Perseoran Terbatas Dalam Membuat Surat Izin Usaha Perdagangan dengan Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 29 Tahun 2016. Penelitian ini berupa penelitian normatif dengan pendeketan undang-undang dan pendekatan analisis konsep hukum. Peroses pendirian perseroan terbatas yaitu dengan memesan nama perseroan secara online, lalu pembuatan akta pendirian Perseroan Terbatas dengan syarat-syarat yang telah diatur. Setelah semua terpenuhi baru dilakukan pendaftarkan melalui online di web https://www.ahu.go.id. implikasi hukum pendirian Perseoran Terbatas dalam membuat SIUP dengan Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 29 Tahun 2016 adalah pendiri perseroan dapat membuat SIUP dengan modal dasar kesepakatan para pendiri perseroan.

Download Full-text

PERAN NOTARIS DALAM PENDIRIAN PT USAHA MIKRO DAN KECIL

Jurnal Hukum dan Kenotariatan ◽

10.33474/hukeno.v5i2.11003 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 5 (2) ◽

pp. 202

Author(s):

Diyan Isnaeni

Keyword(s):

Government Regulation ◽

Job Creation ◽

Legal Protection ◽

Limited Liability ◽

Small Enterprises ◽

Limited Liability Company ◽

Legal Certainty ◽

Business World ◽

Limited Company ◽

Micro And Small Enterprises

AbstrakDisahkannya PP Nomor 8 Tahun 2021 sebagai peraturan pelaksanaan UU Nomor 11 Tahun 2020 tentang Cipta Kerja yang melahirkan Perseroan Terbatas Usaha Mikro dan Kecil sebagai etintas baru dalam dunia usaha di Indonesia, telah menunjukkan keseriusan Pemerintah Indonesia mendukung dan memberikan peluang sebesar-besarnya kepada Usaha Mikro dan Kecil untuk mengembangkan usahanya dan memberikan perlindungan hukum kepada badan hukum perorangan. Perseroan Terbatas Usaha Mikro dan Kecil dalam proses pendiriannya dapat dilakukan tanpa melalui perjanjian dan akta notaris dan hanya membuat surat pernyataan. Pendirian Perseroan Terbatas hanya melalui surat pernyataan tidak menjamin legalitas dokumen dan identitas pendiri. Legalitas Perseroan Terbatas akan diragukan dan beresiko karena bisa melakukan perbuatan melawan hukum, dan konsekuensinya Perseroan Terbatas sebagai badan hukum maka legalitas dokumen dan identitas pendiri harus dapat dipertanggungjawabkan. Sehingga dalam menjamin kepastian hukum dan perlindungan hukum, akta pendirian Pereroan Terbatas yang dibuat oleh Notaris tetap diperlukan untuk menjamin legalitas Perseroan Terbatas, keabsahan dokumen dan identitas pendiri walaupun hanya Perseroan Terbatas untuk Usaha Mikro Kecil.Kata Kunci: PT Perorangan, Usaha Mikro dan Kecil, Kepastian Hukum AbstractThe passing of Government Regulation Number 8 of 2021 as the implementing regulation of Law Number 11 of 2020 concerning Job Creation which gave birth to PT Micro and Small Enterprises as a new ethic in the business world in Indonesia, has shown the seriousness of the Indonesian Government to support and provide the greatest possible opportunity for Micro and Small Enterprises to develop their business and provide legal protection to individual legal entities. In the process of establishing a Limited Liability Company, Micro and Small Enterprises can be carried out without going through a notarial agreement and deed and only making a statement letter. The establishment of a Limited Liability Company only through a statement letter does not guarantee the legality of the documents and the identity of the founder. The legality of a Limited Company will be doubted and at risk because it can commit acts against the law, and the consequence is that the Limited Company is a legal entity, the document legality and identity of the founder must be accounted for. So that in guaranteeing legal certainty and legal protection, a Limited Liability Company establishment deed made by a notary is still needed to guarantee the legality of the limited Company, document validity and the identity of the founder even though it is only Limited Liability Companies for Micro and Small Businesses.Keywords: Individual Limited Companies, Micro and Small Enterprises, Legal Certainty

Download Full-text

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

Legal Standing Jurnal Ilmu Hukum ◽

10.24269/ls.v5i1.3552 ◽

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.

Download Full-text

Limited Liability Companies in the Slovak and European Legal Context

Studia commercialia Bratislavensia ◽

10.2478/stcb-2018-0020 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 11 (40) ◽

pp. 256-268

Author(s):

Lenka Vačoková

Keyword(s):

Future Development ◽

Limited Liability ◽

European Parliament ◽

Limited Liability Company ◽

European Area ◽

Legal Provisions ◽

Legal Context ◽

Commercial Code ◽

Limited Company ◽

The Future

Abstract This paper analyses provisions of a Limited Liability Company under the Slovak Commercial Code, mainly conditions governing the process of foundation and incorporation of the company and the structure of company bodies. Legal provisions of the Limited Liability Company are primarily compared with Private Limited Company by Shares established according the Companies Act 2006 and secondarily with proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on single-member Private Limited Liability Companies. The result of the research is a comparison of the Slovak and the British legislation and an effort to predict the future development of Private Limited Liability Companies in the European area.

Download Full-text

KEBERADAAN PEMEGANG SAHAM DALAM RUPS DENGAN SISTEM TELECONFERENCE TERKAIT JARINGAN BERMASALAH DALAM PERSPEKTIF CYBER LAW

Jurnal Magister Hukum Udayana (Udayana Master Law Journal) ◽

10.24843/jmhu.2015.v04.i01.p15 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 4 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Ni Ketut Supasti Dharmawan

Keyword(s):

Limited Liability ◽

General Meeting ◽

Company Law ◽

Limited Liability Company ◽

Legal Subject ◽

Network Problem ◽

Network Problems ◽

Cyber Law ◽

Internet Network ◽

Legal Right

In Indonesia, the General meeting of Shareholder through teleconference mechanism can be conducted under the provision of Article 77 of Law No. 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Company. This teleconferencing mechanism allows all participants to see and to hear each other as well as to participate in the teleconference meeting. There is legal vacuum with regard to position of shareholders in the General Meeting by teleconference mechanism, especially in the case of network problems. However, by analogy with the legal construct of the provisions of Article 90 of the Company Law can be stated that the position of shareholders continues to be recognized as a legal subject who has legal right and has valid votes counted even if the minutes of the meeting have not been signed electronically because internet network problem as long as treatise or the minute of General Meeting of shareholders is made by notarial deed and shall be signed by the Notary who made the deed.

Download Full-text

Two Types of Regulatory Competition: Competitive Federalism Versus Reflexive Harmonisation. A Law and Economics Perspective on Centros

Cambridge yearbook of European legal studies ◽

10.5235/152888712802815806 ◽

1999 ◽

Vol 2 ◽

pp. 231-260 ◽

Cited By ~ 10

Author(s):

Simon Deakin

Keyword(s):

Law And Economics ◽

Capital Requirements ◽

Company Law ◽

Regulatory Competition ◽

The European Union ◽

Legal Rules ◽

Minimum Capital ◽

The Uk ◽

The Right ◽

Competitive Federalism

There is a growing debate about the desirability of allowing greater scope for regulatory competition inside the European Union. The argument for doing so is that competition between the Member States in the production of legal rules will lead to greater economic efficiency than can be achieved through the harmonisation of standards. The Court’s ruling in Centros appears to mark a significant move in the direction of inter-state competition in company law. In deciding that a company founded by Danish citizens in the UK, thereby avoiding Danish minimum capital requirements, could not be denied the right to register an overseas branch in Denmark for the purposes of trading there, the Court has rekindled a long-running debate about the siège réel doctrine.

Download Full-text

Share capital in the Polish simple joint-stock company in light of the existing law and proposed European legislation

Studenckie Prace Prawnicze, Administratywistyczne i Ekonomiczne ◽

10.19195/1733-5779.29.6 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 29 ◽

pp. 77-94

Author(s):

Iwo Jarosz

Keyword(s):

Limited Liability ◽

Regulatory Reform ◽

Capital Requirements ◽

Regulatory Competition ◽

Joint Stock Company ◽

Limited Liability Company ◽

Stock Company ◽

Share Capital ◽

European Legislation ◽

Legislative Changes

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.

Download Full-text