scholarly journals The legal protection weakness of the directors board from the risk of losses due to business decisions

Author(s):  
Iwan Permadi ◽  
Kusmono Kusmono ◽  
Sihabudin Sihabudin ◽  
Heru Ratno Hadi

Business is a risk. There is no guarantee the business is run By the board of Directors who will always bring profit. One day profit, no profit, and another time can lose. When business decisions are taken by the board of Directors losses especially in significant amounts can be ascertained will happen nervousness on the board of Directors of the Company. State-Owned Enterprises established for business purposes in the full operation of risk. Law No. 19 of 2003 concerning State-Owned Enterprises does not regulate the protection of the Board of Directors of the Company, meanwhile, Law No. 40 of 2007 on Limited Liability Companies regulation of the protection of the Board of Directors of its implementation gives rise to multi-interpretation. Business decisions made by the Board of Directors of the Company in accordance with the principles of Business Judgement Rule are business risk, should get legal protection. The purpose of this research is to find out the weaknesses of this legal protection. This research includes normative legal research with a statutory approach with The analysis technique in this research is investigation strategy. The results show that there is no legal certainty regarding business decisions taken by Directors who experience losses in business transactions so that the Government / DPR must amend the BUMN Law by adding articles on the legal protection of the Directors of Persero.

2016 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Muhammad Gary Gagarin Akbar

ABSTRAK Direksi mempunyai peran yang sangat vital bagi perseroan. Direksi ibarat nyawa bagi perseroan, tidak mungkin suatu perseroan tanpa adanya direksi. Direksi bertugas sebagai perwakilan perseroan dalam menjalankan perseroan. Dalam prakteknya, direksi sering kali dirugikan akibat keputusan bisnis yang diambilnya. Hal ini diakibatkan oleh belum adanya harmonisasi undang-undang mengenai definisi keuangan negara sehingga memungkinkan direksi dikenakan tindak pidana korupsi jika direksi dalam mengambil keputusan bisnis menimbulkan kerugian bagi perseroan. Jika direksi dalam mengambil suatu keputusan tidak mendapatkan perlindungan hukum maka direksi menjadi takut untuk mengadakan transaksi bisnis. Karena itu dalam hal ini sangat dibutuhkan doktrin Business Judgement Rule sebagai perlindungan hukum bagi direksi dalam melakukan transaksi bisnis agar mereka bisa menjalankan tugasnya dengan maksimal. Selain itu, jika direksi membuat keputusan bisnis yang menimbulkan kerugian untuk perseroan dikarenakan ultra vires atau melampaui kewenangan yang telah ditentukan dalam anggaran dasar atau peraturan perundang-undangan yang berlaku, maka direksi tersebut tidak bisa dilindungi oleh doktrin Business Judgement Rule. Dalam hal direksi melakukan tindakan ultra vires, maka direksi tersebut dapat dikenakan Pasal 97 ayat (3) UUPT, pasal ini menyatakan bahwa setiap anggota direksi bertanggung jawab penuh sampai pada harta pribadi apabila direksi tersebut melakukan kesalahan atau kelalaian yang mengakibatkan perseroan mengalami kerugian, kemudian direksi BUMN juga dapat dikenakan Pasal 1365 mengenai perbuatan melawan hukum yang mengakibatkan kerugian pada orang lain, maka harus membayar ganti rugi kepada pihak yang dirugikan. Kata Kunci: Direksi, BUMN, Business Judgement Rule ABSTRACT Directors have a very important role for company. Directors like soul of the company, impossible a company without directors. Directors served as representative of the company in running the company. In practice, directors are often adversely affected business decision taken. This is caused by the absence of harmonization of legislation on the definition of state finances so as to enable the directors subject to corruption if the directors in making business decisions result in losses for the company. If the directors in taking a decision not to get legal protection, the directors be afraid to conduct business transactions. Therefore in this case is necessary doctrine of Business Judgment Rule as legal protection for directors in the transaction of business so that they can carry out their duties to the fullest. In addition, if directors make business decisions causing losses to the company due to the ultra vires or beyond the authority specified in the statutes or regulations applicable law, the directors can not be protected by the doctrine of the Business Judgment Rule. In the event that the directors act ultra vires, the directors may be subject to Article 97 paragraph (3) of legislation limited liability company, this article states that each member of the board of directors fully responsible to the personal property if the directors of wrongdoing or negligence which resulted in the company at a disadvantage, then the board of directors SOE also be subject to Article 1365 of the unlawful act that caused financial losses to others, it must pay compensation to the injured party. Keywords : Directors, State Owned Enterprises, Business Judgement Rule (BJR)


2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 97-112
Author(s):  
Indriyani Kusumawati ◽  
Yeti Sumiyati

Unlawful acts cannot be separated by a violation of one's rights. This research is based on the phenomenon of directors who are penalized for unlawful acts committed by their employees. In 2021, PT Antam appealed to the court because the board of directors felt aggrieved by the judge's decision to impose damages on the directors of PT Antam. In fact, those who do illegal acts to the detriment of consumers are Eksi Anggraeni and the two employees, Misdianto and Ahmad Purwanto through the lure of discounts without the approval of the company. Limited Liability Companies Law implicitly regulates the concept of legal protection that is already known in some countries, namely the principle of Business Judgement Rule. This principle can be used by directors as a basis for legal protection to achieve justice. Therefore, the purpose of this research is to comprehend the responsibility of the board of directors for actions against employee law that stipulates discounts on the purchase of Antam gold unilaterally associated with the law of limited liability companies and review the application of the principles of Business Judgement Rule to directors who must be responsible for actions against the law of employees. The results of this study concluded that the directors of PT Antam cannot be held accountable. Furthermore, the application of the Business Judgement Rule principle has not been applied to this case, so legal protection to the board of directors is still ignored by the judge and has not shown justice.                  


2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 77-87
Author(s):  
Muhamad Hafizh Akram ◽  
Nisriina Primadani Fanaro

The Board of Directors is one of the most important organs in a Limited Liability Company. Management of the Company that carried out by the board of directors includes running business activities, controlling, and making business decisions that have an impact on a Limited Liability Company whether the decision will cause loss or profit. In making business decisions, the Board of Directors must do so in the manner of good faith, carefully, and in accordance with the aims and objectives of the Company's establishment. If the directors already made the decision the correct manner, they cannot be held personally accountable for the decisions they make. That is what a Business judgment rules is, a doctrine that provides protection to directors to not be personally responsible if the business decisions taken cause losses to the company. Relying on a literature study, the business judgment rule is implicitly regulated in article 92 paragraph 1 and 97 paragraph 5 of Law no. 40 of 2007 regarding the Limited Liability Companies, several cases related to the business judgment rule, this article intends to analyze the implementation of the doctrine of the business judgment rule in Indonesia


2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 72
Author(s):  
Muhammad Akram Syarif Hayyi ◽  
Muhammad Said Karim ◽  
Aminuddin Ilmar

The objective of this study was to hold directors accountable for company losses, the existence of business judgment rule in positive law, and the application of Business Judgment Rule as Legal Protection of the Board of Directors in Corruption Cases. The data obtained was presented analytically descriptively where the facts were described and later analyzed based on the laws and rules applicable in Indonesia as well as the theories. The accountability of the directors of State-Owned Enterprises for the company’s losses could be classified as acts that harm the state’s finances that include administrative, civil, and criminal responsibilities. The existence of business judgment rule doctrine in positive law had been regulated in Article 97 paragraph (5) of Law Number 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Companies but had not been regulated technically related to the procedures for its application. The application of the business judgment rule doctrine as the protection of directors of State-Owned Enterprises in corruption cases should be used as material for consideration related to the removal of the defendant’s fault.


2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 133
Author(s):  
Felicia Darlene

<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>


2020 ◽  
Vol 15 ◽  
pp. 27-33
Author(s):  
Anis Mashdurohatun ◽  
Lenny Mutiara Ambarita ◽  
Gunarto

This research aims to find out the roles and responsibilities of the board of directors in repurchasing shares in limited companies that have not been fair and to reconstruct the roles and responsibilities of the board of directors in repurchasing shares in limited companies based on fair values. This research is a sociolegal research, that is, an alternative approach that tests doctrinal studies of law. The word 'socio' in sociolegal represents the correlation between the context in which the law is located (an interface with a context within which law exists). It was found that the Board of Directors is jointly and severally liable for losses suffered by shareholders in good faith, arising from repurchases that are null and void due to the law. This does not provide fair/balanced legal protection for the parties. The fair values in buying shares are to provide balanced and proportional legal protection. Reconstruction of the roles and responsibilities of the Board of Directors in the repurchase of shares in a limited company based on fair values by carrying out reconstruction of Article 37 paragraph (3) and (5) of Law Number 40 Year 2007 concerning Limited Liability Companies.


2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 172-183
Author(s):  
Ikhsan Lubis ◽  
Neneng Oktarina

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


Legal Spirit ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Billy Pahlevy Islamy

The results of this research are as follows: First, Article 2 and Article 3 of the Anti-Corruption Act does not meet the principles in the formulation of a crime namely lex certa (must be clear and not multiple interpretations) and lex stricta means the formulation of the criminal act must be interpreted firmly and strictly and is prohibited from analogizing so it is not prohibited from analogizing. reflecting legal certainty and contradicting Article 28 D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. The limitation for the Board of Directors to achieve legal certainty and justice is the application of the Business Judgment Rule principle as regulated in the Limited Liability Company Law. Law enforcers must always pay attention and uphold the principle of legality in law enforcement, which reflects legal certainty.Key words: Corruption Crime, Board of Directors Authority, Regional Owned Enterprises (BUMD) Persero Company.


Author(s):  
Aria Dimas Harapan

ABSTRACTThe essence of this study describes the theoretical study of the phenomenon transfortation services online. Advances in technology have changed the habits of the people to use online transfortation In fact despite legal protection in the service based services transfortation technological sophistication has not been formed and it became warm conversation among jurists. This study uses normative juridical research. This study found that the first, the Government must accommodate transfotation online phenomenon in the form of rules that provide legal certainty; second, transfortation online as part of the demands of the times based on technology; third, transfortation online as part of the creative economy for economic growth . 


Tunas Agraria ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 117-135
Author(s):  
Anisa Sekarsari ◽  
Haryo Budhiawan ◽  
Akur Nurasa

Abstract: In order to give the assurance of legal certainty, certainty of rights and legal protection to holders and owners of land rights, the land registration shall be carried out. However, there is still a land dispute which now become a homework for The Government. This is because the certificate which should be a strong evidentiary can not guaranteed the legal certainty for the owner, so the person who right the land can blocking the certificate of land rights at Land Office. The issuance of Regulation Minister of Agrarian Affairs and Spatial / Head of National Land Office Number 13 Year of 2017 concerning the Procedures of Block and Sita which expected to create uniformity, standardization in recording process and abolition of registration blocked, it turns out not all the rules can be implemented at The Land Office of Sleman and Bantul Regency.The result of this research shows that blocking certificate process at Sleman Land Office and Bantul Land Office have a policy that the applicant is required to pay the blocking recording fee after the blocking received. Makes a potential loss to the (PNBP) which should be owned by Land Office for faced the problem of KKPweb application which have not been able to accomodate the time period of blocking. Keywords : blocking certificate, blocking, registration blocked Intisari: Dalam rangka memberikan jaminan kepastian hukum dan kepastian hak serta perlindungan hukum kepada pemegang dan pemilik hak atas tanah, maka dilaksanakan pendaftaran tanah. Namun demikian, masih saja terjadi sengketa pertanahan yang saat ini menjadi pekerjaan rumah bagi Pemerintah. Hal ini disebabkan karena, sertipikat sebagai alat pembuktian yang kuat ternyata belum menjamin kepastian hukum pemiliknya sehingga pihak yang merasa berhak atas tanah tersebut dapat melakukan blokir sertipikat hak atas tanah di Kantor Pertanahan. Dikeluarkannya Permen ATR/Kepala Nomor 13 Tahun 2017 tentang Tata Cara Blokir dan Sita yang diharapkan bertujuan untuk mewujudkan keseragaman, standarisasi dalam pelaksanaan pencatatan dan penghapusan catatan blokir ternyata tidak semua peraturan tersebut dapat dilaksanakan di Kantor Pertanahan Kabupaten Sleman dan Bantul. Hasil penelitian menunjukan bahwa pelaksanaan pencatatan blokir di kantor pertanahan Kabupaten Sleman dan Kabupaten Bantul terdapat kebijakan yaitu pemohon diwajibkan membayar biaya pencatatan blokir setelah blokirnya diterima membuat potensial loss terhadap (PNBP) yang seharusnya didapat kantor pertanahan untuk kendala yang dihadapi yaitu Aplikasi KKPweb yang belum dapat mengakomodir jangka waktu blokir. Kata Kunci: blokir sertipikat, pemblokiran, pencatatan blokir


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document