scholarly journals Perlindungan Hukum Terhadap Pemegang Saham Minoritas Pada Perseroan Terbatas Yang Melakukan Merger

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-62
Author(s):  
I Kadek Sridana ◽  
I Nyoman Putu Budiartha ◽  
I Putu Gede Seputra
Keyword(s):  
Research Method ◽  
Government Regulation ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Limited Liability ◽  
Limited Liability Company ◽  
Minority Shareholders ◽  
Legal Position ◽  
The Law ◽  
A Company

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

scholarly journals Minority Shareholders’ Legal Protection in a Limited Liability Company System

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (11) ◽  
pp. 1606-1612
Author(s):  
I Gde Sukarmo ◽  
◽  
Hayyanul Haq ◽  
Zainal Asikin ◽  
Salim HS
Keyword(s):  
Research Method ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Limited Liability ◽  
Limited Liability Company ◽  
Minority Shareholders ◽  
Shareholder Protection ◽  
The Law ◽  
Legal Concepts ◽  
Laws And Regulations

The purpose of this study is to determine the legal protection model for the majority and minority shareholders in public limited companies. This research method is normative research. To investigate the ineffectiveness of laws and regulations, in particular, Law No. 40 of 2007 on limited liability companies in providing shareholder protection, researchers have studied the laws and regulations and considered the views of experts on legal concepts related to legal protection for shareholders, particularly, minority shareholders. The results showed that the law did not provide maximum legal protection for minority shareholders, creating an imbalance between the rights of the minority and majority shareholders. For this reason, 1) reform or progressive changes in laws and regulations are needed, for instance, in PT Law No. 40 of 2007. These changes should be fundamental to philosophical aspects (values and perspectives) in providing shareholder protection; 2) the review of shareholders’ protection methods should be based on the aspects of fairness

Politics of Legal in Nominee Agreement And Its Practice In Indonesia

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 196
Author(s):  
SUPARJI SUPARJI
Keyword(s):  
Human Behavior ◽  
Research Method ◽  
Code Of Ethics ◽  
Limited Liability ◽  
Secondary Data ◽  
Limited Liability Company ◽  
Legal Research ◽  
Community Needs ◽  
The Law ◽  
A Company

This study aims to examine the legal politics of nominee agreement in Indonesia. The research method used is normative juridical, which conceptualizes the law as what is written in the legislation or the law as a rule or norm that is a benchmark of human behavior that is considered appropriate. This type of legal research is carried out by examining secondary data in the field of law as library data using deductive thinking methods. The results stated that there are no specific rules that override or provide other possibilities related to the issue of absolute ownership of shares by shareholders registered in the register of shareholders of a limited liability company. The unauthorized nominee of agreement in Indonesia is prohibited. The prohibition on nominee agreement is clearly stated in Law No. 25 of 2007 concerning investment. In fact, nominee agreement has grown and developed in the community, due to community needs. Establishment of nominee agreements in practice can be categorized into the formation of direct nominee agreements, namely by directly making agreements between those who affirm that ownership of shares in a company is limited to and on behalf of others. Thus, the legal profession such as notary, legal consultant and lawyer in this case must provide legal counseling, and participate in supervisory duties. As a profession, it should keep the professional code of ethics instead of making unauthorized nominee by making a nominee agreement.  

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 Kepastian Hukum Jumlah Modal Dasar Pendirian Perseroan Terbatas Setelah Berlakunya PP Perubahan Modal Dasar Perseroan Terbatas

Acta Comitas ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 340
Author(s):  
Ida Bagus Putra Pratama ◽  
I Made Dedy Priyanto
Keyword(s):  
Research Method ◽  
Government Regulation ◽  
Limited Liability ◽  
Company Law ◽  
Limited Liability Company ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
Legal Research ◽  
Conceptual Approach ◽  
Basic Capital ◽  
Before And After

Research on legal certainty the amount of basic capital establishment of limited liability company based on the norms of conflict between article 32 paragraph (1) of the limted liability company law concerning "the limited liability company capital of at least Rp 50,000,000.00" with article 1 paragraph (3) of government regulations The limited liability of the company's capital of limited liability concerning "the founding capital of the company is determined by agreement”. 2 problem are formulated: (1) What is the form for deposit of stock capital on the provisions of article 33 of the limited liability company law, (2) How is the legal certainty of the number of basic capital of the limited liability After the validity of government regulation change of the limited liability company. This purpose research is finding form of the deposit of stock capital and the basic capital of the limited liability company before and after enforcement of government regulation of limited liability of the company. The legal research method used normative legal research method with statute approach and conceptual approach. Capital deposits of shares can be made in the form of money and other forms of immovable tangible objects such as land and intangible objects in the form of bill of Rights; and arrangements regarding the underlying capital applicable in the establishment of the limited liability company is Article 1 paragraph (3) of government regulation of the limited liability of the company.

scholarly journals Reconstruction of Roles and Responsibilities of The Board of Directors in Share Repurchase in Limited Liability Company Based on Fair Values

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 ◽  
pp. 27-33
Author(s):  
Anis Mashdurohatun ◽  
Lenny Mutiara Ambarita ◽  
Gunarto
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Limited Liability ◽  
Share Repurchase ◽  
Limited Liability Company ◽  
Roles And Responsibilities ◽  
Alternative Approach ◽  
Limited Company ◽  
The Board Of Directors ◽  
The Law

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.

scholarly journals PERLINDUNGAN HUKUM BAGI PEMEGANG SAHAM MINORITAS YANG TIDAK DILIBATKAN DALAM PROSES AKUISISI

Yuridika ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
pp. 441
Author(s):  
Maya Sari Tan ◽  
Abdul Rahcmad Budiono ◽  
Hanif Nur Widhiyanti
Keyword(s):  
Legal Protection ◽  
Limited Liability ◽  
General Meeting ◽  
Voting Rights ◽  
Limited Liability Company ◽  
Minority Shareholders ◽  
Acquisition Process ◽  
Financial Difficulties ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Majority Shareholder

Acquisition as a form of corporate restructuring that is carry out to overcome the situation of financial difficulties or improve the performance of the company as a whole or part of the business unit. In Article 126 paragraph 1 of Laws of the Republic of Indonesia number 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Company stated that the acquisition process should consider the interests of minority shareholders. However, sometimes acquisition decisions have already been decided in advance by the majority shareholder without involving minority shareholders. Based on this, this paper intends to analyze the form of legal protection for minority shareholders who are not involved in the acquisition process. Through the approach of legislation and case approach, it is found that Laws of the Republic of Indonesia number 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Company has not provided enough legal protection to minority shareholders. The decision-making process of acquisition in the General Meeting of Shareholders should be procedurally and substantively in accordance with Laws of the Republic of Indonesia number 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Company. It is intended that minority shareholders have the opportunity to exercise their voting rights even though they do not have to be the party controlling the company.

scholarly journals PERLINDUNGAN HUKUM PEMEGANG SAHAM MINORITAS DAN PERTANGGUNGJAWABAN NOTARIS DALAM RUPS PT TERTUTUP [LEGAL PROTECTION FOR MINORITY SHAREHOLDERS AND NOTARY RESPONSIBILITY IN A GENERAL MEETING OF SHAREHOLDERS IN A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANiES]

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 19
Author(s):  
Susi Susantijo ◽  
Shinta Pangesti ◽  
Robbyson Halim
Keyword(s):  
Legal Protection ◽  
Limited Liability ◽  
General Meeting ◽  
Legal Action ◽  
Limited Liability Company ◽  
Minority Shareholders ◽  
Legal Subject ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Formal Requirements ◽  
Bahasa Indonesia

<em>In practice, there often occurrs defective procedure when holding a Private Limited Company’s (PLC’s) General Meeting of Shareholders (GMS), which later stated in Deed of the Meeting Resolutions by a Notary. Regarding the defective procedure in GMS, shareholders will surely suffer losses because their rights are violated, especially minority shareholders. Two problems that arise and examined in this study are: How is the legal protection for minority shareholders in a PLC’s GMS? and How is the responsibility of the Notary for making Deed of the Meeting Resolutions from an Extraordinary GMS containing the defective procedures in a PLC? This research is normative legal research. Based on the research conducted, it can be concluded that legal protection for minority shareholders in PLC’s GMS, has been quite well regulated in Laws of the Republic of Indonesia number 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Company. On the other hand, the responsibility of the Notary for making Deed of the Meeting Resolutions from an Extraordinary GMS containing the defective procedures in an LLC is a liability limited to formal truth or formal requirements. Regarding the material truth, it is not the responsibility of the notary but is the responsibility of the legal subject who performed the legal action. Notary in carrying out his position also requires having thoroughness and carefulness in doing any legal action, including making Deed of the Meeting Resolutions.</em><strong><em></em></strong><p><strong>BAHASA INDONESIA ABSTRACT: </strong>Dalam praktek, sering sekali terjadi penyelenggaraan RUPS PT Tertutup yang mengandung cacat prosedur, yang kemudian dituangkan dalam Akta Pernyataan Keputusan Rapat oleh Notaris. Terhadap adanya penyelenggaraan RUPS yang mengandung cacat prosedur, para pemegang saham pasti akan mengalami kerugian karena hak-hak mereka dilanggar, khususnya para pemegang saham minoritas. Dua rumusan masalah yang timbul dan diteliti dalam penelitian ini adalah: Bagaimana perlindungan hukum bagi pemegang saham minoritas dalam RUPS PT Tertutup? serta Bagaimana pertanggungjawaban Notaris atas pembuatan Akta Pernyataan Keputusan Rapat dari penyelenggaraan RUPS Luar Biasa yang mengandung cacat prosedur pada PT Tertutup? Penelitian ini adalah penelitian hukum normatif. Berdasarkan penelitian yang telah dilakukan, diperoleh kesimpulan bahwa perlindungan hukum bagi pemegang saham minoritas sehubungan dengan penyelenggaraan RUPS dalam PT Tertutup sudah cukup baik diatur dalam Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 40 Tahun 2007 Tentang Perseroan Terbatas (UU PT). Di samping itu, pertanggungjawaban Notaris atas pembuatan Akta Pernyataan Keputusan Rapat dari penyelenggaraan RUPS Luar Biasa yang mengandung cacat prosedur pada PT Tertutup merupakan pertanggungjawaban sebatas pada syarat formal atau kelengkapan formal. Kebenaran materiil bukan tanggung jawab notaris, melainkan masing-masing subjek hukum yang melakukan. Notaris dalam menjalankan jabatannya juga dituntut memiliki ketelitian dan kehati-hatian dalam melakukan setiap perbuatan hukum, termasuk pembuatan Akta Pernyataan Keputusan Rapat.</p>

scholarly journals Perjanjian Kerjasama (Joint Venture) Penanaman Modal Asing dalam Usaha Perhotelan

2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 346-351
Author(s):  
I Gusti Ngurah Rendra Suryana ◽  
I Nyoman Putu Budiartha ◽  
Ni Made Puspasutari Ujianti
Keyword(s):  
Research Method ◽  
Joint Venture ◽  
Limited Liability ◽  
Limited Liability Company ◽  
Legal Research ◽  
Legal Consequence ◽  
Hospitality Business ◽  
A Company ◽  
Open Nature ◽  
Legal Consequences

The formation of investment activities in a country varies greatly according to the open nature of the country and its people. Therefore, cooperation is created and established between the two parties is because of the desire to seek profit so that a group of people together create a company, either with parties from one country or across countries. This is what forms a joint venture agreement. Based on this background, this research was conducted with the aim of describing how the procedure for making a joint venture agreement in the hotel business and what the legal consequences are for the default of the joint venture agreement in the hotel business. This research was conducted using a normative legal research method. The results of this study indicated that the procedure for making a joint venture agreement in a hotel business must be in the form of a limited liability company and must have conditions in providing a hotel company and are required to apply for a principle license and a permanent business license subject to the investor coordinating body to submit reports on the investor's activities. In addition, the legal consequence of the joint venture agreement default in the hospitality business is that those who violate the agreement, the parties related to the agreement, will be subject to statutory sanctions related to the rules of the joint venture agreement as well as the regulations that they have agreed upon together.

scholarly journals Alasan Pembuatasan Dan Perubahan Ketentuan Terkait Modal Dalam Perseroan Terbatas

Jurnal Akta ◽  
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.

scholarly journals Third Parties’ Legal Protection over Agreed Authorized Capital Amount by Founders in Limited Liability Companies

Lentera Hukum ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 173
Author(s):  
Xavier Nugraha ◽  
Krisna Murti ◽  
Saraswati Putri
Keyword(s):  
Government Regulation ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Limited Liability ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Limited Liability Company ◽  
The Third ◽  
Ease Of Doing Business ◽  
The Government ◽  
Authorized Capital

On July 14, 2016, the Government enacted the Government Regulation Number 29 of 2016 regarding Amendments in Authorized Capital of a Limited Liability Company (LLC). Article 1 paragraph (3) of the regulation showed that the amount of authorized capital was submitted to the agreement of the LLC founders. This regulation was issued in order to increase Indonesia’s ‘ease of doing business’ rank, especially in ‘starting a business.’ This article aims to examine the legal protection for the third party over the amount of authorized capital based on the agreement of the LLC founders using the study of dogmatic law. Regulations referenced are Law Number 40 of 2007 regarding Limited Liability Companies and Government Regulation Number 29 of 2016 regarding Amendments in Authorized Capital of LLC. Based on the results of this study, it was found that the determination of authorized capital based on the agreement of LLC founders has neglected the protection of the third parties. This manifested particularly in protecting minority investors and resolving insolvency. Through the enactment of authorized capital based on the agreement of the founders, the mechanism of preventive and repressive legal protection to the third parties are assumed to be eliminated. Keywords: The Authorized Capital, Limited Liability Company, Agreement, Legal Protection.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document