scholarly journals Regulation of Foreigner Stay Permit as Director of Limited Liability Company and Investor in Foreign Investment

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 89-100
Author(s):  
Tri Sutjiati ◽  
Ida Ayu Sadnyini

Based to Article 10 Paragraph (1) on Regulation Ministry of Manpower Number 10 Year 2018 Concerning Procedure of Employ Foreign Worker says that employer of the foreign worker is not required to possess any EPP (working permit) to employ foreign workers who are shareholders with the position of the board of directors or board of commissioners, as it is stated before on Article 10 Paragraph (1) Presidential Decree No. 20 Year 2018 Concerning Foreign Worker. Nevertheless, the facility for investors to possess stay permits in Indonesia which is mentioned in Article 22 Paragraph (3), Regulation of Ministry of Justice and Human Rights Number 51 Year 2016 Concerning Change of Regulation Number 24 Year 2016 Concerning Technical Procedures for Application and Issuance of Visit Visas and Limited Stay Visas, says that the investor prohibited working. This study aims to investigate the procedure and the regulations that govern temporary stay permits of directors and foreign investors in Indonesia. The method used in this study is normative legal research and meanwhile, statute approach and conceptual approach are used as the approach of this study. The results of this study showed that 1) higher norms govern action, as to create lower norms, governs realization of action. Presidential Decree has a higher position in the hierarchy from Ministry Regulations. 2) ideal framework of statutory regulations shall consist of a balance portion of justice, legal certainty and finality.  

Acta Comitas ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 340
Author(s):  
Ida Bagus Putra Pratama ◽  
I Made Dedy Priyanto

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.


2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Bella Mutiara Wahab

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. 


2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 83
Author(s):  
Antonius Faebuadodo Gea ◽  
Hirsanuddin Hirsanuddin ◽  
Djumardin Djumardin

This research was conducted to find out how the directors' accountability mechanism caused by an error or negligence caused the limited company to go bankrupt and how the legal consequences on the bankruptcy of a limited liability company. This type of research was classified as a normative legal research or also called doctrinal research, namely research that examined the law as a separate system that was separate from various other systems in society so as to provide a boundary between the legal system with other systems. The approach method used was the statutory approach; and Conceptual Approach. In principle, the Board of Directors was not personally responsible for acts committed for and on behalf of the company based on its authority. The scope of conduct that would be personally accounted for by the directors of the company was negligence because the directors did not fulfill the contents of the agreement and mistakes because the directors commit acts against the law. Bankruptcy of a Limited Liability Company was the bankruptcy of itself, not the bankruptcy of its management, even though the bankruptcy was due to the negligence of its management. So that management should not be held liable jointly for any losses due to negligence and could only be held accountable if the company's assets were not sufficient to cover losses due to bankruptcy Article 90 paragraph (2) of the Limited Liability Company Law).


Yurispruden ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 86
Author(s):  
Abdul Rokhim

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


2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 687
Author(s):  
Meilyna Dwijanti ◽  
Amin Purnawan

The purpose of this study was to determine the legality of the deed of AD / ART PT Perkebunan Nusantara IX after the consolidation of PTP XV-XVI (Persero) with PTP XVIII (Persero). This research method using normative legal research. The data used is secondary data that is material that provides an explanation of primary legal materials; in the form of deed of AD / ART PT Perkebunan Nusantara IX. Data were analyzed by descriptive qualitative method. The results showed Deeds AD / ART PT Perkebunan Nusantara IX Post-Consolidation PTP XV-XVI (Persero) With PTP XVIII (Persero), in accordance with the process and the provisions of the legislation in force. In the Deed clearly contain 1) the name and domicile of the Company; 2) the purpose and objectives and business activities of the Company; 3) The period of the founding of the Company; 4) the amount of the authorized, issued and paid-up capital; 5) the number of shares, class of shares if there is a following for each classification number of shares, the rights attached to each share, and the nominal value of each share; 6) the name of position and the number of members of the Board of Directors and Board of Commissioners; 7) determination of the place and manner of implementation of the GMS; 8) procedures for the appointment, replacement, dismissal of members of the Board of Directors and Board of Commissioners; 9) procedures for the use of profits and dividend distribution. replacement, dismissal of members of the Board of Directors and Board of Commissioners; 9) procedures for the use of profits and dividend distribution. replacement, dismissal of members of the Board of Directors and Board of Commissioners; 9) procedures for the use of profits and dividend distribution.Keywords: Legality; Deeds; AD / ART; Limited Liability Company; BUMN.


2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 108-123
Author(s):  
Preeti Kartika Putri ◽  
Paramita Prananingtyas

Mining companies conduct mergers to ensure and strengthen their position in their relevant market. Mining company mergers that aren’t supervised can result in monopoly and unfair business practices. The issue discussed is the supervision of mergers for mining companies by KPPU. This is a normative juridical research through a statutory and conceptual approach. The result indicates that mining companies are subject to legal provisions of limited liability company and competition law.There is no regulations regarding mergers in Indonesian mining law.Supervision of said mergers by KPPU can be carried out by voluntary consultation or by obligatory post merger notification. The scope of KPPU's supervision also includes mining companies’ compliances in case of notification. Delay of such notification will be examined by KPPU and subsequently fined if proven to have committed violation. However, post merger notification is only adopted by only a few countries for it is considered no longer guarantee legal certainty.


Author(s):  
Anita Fauziah ◽  
Muhammad Sood ◽  
Lalu Wira Pria Suhartana

This study aims to analyze the roles and responsibilities of a notary in the change of a CV business entity to a PT legal entity and the legal consequences of changing the CV business entity to a PT. This research is focused on Normative-Empirical research, using a statutory approach, a conceptual approach and a sociological approach. The results of this study, the role of the notary in changing the CV business entity to become a PT legal entity is to settle debt which is then used as a reference to determine the initial capital in PT. Make an announcement in the newspaper that the CV will be upgraded to a PT, the Notary submits an application to obtain a Ministerial decision regarding the legalization of a legal entity electronically and the Notary's responsibility in changing the CV business entity to a PT legal entity can be classified on the responsibility based on errors because the Notary is responsible for the process change from start to finish. Legal consequences that occur with changes. First, the change in status from a CV to a legal entity of PT. Second, the minimum paid-up capital. Third, unlimited responsibility. Fourth, if the CV in charge of managing the company and is personally responsible is a complementary partner. In the PT GMS, the Board of Directors and the Board of Commissioners. Fifth, related to ongoing engagements must still be completed by CV or PT and no transfer of engagement is carried out.


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.


2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 99-134
Author(s):  
Nurlindah Nurlindah ◽  
A. Sugirman ◽  
Rosita Rosita

In welcoming 2019 concurrent general elections, the General Election Commission issued PKPU No. 20 of 2018, one of which banned former convicts of corruption from becoming legislative candidates on the grounds that corruption is an extraordinary offense that is commonly practiced by legislators both individually and in congregation. The regulation is stated in Article 4 paragraph (3) PKPU No. 20 of 2018 concerning Nominations for Members of DPR, Provincial DPRD and Regency / City DPRD. However, the regulation was canceled with the issuance of Supreme Court decision No. 46 P / HUM / 2018. Based on this, the limitation of the problem of this research is how to measure the aspects of the legal objectives behind the decision No. 46 P / HUM / 2018 which are more pro-corrupt so that they can understand the judge's decidendi ratio in canceling the prohibition of ex-convicts from becoming legislators. This type of research is normative legal research with a statutory approach and conceptual approach. The theoretical basis in the presentation of research results is the theory of legal goals by Gustav Radbruch namely justice, certainty and usefulness which is compared with Islamic law. The results of this study indicate that the Supreme Court's consideration overturned PKPU No. 20 of 2018 because it is considered contrary to Article 240 of Law No. 7 of 2017 concerning General Elections and Article 12 of Law No. 12 of 2011 concerning Formation of Laws and Regulations. The Supreme Court's considerations in the a quo ruling contain the three legal objectives. However, it is more inclined to legal certainty, so it does not reflect the value of justice that lives in the community. The cause of not achieving the values of justice that live in the community in the a quo decision is because the basis for testing the regulation is Law No. 7 of 2017 concerning General Elections does not prohibit such matters, even though the nomination rules on the executive body namely the President and Vice President require that they do not have a bad track record. Likewise when viewed from Islamic law which requires legislative candidates called ahlul ahli wal aqdi must have a fair way which means having integrity and a good image in the society.


2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 140-150
Author(s):  
Moh Syaifur Rijal

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