scholarly journals Mewujudkan Keharmonisan Undang-Undang Perseroan Terbatas dalam Pendirian Perseroan Daerah

2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 363-378
Author(s):  
Teuku Ahmad Yani ◽  
Teuku Muttaqin Mansur
Keyword(s):  
Legal Status ◽  
Limited Liability ◽  
Company Law ◽  
Regional Government ◽  
Limited Liability Company ◽  
Legal Basis ◽  
Liability Law ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Government ◽  
Business Entities

Tujuan penelitian ini adalah menganalisis asas lex spesialis terkait dengan keharmonis-an Undang-Undang Perseroan Terbatas dalam Pendirian Perseroan Daerah. Perusahaan perseroan daerah merupakan salah satu badan usaha dari sejumlah badan usaha yang dikenal dalam sistem hukum di Indonesia. Ciri khas hukum perusahaan di Indonesia, masing-masing jenis perusahaan diatur dengan undang-undang yang terpisah. BUMD diatur dengan Undang-Undang Pemerintah Daerah, sedangkan perseroan terbatas diatur dengan Undang-Undang Perseroan Terbatas. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode yuri-dis normatif, dengan mendalami upaya harmonisasi hukum. Hasil penelitian menunjuk-kan bahwa perseroan daerah pada dasarnya juga perseroan terbatas yang dapat dimiliki sepenuh sahamnya oleh satu pemerintah daerah, namun dalam UUPT, tidak diakomodir sebagai perseroan terbatas dengan saham tunggal dapat didirikan oleh satu pemerintah daerah. Namun dalam praktiknya sebagian notaris berupaya melakukan terobosan yang kemudian diakui oleh pemerintah dengan memberikan status badan hukum pada perseroan yang didirikan sepenuhnya oleh satu pemerintah daerah sebagai satunya pendirinya Perseroda. Hal ini, menimbulkan pertanyaan hukum, apakah landasan hukum yang dapat digunakan oleh notaris dan pemerintah untuk menerobos UUPT untuk memenuhi kaedah yang terdapat dalam Undang-Undang Pemda. Bringing the Harmony of the Limited Liability Law in the Establishment of Regional Company The purpose of this study is to analyze the lex specialist principle related to the harmony of the Law on Limited Liability Companies in the establishment of regional companies. Regional company is one of business entities in Indonesia legal system. The characteristic of company law in Indonesia is each type of company regulated by a separate law. BUMD (regional company) is regulated by the regional government law while limited liability company is regulated by UUPT. This study uses a normative juridical method, by exploring efforts to harmonize the law. The results showed that the regional company is basically also a limited liability company that can be fully owned by regional government, but based on the company law, it is not accommodated as a limited liability company because the company has only a single share which is one local government. However, in practice some of notaries tried to make a breakthrough which was later recognized by the government by giving legal status to regional company. This raises the question of what legal basis can be used by notaries and the government to break through the company law so that it meets the methods contained in the regional government law.

scholarly journals The Linkage of the Board of Directors and the Status of Aviation Industry Licensing Law

2017 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
LESTARI NINGRUM
Keyword(s):  
Legal Status ◽  
Limited Liability ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Aviation Industry ◽  
Limited Liability Company ◽  
Basic Capital ◽  
The Status ◽  
Business Entities ◽  
Capital Intensive ◽  
Made In

Aviation business is a capital intensive and high risk in terms of safety. Legislation in force in Indonesia requires enterprises should cost in the form of a limited liability company that is obliged to deposit the basic capital of 500 billion rupiah. The capital cannot be made in working capital which is useful for the collateral to a third party. The regulations for a limited liability company are to be established by at least 2 people. The purpose of this research is to analyze the linkage of the board directors and the status of aviation industry licensing law. The position of the legal status of business entities where shareholder is only one person is to be studied in this descriptive study. The result shows that the airlines company should provide the capital risk and high insurance of the third party. UUPT also has given the authority of the shareholders (who owns 20 % of the share) to be decision makers in the company. However, without independent surveillance, it is possible that the shareholders do some mistakes in making decisions. Some mistakes are related to the policy, the using of authorized capital, and others. Aviation business is a capital intensive and high risk in terms of safety. Legislation in force in Indonesia requires enterprises should cost in the form of a limited liability company that is obliged to deposit the basic capital of 500 billion rupiah. The capital cannot be made in working capital which is useful for the collateral to a third party. The regulations for a limited liability company are to be established by at least 2 people. The position of the legal status of business entities where shareholder is only one person is to be studied in this descriptive study.

scholarly journals Tanggung Jawab Direksi atas Terjadinya Pailit Perseroan Terbatas

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 83
Author(s):  
Antonius Faebuadodo Gea ◽  
Hirsanuddin Hirsanuddin ◽  
Djumardin Djumardin
Keyword(s):  
Limited Liability ◽  
Company Law ◽  
Limited Liability Company ◽  
Conceptual Approach ◽  
The Board Of Directors ◽  
Approach Method ◽  
Separate System ◽  
Accountability Mechanism ◽  
The Law ◽  
Legal Consequences

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).

scholarly journals ANALISIS KEKUATAN PERJANJIAN NOMINEE SAHAM DALAM PERSEROAN TERBATAS PENANAMAN MODAL ASING (PT.PMA)

Acta Comitas ◽  
2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sigit Teteki Triwis
Keyword(s):  
Capital Market ◽  
Limited Liability ◽  
Company Law ◽  
Analytic Approach ◽  
Limited Liability Company ◽  
Legal Research ◽  
Foreign Investors ◽  
The Law ◽  
Primary Materials ◽  
The Capital Market

The use of nominee shares through nominee shares agreement has grown and developed well in the investing world, especially within the investors who establish PT. PMA. In short, the concept of nominee shares are done by both localand foreign investors. One of the causes of the nominee shares usageis because there is no rules in the Company Law that regulate, prohibit, and unequivocally ban the nominee shares by making the stock agreement. The law of prohibition to make nominee shares agreement or stock statement can only be found in the Capital Market Law, Article 33 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2). This research is a normative legal research that moves from the void norm within our laws. The approach used in this study is the legislation and analytic approach. The legal materials in this study are taken from the primary materials, secondary legal materials, and tertiary legal materials. The results of this study indicate the cause of the nominee shares usage by making nominee stock agreement, has already stated in the Company Law. However, it only explainsthe requirement that the PT has to be founded by two (2) or more persons, it does not give any detail requirements of how to be the shareholders. Other than to fill the Company Law, by filling the requirement of the PT establishment,the use of nominee agreement is due to the restriction of the line business for PT. PMA. The void of the norm has resulted in the violation within the limited liability company, in which one of the shareholders in PT. PMA is not the actual owner or nominee, but only the registered owner from certain number of shares. The law of prohibition of nominee shares in UUPM is considered inefficient because there is no strict regulations and prohibitions in the Company Law, thus, in practice, the use of nominee shares by making the nominee shares agreementgrows and develops through the simulation or indirect agreement, known as the arrangement agreement.

Partners in a Limited Liability Company Will Be Jointly Liable If It Is Not Registered in the Commercial Register and the Words "Limited Liability" Are Not Added To Its Name in Business Dealings

1995 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 363-366
Keyword(s):  
Legal Status ◽  
Limited Liability ◽  
Company Law ◽  
Abu Dhabi ◽  
Limited Liability Company ◽  
Commercial Company ◽  
A Company

AbstractThe Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation held that a company and the partners therein will be jointly liable even if the company was a limited liability company, if the partners or the manager of the company failed to register the company with the Commercial Register as a limited liability company and publish a Memorandum and Articles of Association of the company according to the Commercial Company Law. The Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation further held that if the company failed to declare the legal status of a limited liability company and to print the words "limited liability company" on its letterheads, and its office name plate, the partners therein will be jointly liable as a partnership.

scholarly journals IMPLIKASI TERBITNYA UNDANG-UNDANG NOMOR 23 TAHUN 2014 TERHADAP PEMBANGUNAN KESATUAN PENGELOLAAN HUTAN DI PROVINSI RIAU

2016 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 9-21 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eno Suwarno ◽  
Ambar Tri Ratnaningsih ◽  
Enny Insusanty
Keyword(s):  
Content Analysis ◽  
Government Regulation ◽  
Current Level ◽  
Provincial Government ◽  
Regional Government ◽  
Legal Basis ◽  
Forestry Sector ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Government ◽  
The City

The issuance of the Law No. 23 of 2014 on Regional Government instead of Law No. 32 of 2004 carries implications for FMU development in the area. This study aims to (1) assess changes in the content of Law No. 23 of 2014 compared with the previous regulations in managing the affairs of the forestry sector; (2) assess the implications of these changes to the rules under which the current level is the reference FMU development; and (3) assess the implications of these changes to the processes of FMU development in Riau Province. The study was conducted in December 2014 -May 2015, with research sites in the city of Pekanbaru and the district of Kampar, Riau Province. The method used is the content analysis of the rules and interviews with some stakeholders. The substantial changes of the Law No. 32/2004 to Law No. 23/2014, in the new regulations authorizes the establishment of the organization KPHL / KPHP everything under the authority of the provincial government, no longer under the authority of district governments. The implications of the transfer of authority, the regulations that the legal basis and the establishment of institutions KPHL / KPHP i.e. the Government Regulation (PP) No. 38/2007 and Rule of th e Interior Minister (Permendagri) No. 61/2010 can not be a reference again. In addition it also affects the initiative and formation process KPHL / KPHP by Regency stagnated.

scholarly journals TRANSFORMASI DAN PENGAWASAN KEUANGAN NEGARA PADA BUMN DENGAN PRINSIP BUSINESS JUDGMENT RULE

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 192-203
Author(s):  
Nur Rohim Yunus ◽  
Latipah Nasution
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Limited Liability ◽  
Company Law ◽  
Limited Liability Company ◽  
Government Officials ◽  
Business Decision ◽  
Business Judgment Rule ◽  
The Board Of Directors ◽  
State Finance ◽  
Business Entities

Abstract, State assets in the form of shares of business entities are not state assets, but have been transformed into business entity assets. Likewise, government officials who become Directors/Commissioners and other shareholders have an equal position with private shareholders. The Board of Directors in carrying out their duties and authorities has the authority and protection in every business decision making, but this does not escape supervision through the BJR (Business Judgment Rule) principle, as contained in the Limited Liability Company Law. This study uses a qualitative research method with a statutory approach. The purpose of this study is to understand the criteria for state finances in SOEs and the legal consequences of financial losses and supervision of SOEs. The results of the study stated that the implementation of BJR on the Board of Directors of SOEs could be carried out after fulfilling the terms and conditions of the enactment of BJR. BJR can be implemented because a legal entity is actually subject to the Limited Liability Company law. Keywords: Supervision of SOEs ion; Business Judgment Rules; State Finance   Intisari: Kekayaan negara yang berbentuk saham dari badan usaha bukan merupakan kekayaan negara, tetapi telah bertransformasi menjadi kekayaan badan usaha. Demikian terhadap pejabat pemerintah yang menjadi Direksi/Komisaris dan pemegang saham lainnya memiliki kedudukan yang setara dengan pemegang saham swasta. Direksi dalam menjalankan tugas dan wewenang memiliki kewenangan dan perlindungan dalam setiap pengambilan keputusan bisnis, namun ini tak luput dari pengawasan melalui prinsip BJR (Business Judgment Rule), sebagaimana termuat dalam Undang-Undang Perseroan Terbatas. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode penelitian kualitatif dengan pendekatan perundang-undangan. Tujuan penelitian untuk dapat memahami kriteria keuangan negara pada BUMN dan akibat hukum kerugian keuangan dan pengawasan pada BUMN. Hasil penelitian menyatakan bahwa implementasi BJR terhadap Direksi BUMN dapat dilakukan setelah memenuhi syarat dan ketentuan berlakunya BJR. BJR dapat diimplementasikan karena badan usaha berbadan hukum sejatinya tunduk pada undang-undang Perseroan Terbatas. Kata Kunci: Pengawasan BUMN; Business Judgment Rule; Kuangan Negara

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 Kedudukan Notaris dalam Pembuatan Akta terhadap Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham yang Diadakan melalui Media Telekonferensi

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 125-129
Author(s):  
I Made Nova Wibawa ◽  
I Nyoman Alit Puspadma ◽  
Ida Ayu Putu Widiati
Keyword(s):  
Limited Liability ◽  
Company Law ◽  
Limited Liability Company ◽  
Physical Presence ◽  
The Law

The Law No 40 of 2007 concerning PT (Limited Liability Company) regulates what can be done through teleconferencing media regulated in Article 77 paragraph (1) of Company Law so as to allow shareholders to conduct a GMS without having to meet in person and be in one place but can be held by teleconference which allows shareholders to see each other and interact actively in meetings The results of the minutes of the GMS held by the PT are not required to be written in the form of an authentic deed meaning that the PT can determine the agreement of the shareholders whether it will be written into an authentic deed or an underhand deed The minutes of the GMS by teleconference which are applied to the authentic deed by the Notary lose their authenticity because the Notary does not act according to the provisions in Article 16 paragraph (1) letter m UUJN-P which requires the physical presence of the parties in the process of drafting an authentic deed so that the power of proof of the deed under the hand as a result of an act that is not in accordance with Article 16 paragraph (1) letter m.

MENGENAL DOKTRIN DAN PRINSIP PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL DALAM HUKUM PERUSAHAAN

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 380-399
Author(s):  
Sandra Dewi
Keyword(s):  
Legal Status ◽  
Limited Liability ◽  
Corporate Law ◽  
Company Law ◽  
Fiduciary Duty ◽  
Legal Form ◽  
Business World ◽  
Company Directors ◽  
Piercing The Corporate Veil ◽  
Business Entities

Business entities in the business world are well-known that are already in the form of companies or those that are not yet companies. Based on its legal form, the company is divided into two, namely companies with legal status and those that are not legal entities. As an independent legal entity pursuant to Article 3 paragraph (1) the Limited Liability Company Law stipulates that the responsibility of PT shareholders is limited to the value of shares held in the company. Economically, the element of limited liability of the company's shareholders is an important factor as a motivating bait for the willingness of prospective investors to invest in the company. The formulation of the problem in this paper is: 1) how the piercing doctrine of the corporate veil in corporate law and 2) how to apply the principle of piercing the corporate veil in Indonesia. The type of writing used in this writing is a type of normative legal research. The doctrine of piercing the corporate veil in corporate law can be seen from: a) piercing the corporrate veil; b) the doctrine of fiduciary duty; c) self dealing transaction doctrine; d) doctrine corporate opportunity; e) doctrine businnes judgment rule; f) ultra vires and intra vires. Application of the Piercing Principles of the Corporate Veil in Indonesia: a) company shareholders; b) company founder; c) company directors; and d) commissioners of limited liability companies.

Digitalisierung im Gesellschaftsrecht

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charlotte Weber
Keyword(s):  
Limited Liability ◽  
Company Law ◽  
European Law ◽  
Limited Liability Company ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Eu

The online formation of a limited liability company (GmbH) will be available to all EU nationals from August 2022. This digitization step is attributable to the EU Digitization Directive as part of the EU Company Law Package. The author examines the provisions of the directive, compares them with the applicable company and notarization law, discusses the implementation options and evaluates the national draft laws. The analysis of the background of European law can be used for questions of interpretation of the law on the implementation of the Digitalization Directive (DiRUG), which has been passed in the meantime, and serves as a basis for further reforms and digitalization efforts.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document