scholarly journals INTERAKSI FUNGSI ORGAN PERSEROANTERBATAS DAN PERLINDUNGAN HUKUM PEMEGANG SAHAMMINORITAS

FIAT JUSTISIA ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Siti Nurhasanah
Keyword(s):  
Limited Liability ◽  
General Meeting ◽  
Limited Liability Company ◽  
Minority Shareholders ◽  
Organ Function ◽  
Legal Entity ◽  
Legal Subject ◽  
Company Limited ◽  
The Board Of Directors ◽  
Majority Shareholder

Company Limited as a legal entity, provide an important role in the organs of the company. The importance of this role because of his position as an independent legal subject who has rights and obligations itself apart from the rights and duties of private owners. Interaction organ function Limited Liability Company will be detrimental to the interests of the company as a legal entity and minority shareholders in particular, where each organ in its function does not put the interests of the company as well, but based on the proximity factor the majority shareholder in the General Meeting of Shareholders (AGM) the Board of Directors and Commissioners. Keywords Company Limited, Minority

scholarly journals PENGATURAN REKAPITALISASI PERSEROAN TERBATAS

2016 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 219
Author(s):  
Gde Andika Sumadi
Keyword(s):  
National Development ◽  
Limited Liability ◽  
General Meeting ◽  
Company Law ◽  
Limited Liability Company ◽  
Minority Shareholders ◽  
Historical Approach ◽  
Voting System ◽  
Majority Shareholder ◽  
The Ideal

In the case of shortage of capital, limited liabililty company allowed to conduct recapitalization, an activity to increase capital. Recapitalization provisions set out in article 41 up to article 43 of Law No. 40 of 2007 does not comply with the basic considerations point c of the limited liability company law. The provisions essentially determines the recapitalization can be carried out with the approval of the general meeting of shareholders that is based on the principle of one share one vote, while the considerations stated that the limited liability company is one pilar to accelerate national development that composed based on the principle of togetherness. The legal problems addressed in this study are first: how the recapitalization arrangements in the Law No. 40 of 2007?; second: how the ideal mechanism of recapitalization in realizing the the principle of togetherness within the limited liability company? This study is a normative legal research on arrangement of a limited liability company’s recapitalization. The legal problem solving uses the statute approach and historical approach. The result of this study showed that the first, arrangements of recapitalization of the limited liability company law is inadequate because it creates a disadvantage for minority shareholders and not in accordance with the principle of togetherness which is exist on the considerations part of the limited liability company law. Second, the ideal mechanism of recapitalization is to use deliberation to reach an agreement and general meeting of shareholders not use the voting system which is more favorable to the majority shareholder. Shareholders of both majority and minority can make a contract that the recapitalization can be done without harming minority shareholders, for example by bonus shares. Dalam menjalankan usahanya ada kalanya Perseroan Terbatas (PT) dihadapkan pada suatu situasi dimana PT mengalami kekurangan modal. Pada situasi seperti ini perseroan diberikan jalan untuk melakukan Rekapitalisasi atau penambahan modal yang diatur dalam Pasal 41-43 Undang-Undang No. 40 Tahun 2007 tentang Perseroan Terbatas (UUPT). Dalam ketentuan mengenai Rekapitalisasi ini terjadi konflik norma antara ketentuan yang mewajibkan rekapitalisasi atau penambahan modal dalam Perseroan dilaksanakan melalui persetujuan RUPS dengan bagian menimbang huruf c UUPT yang di dalamnya disebutkan bahwa PT merupakan usaha bersama berdasarkan asas kekeluargaan. Permasalahan yang dikemukakan dalam penelitian ini adalah, pertama: Bagaimana pengaturan Rekapitalisasi di Dalam Undang-Undang No. 40 Tahun 2007 tentang Perseroan Terbatas? Kedua: Bagaimanakah mekanisme Rekapitalisasi yang ideal dalam mewujudkan asas kekeluargaan dalam Perseroan Terbatas?. Penelitian ini menggunakan jenis penelitian hukum normatif yang mengkaji pengaturan mengenai Rekapitalisasi atau penambahan modal dan bagian menimbang huruf c UUPT. Pendekatan yang digunakan untuk memecahkan permasalahan ini adalah pendekatan perundang-undangan (the statute approach) dan pendekatan historis (historical approach). Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa, pertama: pengaturan Rekapitalisasi atau penambahan modal ke dalam Perseroan di dalam Undang-Undang No. 40 Tahun 2007 tentang Perseroan Terbatas kurang memadai karena pengaturannya masih memungkinkan akan menimbulkan kerugian bagi pemegang saham minoritas dan tentu saja hal ini bertentangan dengan asas kekeluargaan yang terdapat pada bagian menimbang huruf c Undang-Undang Perseroan Terbatas. Kedua: rekapitalisasi harus dilakukan berdasarkan asas kekeluargaan yaitu melalui jalan musyawarah untuk mufakat, dan tidak menggunakan sistem voting yang lebih menguntungkan pemegang saham mayoritas. Selain hal itu, pemegang saham mayoritas dengan pemegang saham minoritas dapat membuat suatu kontrak yang menyepakati bahwa rekapitalisasi yang akan dilakukan perseroan tidak akan merugikan pemegang saham minoritas, misalnya melalui pemberian saham bonus.

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 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 Authorized Failure: How is Company Status?

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Fiany Alifia Lasnita ◽  
Muhamad Adji Rahardian Utama
Keyword(s):  
Limited Liability ◽  
Limited Liability Company ◽  
Legal Entity ◽  
Company Limited ◽  
Proof Of Ownership ◽  
Personal Wealth ◽  
A Company ◽  
A Share

The sense of the limited liability company is a legal entity to be able to run a business that has a capital consisting of a share, which its owners have lots of stock. Because it is composed of capital over shares that can be traded, and changes to the ownership of the company can be done without the need for a dissolution of a company. Limited liability company is a business entity and the magnitude of the capital company which are poured in a basic budget. The wealth of the company separate from the personal wealth of the owners of the company so that it can have its own treasures. Each person can have more than one stock which can be a proof of ownership of a company. The owner of the stock itself has a limited liability, i.e. as much as their shares. In the establishment of limited liability company also required permission and also some important documents that should be owned by a limited liability company to be its foundation.

scholarly journals TANGGUNG JAWAB DIREKTUR PT PMA YANG TIDAK MENDAPATKAN PENGESAHAN SEBAGAI BADAN HUKUM DAN SUDAH MENJALANKAN USAHANYA BERDASARKAN PERATURAN PERUNDANG-UNDANGAN DI INDONESIA (STUDI KASUS PT.X DAN PT.Y)

2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 620
Author(s):  
I Gede Putra Wijaya ◽  
Christine S.T. Kansil
Keyword(s):  
Limited Liability ◽  
Foreign Company ◽  
Foreign Investor ◽  
Limited Liability Company ◽  
Foreign Investors ◽  
Legal Entity ◽  
Legal Subject ◽  
Foreign Companies ◽  
Investment Law ◽  
A Company

Foreign investors who want to invest in Indonesia must obey the existing rules, namely the Investment Law No. 25 of 2007. The investment law stipulates that if foreign investors want to do business in Indonesia, the foreign investor must establish a company in the form of a legal entity, namely a limited liability company. Requirements for foreign companies can be said as legal entities that must go through the stages of establishing a company until the company ratified by the Ministry of Law and Human Rights. If a foreign company is not a legal entity, the foreign company is not legal and cannot be considered a legal subject in carrying out business activities in Indonesia. Regarding the liability of the foreign company that is to be borne by the private party not by the shareholders because the foreign company is not a legal entity. It is better if foreign investors want to carry out business activities in Indonesia that the business must be in the form of a legal entity in accordance with the investment law’s order to comply with the applicable rules and foreign investors can carry out their business activities properly.

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

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.

scholarly journals Regulation of legal relationship between shareholders in closely held companies on the example of the Croatian limited liability company 

2018 ◽  
Vol 39 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-90
Author(s):  
Edita Čulinović-Herc ◽  
Sonja Marinac Rumora
Keyword(s):  
Corporate Governance ◽  
Limited Liability ◽  
Limited Liability Company ◽  
Minority Shareholders ◽  
Legal Form ◽  
Legal Relationship ◽  
Governance Challenges ◽  
Article Analysis ◽  
The Right ◽  
Majority Shareholder

<span>This article analysis regulation of legal relationship between shareholders in closely held company. Authors define “closely held companies” by functional approach, analyzing specific features which distinguish this type of companies from all other companies, regardless of their legal form. Available data suggests there are a significant number of these companies in Croatia and abroad. There are two basic corporate governance challenges in closely held company concerning the shareholders relations: potential abuse of its position by the majority shareholder, especially when majority shareholder acts as manager and the so-called “deadlock” when shareholders cannot reach agreement on any decision necessary for normal functioning of the company. Personal relations between the shareholders are in the core of these corporate governance issues. The Croatian private limited liability company is a model of closely held company in Croatia. Thus, this article analysis the withdrawal and exclusion of shareholders in Croatian court practice and its significance for solving the conflicts between shareholders in order to preserve the company. Authors advocate for more extensive use of the right to autonomously regulate the relationships between the shareholders in closely held companies. In that regard, authors suggest to use articles of association for more precise regulation of shareholders relationship, to set higher quorum when deciding important decisions in shareholders’ meeting which would empower the minority shareholders, to leave the important decisions on governing the company in the scope of the shareholders’ meeting and other. Also, authors consider that formation of supervisory body could contribute to achieve balance between the shareholders, especially between the majority and minority shareholders. Set of recommendations set in corporate governance codes could be of great use when drafting the articles of association. In that regard, authors call for de lege ferenda implementation of such a code, following the established practice on the comparative level</span>

scholarly journals Pengaturan Kewenangan, dan Tanggung Jawab Direksi Dalam Perseroan Terbatas (Studi Perbandingan Indonesia dan Australia)

2013 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Shinta Ikayani Kusumawardani
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Study ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Comparative Method ◽  
Limited Liability ◽  
Fiduciary Duty ◽  
Limited Liability Company ◽  
Company Limited ◽  
Fiduciary Obligations ◽  
The Board Of Directors ◽  
Comparative Results

Research on: The Rules Regarding  The Powers and Responsibilities Of Directors In A Limited Liability Company (Comparative Study of Indonesia and Australia). As for the issues discussed in this study related to the application of the authority of the board of directors in the management of a limited liability company under the principle of fiduciary duty Australia comparison of Indonesia can not be separated from the authority granted will cause responsibility that must be borne by the company’s board of directors in managing and also the characteristics of the type of responsibility of Directors This study uses normative juridical approach. Juridical Approaches to run whether the provisions of law relating to kewenagan concrete and responsibilities of the Board of Directors in the management Company Limited Comparative Study of Indonesia and Australia, while Normative is the cover of the principles of law, comparative law, the elements and factors related to authority and responsibility of the Company's Board of Directors in the management of one heart-to-day. This study on Duties and Responsibilities of Directors is normative legal research that emphasizes the study of literature. The purpose of this research is to know the duties and responsibilities of the Board of Directors of Limited Liability Company under the law. Data analysis was performed using the comparative method of qualitative. From the results of this analysis are expected to obtain an accurate picture and understanding of the duties and responsibilities of the Board of Directors of Limited Liability Company. To this effect, a comparison of the authority and responsibilities of the Board of Directors in the management of the Company as the Company's assessment of body organ is the comparison between the authority of the Board of Directors in Indonesia and in Australia the comparative results indicate that the system of regulation in Indonesia and Australia are more inclined to use the model and not a model enabling mandatory because it is based by the condition of the structure of capital ownership. Fiduciary obligations, particularly on legislation in both Indonesia and Australia appear as incomplete law and need to be interpreted by the fiduciary. The main essence of this comparison as the basis for further transplants Indonesia that fiduciary obligations may fruitfully dalamn Handling Company Limited.

scholarly journals TINDAKAN ULTRA VIRES DIREKSI DAN AKIBAT HUKUMNYA BAGI PERSEROAN TERBATAS

Yurispruden ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 86
Author(s):  
Abdul Rokhim
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Limited Liability ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Legal Action ◽  
Limited Liability Company ◽  
Conceptual Approach ◽  
Legal Entity ◽  
The Board Of Directors ◽  
The Law

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

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document