scholarly journals PENERAPAN PRINSIP BUSINESS JUDGEMENT RULE TERHADAP DIREKSI ATAS PERBUATAN MELAWAN HUKUM KARYAWAN KARENA MENETAPKAN DISKON PEMBELIAN EMAS ANTAM SECARA SEPIHAK

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 97-112
Author(s):  
Indriyani Kusumawati ◽  
Yeti Sumiyati
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Limited Liability ◽  
Company Limited ◽  
The Board Of Directors ◽  
Illegal Acts ◽  
The Law

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

scholarly journals Pertanggungjawaban Direksi Perseroan Terbatas Yang Melakukan Perbuatan Melawan Hukum

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 12-16
Author(s):  
Desak Made Setyarini ◽  
Ni Luh Mahendrawati ◽  
Desak Gde Dwi Arini
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Limited Liability ◽  
Limited Liability Company ◽  
Personal Gain ◽  
Corporation Law ◽  
The Board Of Directors ◽  
Public Rights ◽  
Research Findings ◽  
Illegal Acts ◽  
The Law

Abstract-Directors in a limited liability company can be likened to a life for the company. The Board of Directors in carrying out their duties in managing a limited liability company has the possibility to carry out acts against the law both civil and criminal in nature. However, acts against the law can be directly carried out by the company through its organs, or vice versa, acts against the law are carried out by employees and the company is responsible. Based on this, the problem is obtained: 1) what forms of unlawful actions by the Board of Directors in managing a limited liability company (Corporation)? 2) What is the responsibility of the Directors who commit illegal acts? This research method uses normative legal research, with literature studies of primary and secondary legal materials. Based on research findings, it is known that: 1) Forms of unlawful acts carried out by directors: using company money/ wealth for personal gain, company information for personal gain, conducting related parties transactions with companies, prohibiting competition with the company 2) Directors' responsibility for illegal acts is regulated in Law No. 40 of 2007 the directors are responsible for managing the company where the management has to be done by each member of the board of directors, in good faith and full of responsibility. From this, it is necessary to optimize the implementation and supervision of the Corporation Law which substantially provides protection to business stakeholder and other public rights. Keyword: Accountability of Directors, Limited Liability Companies, Action against the Law Abstrak-Direksi di dalam perseroan terbatas dapat diumpamakan sebagai nyawa bagi perseroan. Direksi dalam menjalankan tugasnya mengelola perseroan terbatas memiliki kemungkinan untuk melakukan perbuatan melawan hukum baik bersifat perdata maupun pidana. Akan tetapi, perbuatan melawan hukum itu dapat langsung dilakukan oleh perusahaan melalui organ-organnya, atau sebaliknya perbuatan melawan hukum itu dilakukan oleh pegawai dan perusahaan wajib mempertanggungjawabkan. Berdasarkan hal tersebut maka didapatlah permasalahan yakni 1) Bagaimana bentuk perbuatan melawan hukum yang dilakukan oleh Direksi di dalam mengurus perseroan terbatas? 2) Bagaimana tanggung jawab Direksi Perseroan Terbatas yang melakukan perbuatan melawan hukum? Metode penelitian ini menggunakan penelitian hukum normatif, dengan studi kepustakaan dari bahan hukum primer dan sekunder. Berdasarkan temuan penelitian diketahui bahwa: 1) Bentuk perbuatan melawan hukum yang dilakukan oleh direksi: mempergunakan uang/ kekayaan perseroan untuk kepentingan pribadi, informasi perseroan untuk kepentingan pribadi, melakukan transaksi dengan perseroan, larangan bersaing dengan perseroan 2) Pertanggungjawaban direksi atas perbuatan melawan hukum diatur dalam UU No. 40 Tahun 2007 direksi bertanggung jawab atas pengurusan perseroan dimana pengurusan itu wajib dilaksanakan setiap anggota direksi dengan itikad baik dan penuh tanggung jawab. Dari hal tersebut sebaiknya Perlu optimalisasi pelaksanaan dan pengawasan UUPT yang secara substansial memberikan perlindungan kepada pelaku bisnis dan hak-hak publik lainnya. Kata Kunci: Pertanggungjawaban Direksi, Perseroan Terbatas, Melawan Hukum

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 BUSINESS JUDGEMENT RULE SEBAGAI PERLINDUNGAN HUKUM BAGI DIREKSI PERSEROAN DALAM MELAKUKAN TRANSAKSI BISNIS

2016 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Muhammad Gary Gagarin Akbar
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Limited Liability ◽  
Business Decisions ◽  
Business Decision ◽  
Applicable Law ◽  
Business Judgment Rule ◽  
Company Directors ◽  
The Board Of Directors ◽  
Definition Of

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

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

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

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 306-310
Author(s):  
Iwan Permadi ◽  
Kusmono Kusmono ◽  
Sihabudin Sihabudin ◽  
Heru Ratno Hadi
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Limited Liability ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
Business Decisions ◽  
Business Transactions ◽  
Analysis Technique ◽  
The Board Of Directors ◽  
The Government ◽  
Full Operation

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

scholarly journals Urgensi Penerapan Doktrin Business Judgment Rule terhadap Direksi BUMN dalam Perkara Tindak Pidana Korupsi

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 72
Author(s):  
Muhammad Akram Syarif Hayyi ◽  
Muhammad Said Karim ◽  
Aminuddin Ilmar
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Limited Liability ◽  
Positive Law ◽  
Business Judgment Rule ◽  
The Board Of Directors

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

scholarly journals ANALISIS YURIDIS PEMBERHENTIAN ANGGOTA DIREKSI DENGAN TANPA DIDAHULUI ADANYA PEMBELAAN DIRI DALAM RUPS [JURIDIC ANALYSIS REGARDING TERMINATION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS WITHOUT SELF DEFENSE IN THE GENERAL MEETING OF SHAREHOLDERS]

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 133
Author(s):  
Felicia Darlene
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Limited Liability ◽  
General Meeting ◽  
Company Law ◽  
District Court ◽  
Limited Liability Company ◽  
Self Defense ◽  
The Board Of Directors ◽  
Bahasa Indonesia

<em>One of the sectors being developed by the Indonesian government is economic growth, which impact on increasing Limited Liability Companies. Provisions that contain procedures for managing a Limited Liability Company are regulated in Law Number 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Companies (UU PT), one of which is the procedure for dismissing members of the Board of Directors. Article 105 of the Company Law stipulates that the dismissal of a member of the Board of Directors is taken after the person concerned is given the opportunity to defend himself. Furthermore, regarding legal protection for the dismissal of members of the Board of Directors who violate the provisions of the Company Law. The Law on Judicial Power regulates the absolute competence of each judiciary. With absolute competence, each judicial body has different jurisdiction to judge. The method used in this study is normative juridical. The results and conclusions of this study are that the dismissal of members of the Board of Directors without any prior self-defense in the GMS is invalid if the members of the Board of Directors object to his dismissal. Legal protection for members of the Board of Directors who are dismissed not in accordance with the provisions of the Company Law is to file a lawsuit to the District Court.<br /><br /></em><strong>BAHASA INDONESIA ABSTRACT:</strong><p>Salah satu sektor yang sedang dikembangkan oleh pemerintah Indonesia adalah pertumbuhan ekonomi, yang berdampak pada meningkatnya Perseroan Terbatas. Ketentuan yang memuat tata cara pengurusan Perseroan Terbatas diatur dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 40 Tahun 2007 tentang Perseroan Terbatas (UU PT), salah satunya adalah tata cara pemberhentian anggota Direksi. Dalam Pasal 105 UU PT diatur bahwa keputusan pemberhentian anggota Direksi diambil setelah yang bersangkutan diberi kesempatan untuk membela diri. Selanjutnya mengenai perlindungan hukum atas pemberhentian anggota Direksi yang melanggar ketentuan UU PT. Undang-Undang Kekuasaan Kehakiman mengatur mengenai kompetensi absolut setiap peradilan. Dengan adanya kompetensi absolut, maka setiap badan peradilan mempunyai yurisdiksi mengadili yang berbeda-beda. Metode yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah yuridis normatif. Hasil dan kesimpulan dari penelitian ini adalah pemberhentian anggota Direksi dengan tanpa didahului adanya pembelaan diri dalam RUPS adalah tidak sah jika anggota Direksi keberatan atas pemberhentian dirinya. Perlindungan hukum bagi anggota Direksi yang diberhentikan tidak sesuai dengan ketentuan UUPT adalah mengajukan gugatan ke Pengadilan Negeri.</p>

scholarly journals Pertanggungjawaban Direktur atas Kewenangan Mewakili Perseroan Terbatas yang telah Habis Masa Kepengurusannya

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 67-80
Author(s):  
Eduard Rudy Suharto
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Limited Liability ◽  
Limited Liability Company ◽  
The Board Of Directors ◽  
The Law ◽  
A Company ◽  
Goals And Objectives

The Board of Directors is the only organ of the company that has power, authority and is fullyresponsible for managing the company solely for the interests of a company, in accordancewith the company's goals and objectives, and has the power, authority and responsibility torepresent the company both inside and outside the court with the provisions of the articles ofassociation that have been made. Directors in the Company have a term of office as stated inthe Deed of Establishment of a Limited Liability Company. If the term of office of the Board ofDirectors is exhausted, then it must be done by the GMS. If the Board of Directors does nothold a GMS, then the position of the Board of Directors is not valid before the Law and doesnot have an interest in representing the Company either inside or outside the Court.Keywords : Directors, RUPS, Court

scholarly journals PERLINDUNGAN HUKUM TERHADAP DIREKSI YANG DIBERHENTIKAN TANPA MELALUI RAPAT UMUM PEMEGANG SAHAM (Studi Pada PT. Sumber Andalan Mandiri (SAM))

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 172-183
Author(s):  
Ikhsan Lubis ◽  
Neneng Oktarina
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Personal Responsibility ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Limited Liability ◽  
Secondary Data ◽  
General Meeting ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Primary Data ◽  
The Board Of Directors ◽  
Problem Formulations

One of the most incorporated legal entities as a business entity by business people today is a Limited Liability Company. In practice the mechanism for the appointment, replacement, and dismissal of the Board of Directors is not always adhered to properly by the Company's organs. In the case of PT. SAM with Phiedi as Director of PT. SAM has permanently and permanently dismissed one member of the Board of Directors from his position as a director without going through the GMS. Legal facts, the existence of e-mail dated April 22 and 24 2014 which essentially contained the dismissal of the Directors of PT. SAM is permanent or permanent. This paper discusses several problem formulations, namely: 1) What is the legal protection of directors who are dismissed without going through a general meeting of shareholders according to the positive legal framework in Indonesia? 2) What is the legal effort made by the directors who are dismissed without going through a general meeting of shareholders? This research is a descriptive research. The approach used in this study is a normative juridical approach supported by an empirical juridical approach. The data used in this study are secondary data and primary data. Against all data and materials obtained from the results of the study will be compiled and analyzed qualitatively. The results of the study explain that legal protection against directors who are replaced by directors who are dismissed without going through the GMS then: 1) Each member of the board of directors is personally responsible for the loss of the company; 2) Personal responsibility is attached to the member of the board of commissioners if he is guilty or negligent in carrying out the duties of supervision or giving advice; 3) Although the loss arises from the management of the board of directors, the members of the board of commissioners remain personally responsible if in the supervision of the implementation of the management of the board of directors there is an element of error or negligence of the board of commissioners; and 4) The extent of personal responsibility of the members of the board of commissioners, limited to their mistakes or negligence, and fifth, if the members of the board of commissioners consist of 2 (two) or more, personal responsibility, is jointly responsible for each member of the board of commissioners. Legal efforts made by directors who are dismissed without going through a general meeting of shareholders, then upon dismissal of the Board of Directors without the GMS, the Commissioner must immediately convene an Extraordinary General Meeting of Shareholders to follow up on the temporary dismissal of the Board of Directors by the Board of Commissioners, then as soon as possible the Board of Commissioners calls the shareholders in the framework of the Extraordinary GMS to strengthen its decision. Considering that the Director is a majority shareholder, of course the ordinary GMS will not succeed because there is a quorum rule and the validation of the vote

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document