The Newly Sole Proprietorship as Limited Liability Company in Recent Indonesian Company Law

2021 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ratna Januarita
Keyword(s):  
Government Regulation ◽  
Limited Liability ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Company Law ◽  
Business Owner ◽  
Limited Liability Company ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
Sole Proprietorship ◽  
Legal Uncertainty ◽  
Legal Mechanism

The recent Omnibus Law provides significant changing in the company legal order since the issuance of Government Regulation No. 8 of 2021. Under this GR, the sole proprietorship became a limited liability company. However, the liability construction of this newly born has not been regulated clearly and firmly and creates legal uncertainty. The purpose of this article is, first, to determine the appropriate liabilities of SPLLC (Sole Proprietorship as Limited Liability Company) and its founder, and second, to review and develop the legal mechanism for government to provide legal certainty. The study uses the normative juridical method with descriptive-analytical specifications. The study found that the absence of regulation on liability creates ambiguity and legal uncertainty on the appropriate liability for the new form of company. Finally, the study concludes that the appropriate liability of SPLLC and its founders should be determined firmly. Furthermore, three models of liability construction of the business owner are offered, including SPLLC with unlimited liability, SPLLC with limited liability, and SPLLC with certain liability.

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

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

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

scholarly journals 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 PERAN NOTARIS DALAM PENDIRIAN PT USAHA MIKRO DAN KECIL

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 202
Author(s):  
Diyan Isnaeni
Keyword(s):  
Government Regulation ◽  
Job Creation ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Limited Liability ◽  
Small Enterprises ◽  
Limited Liability Company ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
Business World ◽  
Limited Company ◽  
Micro And Small Enterprises

AbstrakDisahkannya PP Nomor 8 Tahun 2021 sebagai peraturan pelaksanaan UU Nomor 11 Tahun 2020 tentang Cipta Kerja yang melahirkan Perseroan Terbatas Usaha Mikro dan  Kecil sebagai etintas baru dalam dunia usaha di Indonesia, telah menunjukkan keseriusan Pemerintah Indonesia mendukung dan memberikan peluang sebesar-besarnya kepada Usaha Mikro dan Kecil untuk mengembangkan usahanya dan memberikan perlindungan hukum kepada badan hukum perorangan. Perseroan Terbatas Usaha Mikro dan Kecil dalam proses pendiriannya dapat dilakukan tanpa melalui perjanjian dan akta notaris dan hanya membuat surat pernyataan. Pendirian Perseroan Terbatas hanya melalui surat pernyataan tidak menjamin legalitas dokumen dan identitas pendiri. Legalitas Perseroan Terbatas akan diragukan dan beresiko karena bisa melakukan perbuatan melawan hukum, dan  konsekuensinya Perseroan Terbatas  sebagai badan hukum maka legalitas dokumen dan identitas pendiri harus dapat dipertanggungjawabkan. Sehingga dalam menjamin kepastian hukum dan perlindungan hukum, akta pendirian Pereroan Terbatas yang dibuat oleh Notaris tetap diperlukan untuk menjamin legalitas Perseroan Terbatas, keabsahan dokumen dan identitas pendiri walaupun hanya Perseroan Terbatas untuk Usaha Mikro Kecil.Kata Kunci: PT Perorangan, Usaha Mikro dan Kecil, Kepastian Hukum AbstractThe passing of Government Regulation Number 8 of 2021 as the implementing regulation of Law Number 11 of 2020 concerning Job Creation which gave birth to PT Micro and Small Enterprises as a new ethic in the business world in Indonesia, has shown the seriousness of the Indonesian Government to support and provide the greatest possible opportunity for Micro and Small Enterprises to develop their business and provide legal protection to individual legal entities. In the process of establishing a Limited Liability Company, Micro and Small Enterprises can be carried out without going through a notarial agreement and deed and only making a statement letter. The establishment of a Limited Liability Company only through a statement letter does not guarantee the legality of the documents and the identity of the founder. The legality of a Limited  Company will be doubted and at risk because it can commit acts against the law, and the consequence is that the Limited Company is a legal entity, the document legality and identity of the founder must be accounted for. So that in guaranteeing legal certainty and legal protection, a Limited Liability Company establishment deed made by a notary is still needed to guarantee the legality of the limited Company, document validity and the identity of the founder even though it is only Limited Liability Companies for Micro and Small Businesses.Keywords: Individual Limited  Companies, Micro and Small Enterprises, Legal Certainty

scholarly journals KELEMAHAN NORMATIF PENGATURAN TINDAK PIDANA DALAM PASAL 2 DAN PASAL 3 UNDANG-UNDANG NOMOR 31 TAHUN 1999 TENTANG PEMBERANTASAN TINDAK PIDANA KORUPSI DAN PERUBAHANNYA SERTA UPAYA PENYEMPURNAANNYA DALAM RANGKA PEMENUHAN KEWENANGAN DIREKSI BUMD YANG BERBENTUK

Legal Spirit ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Billy Pahlevy Islamy
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Limited Liability ◽  
Company Law ◽  
Limited Liability Company ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
Business Judgment Rule ◽  
The Board Of Directors ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Principle Of Legality

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.

scholarly journals PROGRESIFITAS HUKUM PENGEMBALIAN DEVIDEN SAHAM INTERIM PERSEROAN TERBATAS PADA UUPT NO.40 TAHUN 2007

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Bella Mutiara Wahab
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Method ◽  
Stock Exchange ◽  
Limited Liability ◽  
Company Law ◽  
Limited Liability Company ◽  
Conceptual Approach ◽  
Dividend Distribution ◽  
The Board Of Directors ◽  
Annual Book

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. 

scholarly journals Passing Off yang Dilakukan Oleh Pihak yang Beritikad Tidak Baik Melalui Pemakaian Nama Perseroan Terbatas

2020 ◽  
Vol 23 (02) ◽  
pp. 100-118
Author(s):  
Kimham Pentakosta ◽  
Elly Hernawati
Keyword(s):  
Government Regulation ◽  
Limited Liability ◽  
Limited Liability Company ◽  
Bad Faith ◽  
Passing Off ◽  
Directorate General ◽  
Trademark Registration ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Government ◽  
Legal Administration

This paper focuses on the similarity of functions between Trademarks and Limited Liability Company Name, namely quality assurance function, which enables both to provide a guarantee on the reputation of goods and/or services offered to the consumer. Such similarity of functions between those two different legal terminology opens a loophole for any party, based on bad faith, to conduct passing off towards a registered trademarks owned by another party through the use of a limited liability company name. This paper shows the urgency of a harmonization and integration between the mechanism of applying for Trademark registration and the submission of the name of a limited liability company in Indonesia. Therefore, this paper will examine and criticize the laws and regulations relating to the two terminology above, inter alia the Law Number 20 of 2016 regarding Trademarks and Geographical Indications and the Government Regulation Number 43 of 2011 regarding Procedures for Filing and Use of Limited Liability Company Name. This paper concludes that the government of the Republic of Indonesia must immediately amend the regulation on the requirements for submitting the name of a limited liability company, by requiring the Directorate General of General Legal Administration to reject the name of a limited liability company that uses a name that has been registered as a brand by another party.

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 JURIDICAL REVIEW OF BUILDING RIGHTS EXTENSION ON MANAGEMENT RIGHTS

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 116
Author(s):  
Herlina Hanum Harahap ◽  
Danial Syah
Keyword(s):  
Government Regulation ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
Legal Uncertainty

The term of Building Use Rights on Management Rights was initially for 50 years in accordance with the provisions of Article 35 of Act No. 5 of 1960 but with the existence of Article 29 of Government Regulation Number 27 of 2014 to five 5 years. This clearly results in the issue of legal uncertainty for holders of Building Use Rights over Management Rights. The method used is normative juridical, the results of research obtained based on the analysis carried out can be seen that so far the arrangement for extension of Building Use Rights over Management Rights cannot be separated from the provisions of Article 35 of Act No. 5 of 1960, namely 30 years which can be extended with an approved for 20 years, with the provision of Article 29 of Government Regulation Number 27 of 2014 on Management of State and/or Regional Property, it has clearly changed the length of time granting Building Use Rights over Management Rights, namely for five years which can be extended with government approval. The provisions of Article 29 of Government Regulation Number 27 of 2014 on Management of State and/or Regional Property have resulted in legal certainty issues and can harm the holders of Building Use Rights above management rights so that it is clear that the provisions including Verordnung & Autonome Satzung have contradicted the provisions.

scholarly journals Peran Humas Perusahaan dalam Pelaksanaan Tanggung Jawab Sosial terhadap Masyarakat Desa Sekampil Kecamatan Pelepat Kabupaten Bungo Provinsi Jambi

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 65-78
Author(s):  
Sri Wahyuni ◽  
Samsu ◽  
Sururudin
Keyword(s):  
Community Development ◽  
Public Relations ◽  
Social Responsibility ◽  
Government Regulation ◽  
Limited Liability ◽  
Positive Influence ◽  
Environmental Responsibility ◽  
Limited Liability Company ◽  
Corporate Social

This research was motivated by complaints from residents of Sekampil village who felt uncomfortable with the pollution of the river water they use for their daily life, which was allegedly due to the disposal of the company's factory waste into the river. On the other hand, the company wants to provide social responsibility or CSR grants. Public Relations is the company's bridge to communicate with the Sekampil community. The purpose of this study is to explain CSR and the role of public relations in this situation. The study found that the first implementation of corporate social responsibility at PT. Citra Sawit Harum has generally been implemented based on the applicable provisions, namely Law Number 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Companies and Government Regulation Number 47 of 2012 concerning Social and Environmental Responsibility of Limited Liability Companies as the implementation regulations. However, in Sekampil there are still shortcomings in its implementation, namely the limited number of scholarships and community development. Although, overall, it has had a positive influence on the community around the company. In the future, the company must be more effective in carrying out social responsibility so that the community around the company does not feel disadvantaged by the existence of this limited liability company.

scholarly journals IMPLEMENTASI PP NO. 27 TAHUN 1998 TENTANG PENGGABUNGAN PELEBURAN DAN PENGAMBILALIHAN PERSEROAN TERBATAS DENGAN BERLAKUNYA UU NO. 40 TAHUN 2007

2010 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sukirman Sukirman
Keyword(s):  
Economic Development ◽  
Government Regulation ◽  
Limited Liability ◽  
Limited Liability Company ◽  
National Economic ◽  
National Economic Development

Incorporated Company is one of the most preferred form of the Company by Entrepreneur and holds an important role in mobilizing the National Economic Development. To develop incorporated company to become a healthy business, can be reach by the expansion that can be done through Merger, Consolidation and Acquisition. From those three forms, takeovers is considered more practical and profitable for the company to develop their business, because there are no company that merged or disbanded. In the implementation, the enactment of Law Number 40 Year 2007 concerning Incorporated Company are not followed by the promulgation of Regulation of the implementation of the Act. This causes the interested parties still refer to the former regulations. The problems that arise is how the implementation of Government Regulation No.27 year 1998 about Merger, Consolidation, and Acquisition of Limited Liability Company with the enactment of Law No.40 Year 2007. Based on the analysis, it known that the enactment of Law No.40 Year 2007 concerning Incorporated Company, Government Regulation No.27 Year 1998 concerning Merger, consolidation, and Acquisition still in force. In addition, Merger, consolidation, and acquisition is still based on Government Regulation No.27 Year 1998 and Article 134 of Company Law.Keywords: Merger, Consolidation, and Acquisition.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document