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 Pembuatan Surat Izin Usaha Perdagangan Bagi Perseroan Terbatas Dengan Terbitnya Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 29 Tahun 2016

Acta Comitas ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 364
Author(s):  
Anak Agung Bagus Putra Wibawa
Keyword(s):  
Government Regulation ◽  
Limited Liability ◽  
Limited Liability Company ◽  
Normative Study ◽  
Legal Concept ◽  
Company Limited ◽  
Limited Company ◽  
Trading Activities ◽  
The Government ◽  
Authorized Capital

The issuance of Government Regulation Number 29 Year 2016 concerning Changes in the Authorized Capital of Limited Liability has an impact on the founders of the company related to the cost reduction of the establishment of a Limited Liability Company which gives freedom to the founders of the company in determining the legal basis of a Limited Liability Company. Limited Liability Company is a company that carries out trading activities. Every company that carries out trading activities is obliged to take care of the Trade Business License. The making of Trade Business License is regulated in the Minister of Trade's Regulation No. 46 / M-DAG / PER / 9/2009 concerning Issuance of Trading Business License. One of the conditions is to have a wealth of Rp 50,000,000 (fifty million rupiah). From this regulation arises a norm conflict between the Government Regulation and the Ministerial Regulation. The problems arising from this research are the process of establishing a limited company and how is the legal implication of establishing a limited company in making a trade business license with government regulation number 29 of 2016. This research is a normative study with a legal approach and a legal concept analysis approach. The process of establishing a limited liability company is by ordering the name of the company online, then making the deed of establishment of a Limited Liability Company with the conditions set. After all is fulfilled, then the registration is done online on the web https://www.ahu.go.id. the legal implications of establishing a Limited Company in making Trade Business License with Government Regulation Number 29 of 2016 is that the company's founder can make Trade Business License with an authorized capital based on the agreement of the company's founders. Terbitnya Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 29 Tahun 2016 tentang Perubahan Modal Dasar Perseroan Terbatas berdampak pada pendiri perseroan terkait keringanan biaya pendirian Perseroan Terbatas (PT) yang memberikan kebebasan bagi para pendiri perseroan dalam menentukan bersaran modal dasar Perseroan Terbatas. Perseroan Terbatas merupakan perusahaan yang didalamnya melakukan kegiatan perdagangan. Setiap perushaaan yang melakukan kegiatan perdagangan wajib untuk mengurus Surat Izin Usaha Perdangan (SIUP). Pembuatan SIUP diatur dalam Perautran Menteri Perdagangan Republik Indonesia Nomor 46/M-DAG/PER/9/2009 tentang Penerbitan Surat Izin Usaha Perdagangan. Salah satu syaratnya adalah memiliki kekayaan sebesar Rp 50.000.000, (lima puluh juta rupiah). Dari peraturan tersebut timbul konflik norma antara Peraturan Pemerintah dengan Peraturan Menteri tersebut. Adapun permasalahan yang timbul dari penelitian ini adalah Bagaimanakah Proses Pendirian Persoran Terbatas dan Bagaimanakah Implikasi Hukum Pendirian Perseoran Terbatas Dalam Membuat Surat Izin Usaha Perdagangan dengan Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 29 Tahun 2016. Penelitian ini berupa penelitian normatif dengan pendeketan undang-undang dan pendekatan analisis konsep hukum. Peroses pendirian perseroan terbatas yaitu dengan memesan nama perseroan secara online, lalu pembuatan akta pendirian Perseroan Terbatas dengan syarat-syarat yang telah diatur. Setelah semua terpenuhi baru dilakukan pendaftarkan melalui online di web https://www.ahu.go.id. implikasi hukum pendirian Perseoran Terbatas dalam membuat SIUP dengan Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 29 Tahun 2016 adalah pendiri perseroan dapat membuat SIUP dengan modal dasar kesepakatan para pendiri perseroan.

scholarly journals Third Parties’ Legal Protection over Agreed Authorized Capital Amount by Founders in Limited Liability Companies

Lentera Hukum ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 173
Author(s):  
Xavier Nugraha ◽  
Krisna Murti ◽  
Saraswati Putri
Keyword(s):  
Government Regulation ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Limited Liability ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Limited Liability Company ◽  
The Third ◽  
Ease Of Doing Business ◽  
The Government ◽  
Authorized Capital

On July 14, 2016, the Government enacted the Government Regulation Number 29 of 2016 regarding Amendments in Authorized Capital of a Limited Liability Company (LLC). Article 1 paragraph (3) of the regulation showed that the amount of authorized capital was submitted to the agreement of the LLC founders. This regulation was issued in order to increase Indonesia’s ‘ease of doing business’ rank, especially in ‘starting a business.’ This article aims to examine the legal protection for the third party over the amount of authorized capital based on the agreement of the LLC founders using the study of dogmatic law. Regulations referenced are Law Number 40 of 2007 regarding Limited Liability Companies and Government Regulation Number 29 of 2016 regarding Amendments in Authorized Capital of LLC. Based on the results of this study, it was found that the determination of authorized capital based on the agreement of LLC founders has neglected the protection of the third parties. This manifested particularly in protecting minority investors and resolving insolvency. Through the enactment of authorized capital based on the agreement of the founders, the mechanism of preventive and repressive legal protection to the third parties are assumed to be eliminated. Keywords: The Authorized Capital, Limited Liability Company, Agreement, Legal Protection.

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 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 Perlindungan Hukum Terhadap Pemegang Saham Minoritas Pada Perseroan Terbatas Yang Melakukan Merger

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-62
Author(s):  
I Kadek Sridana ◽  
I Nyoman Putu Budiartha ◽  
I Putu Gede Seputra
Keyword(s):  
Research Method ◽  
Government Regulation ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Limited Liability ◽  
Limited Liability Company ◽  
Minority Shareholders ◽  
Legal Position ◽  
The Law ◽  
A Company

Abstract-Mergers can be said as a strategy or one way to increase a company, therefore there is a need for legal protection for minority shareholders if they do not agree with the merger but the merger is still implemented, and the shareholders are forced to accept the merger. The formulation of the problem in this case is (1) what is the position of the minority shareholders for the limited liability company that merges? (2) What is the legal protection of minority shareholders in a limited liability company that merges? This research method uses a normative research method by approaching the problem in the form of a draft law that relates to the problem under study. The sources of legal material to be used are sourced from research, the literature in the form of primary legal material and secondary legal material. The result of this study are the legal position of the minority shareholders of the company (PT) that carried out the merger has been regulated in Law number 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Companies and in Government Regulation Number 27 of 1998 concerning merger, consolidation and takeover of the interests of minority shareholders. In general, the law of limited liability companies is a guideline in the framework of protecting minority shareholders. Protection of minority shares is one of the important things, especially when the company conducts legal actions such as mergers, both preventive legal protection and repressive legal protection. Keywords: Legal protection, shareholders, mergers Abstrak- Merger dapat dikatakan sebagai strategi atau salah satu cara untuk meningkatkan suatu perusahaan oleh karena itu perlu adanya perlindungan hukum terhadap pemegang saham minoritas apabila mereka tidak setuju dengan merger namun merger tetap dilaksanakan, dan pemegang saham tersebut dipaksakan untuk menerima merger tersebut. Adapun rumusan masalah dalam hal ini (1) Bagaimanakah kedudukan pemegang saham minoritas bagi perseroan terbatas yang melakukan merger? (2) Bagaimanakah perlindungan hukum terhadap pemegang saham minoritas pada perseroan terbatas yang melakukan merger? Metode penelitian ini menggunakan metode penelitian normatif dengan melakukan pendekatan masalah berupa pedekatan perundang-undangan yang berkaitan dengan masalah yang dikaji. Adapun sumber bahan hukum yang akan digunakan yakni bersumber dari penelitian, kepustakaan berupa bahan hukum primer dan bahan hukum sekunder. Adapun hasil dari penelitian ini adalah kedudukan hukum pemegang saham minoritas terhadap perusahaan (PT) yang melakukan merger, sudah diatur dalam Undang-undang nomor 40 tahun 2007 tentang Perseroan terbatas serta dalam Peraturan pemerintah Nomor 27 Tahun 1998 tentang penggabungan, peleburan, dan pengambilalihan tentang kepentingan pemegang saham minoritas. Secara umum hukum perseroan terbatas menjadi pedoman dalam rangka perlindungan pemegang saham minoritas. Perlindungan terhadap saham minoritas merupakan salah satu hal yang penting terutama saat persroan melakukan perbuatan hukum seperti merger baik perlindungan hukum secara preventif maupun perlindungan hukum secara represif. Kata kunci: Perlindungan hukum, Pemegang saham, Merger

Akibat Hukum Surat Pertanggungjawaban Laporan Tahunan Yang Tidak Ditandatangani Oleh Seluruh Dewan Komisaris

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 133-143
Author(s):  
Atika Wulan Dari ◽  
Busyra Azheri ◽  
Yussy Adelina Mannas
Keyword(s):  
Annual Report ◽  
Case Reports ◽  
Limited Liability ◽  
General Meeting ◽  
Company Law ◽  
Limited Liability Company ◽  
Legal Consequence ◽  
A Company ◽  
Legal Consequences ◽  
Laws And Regulations

The purpose of this study is to analyze how the legal consequences of the annual report accountability letter were not signed by the entire Board of Commissioners of a limited liability company by looking at the case of PT. Garuda Indonesia Tbk which occurred in 2019. Where in that case there was a rejection by 2 (two) Commissioners from PT. Garuda Indonesia Tbk to sign the annual report at the General Meeting of Shareholders. The nature of this research uses normative research, namely by reviewing laws and regulations, as well as company case reports. Based on this case, the function of company organs in charge of supervising a company is not going well. The case shows that this organ does not carry out its supervisory function in accordance with Article 108 of the Limited Liability Company Law. The legal consequence in this case is the imposition of fines on the organ of the company that signs the annual report. This is a consequence of the collegiality of the responsibility of the Board of Commissioners in a limited liability company.

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.

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 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 Minimum Authorized Capital After the Enactment of Job Creation Law: Status Quo, Controversies, and Road Ahead

Lentera Hukum ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Kania Jennifer Wiryadi ◽  
Bayu Novendra
Keyword(s):  
Job Creation ◽  
Limited Liability ◽  
Capital Requirements ◽  
Company Law ◽  
Limited Liability Company ◽  
Minimum Capital ◽  
Business Units ◽  
Minimum Capital Requirement ◽  
Limited Company ◽  
Authorized Capital

In a limited liability company, capital becomes one of the primary elements. However, the regulation regarding capital in Indonesia has changed several times, as its latest concern on the enactment of the omnibus bill on Job Creation Law in 2020. This paper discussed the following problems. First, what are the status quo and the development of regulations regarding minimum capital requirements in Indonesia? Second, what are the pros and cons of minimum capital requirement regulations and their developments in other countries? Third, what is the minimum capital requirements regulation that suits the conditions in Indonesia? This paper used legal research, emphasizing literature study. In so doing, the data were analyzed with the deductive method to construct conclusions. This paper showed that each limited liability company from the 1995 Limited Company Law, the 2007 Limited Company Law to the Job Creation Law had various minimum capital requirements provisions that lasted to its abolishment under the Job Creation Law. In this context, the initial policy on the minimum capital requirement was to protect creditors. In practice, however, this policy was not effective because of many other effective alternatives to protect creditors, by encouraging transparency in corporate transactions and offering easy access to corporate information. The dominance of micro and small business units in Indonesia (99% of business units) explained the urgency of eliminating minimum capital requirements regulations. The elimination of minimum authorized capital requirements was a tremendous effort to strengthen micro and small enterprises. KEYWORDS: Limited Liability Company, Job Creation Law, Company Law.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document