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 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 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 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.

PARTNERS’ OF A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP LEGAL POSITION

2018 ◽  
Vol 31 (31) ◽  
pp. 63-80
Author(s):  
Klaudia Grzebiela
Keyword(s):  
Limited Liability ◽  
Common Type ◽  
Legal Person ◽  
Limited Liability Company ◽  
Legal Form ◽  
Limited Partnership ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
Legal Position ◽  
Limited Partnerships

The main purpose of this article is to present the role and position of partners in a limited partnership. The growing interest in choosing this organizational and legal form is due to its specificity. A limited partnership allows shaping the rights and obligations of the company’s partners, who are divided into two groups: general partners and limited partners. The reason for different legal nature of these entities who are relative to each other should be noticed. Furthermore their liability for the company’s liabilities is shaped differently, as well as the issue of running company’s affairs and its representation. Currently a common type of limited partnership called Limited Liability Limited Partnerships (LLLP), wherein Limited Liability Company as a legal person becomes the general partner. This legal solution is beneficial for its partners. In doctrine is considered as an atypical legal company.

scholarly journals KONTRAK PERSEROAN TERBATAS YANG MENGANDUNG TINDAKAN ULTRA VIRES

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 79-82
Author(s):  
Yoel Bello ◽  
Zulkifli Makkawaru ◽  
Abd. Haris Hamid
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Limited Liability ◽  
District Court ◽  
Limited Liability Company ◽  
The Board Of Directors ◽  
The Right

Kegiatas usaha perseroan terbatas dilaksanakan oleh organ perseroan terbatas yaitu Direksi perseroan terbatas, Direksi dapat mewakili perseroan terbatas untuk melakukan kontrak dengan pihak terkait. Tindakan mewakili Perseroan Terbatas oleh Direksi harus sesuai dengan aturan sebagaiman dalam Undang-Undang No. 40 Tahun 2007 Tentang Perseroan Terbatas atau yang telah ditentukan dalam Anggaran Dasar Perseroan Terbatas. Apabilan tidakan Direksi Perseroan Terbatas  melaksanakan Kontrak yang dapat merugikan Perseroan karena bertentangan dengan Undang-Undang No. 40 Tahun 2007 Tentang Perseroan Terbatas atau yang telah ditatur dalam Anggaran Dasar Perseroan Terbatas maka kontrak yang dibuat mengandung Ultra Vires. Jika Direksi melakukan tindakan Ultra Vires maka sesuai dengan Pasal 61 Undang-Undang No. 40 Tahun 2007 tentang Perseroan Terbatas, kepada Pemegang sahan berhak mengajukan Gugatan terhadap Perseroan ke Pengadilan Negeri. Limited liability companies are carried out by Directors of limited liability companies. The directors can represent limited liability companies to enter into contracts with related parties. The act of representing a Limited Liability Company by the Board of Directors must be in accordance with the provisions in Law No. 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Companies or those stipulated in the Articles of Association of Limited Liability Companies. If the actions of the Board of Directors of a Limited Liability Company implement a Contract that could be detrimental to the Company because it is contrary to Law No. 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Companies or those stipulated in the Articles of Association of Limited Liability Companies, the contracts made contain Ultra Vires. If the Board of Directors carries out Ultra Vires actions, in accordance with Article 61 of Law No. 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Companies, the shareholders have the right to file a lawsuit against the Company to the District Court.

scholarly journals PENCATATAN PERUBAHAN DIREKSI DI KEMENTERIAN TERKAIT SEBAGAI DASAR PENYELESAIAN SENGKETA KEWENANGAN DIREKSI

2020 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 369
Author(s):  
Maleakhi W. Sitompul
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Limited Liability ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Limited Liability Company ◽  
Legal Provisions ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
The Board Of Directors ◽  
The Right ◽  
A Company

Research on the recording of changes to directors in the relevant Ministry, namely the Ministry of Law and Human Rights, aims to examine whether the authorized Directors in a company are Directors registered at the Ministry of Law and Human Rights. In addition, it is also to examine whether the provisions of Law no. 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Companies and / or the Company's Articles of Association is sufficient to resolve disputes of authority in the event of a dispute regarding the composition and number of directors in a company, which one has the right to act against other parties. Disputes regarding the composition and authority of the Board of Directors in a limited liability company often become disputes in court, even though Indonesia's positive legal provisions have provided clear and firm rules about who the Board of Directors can represent in and out of court. Based on research, it can be seen that the starting point is from the provisions in Law No. 40 of 2007 Articles 29 and 98, changes in the members of the board of directors can only be effective for third parties, as from the date the changes are recorded in the Company Register by the Minister of Law and Human Rights in accordance with Law No. 40 of 2007 Articles 29 and 98.

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

scholarly journals Minority Shareholders’ Legal Protection in a Limited Liability Company System

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (11) ◽  
pp. 1606-1612
Author(s):  
I Gde Sukarmo ◽  
◽  
Hayyanul Haq ◽  
Zainal Asikin ◽  
Salim HS
Keyword(s):  
Research Method ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Limited Liability ◽  
Limited Liability Company ◽  
Minority Shareholders ◽  
Shareholder Protection ◽  
The Law ◽  
Legal Concepts ◽  
Laws And Regulations

The purpose of this study is to determine the legal protection model for the majority and minority shareholders in public limited companies. This research method is normative research. To investigate the ineffectiveness of laws and regulations, in particular, Law No. 40 of 2007 on limited liability companies in providing shareholder protection, researchers have studied the laws and regulations and considered the views of experts on legal concepts related to legal protection for shareholders, particularly, minority shareholders. The results showed that the law did not provide maximum legal protection for minority shareholders, creating an imbalance between the rights of the minority and majority shareholders. For this reason, 1) reform or progressive changes in laws and regulations are needed, for instance, in PT Law No. 40 of 2007. These changes should be fundamental to philosophical aspects (values and perspectives) in providing shareholder protection; 2) the review of shareholders’ protection methods should be based on the aspects of fairness

scholarly journals Entrepreneurship of Cities through Business Companies in the Slovak Republic

2019 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-9
Author(s):  
Maroš Valach ◽  
Peter Ágh
Keyword(s):  
Slovak Republic ◽  
Limited Liability ◽  
Spatial Layout ◽  
Limited Liability Company ◽  
Asset Ownership ◽  
Legal Form ◽  
Research Results ◽  
Long Term Experience

Abstract Local self-governments in the Slovak Republic have many possibilities to do business to capitalize their assets and generate their own budget revenues. The purpose of the article was to identify and evaluate business companies through which local selfgovernments conduct business from different perspectives. We focused on businesses with asset ownership of municipalities with city status. When analyzing businesses, we have taken into account their size, spatial layout, legal form, subject of activity, and their economy. Slovak cities have a long-term experience with conducting business through business companies. Most of these are companies with 100% ownership of the cities, in terms of the legal form of a limited liability company. The research results confirm that the significant effect of government-run business is the increase in the value of assets.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document