Nachweis einer „angemessenen Information“ im Sinne der Business Judgment Rule

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)

Download Full-text

AN ANALYSIS OF THE DIRECTORS’ DECISION-MAKING FUNCTION THROUGH THE LENS OF THE BUSINESS-JUDGMENT RULE

Obiter ◽

10.17159/obiter.v37i3.11521 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 37 (3) ◽

Author(s):

Jan-Louis van Tonder

Keyword(s):

Decision Making ◽

The State ◽

Corporate Law ◽

Company Law ◽

Best Interests ◽

Duty Of Care ◽

Business Judgment Rule ◽

Managerial Authority ◽

Court Interpreting ◽

Legislative Framework

The main purpose of this article is to examine the standard of conduct required from a director in the exercise of his decision-making function, through the lens of the business-judgment rule. The business-judgment rule provides the circumstances in which the duty to act in the best interests of the company and the duty of care, skill and diligence will be satisfied by a director. In order to achieve the stated goal the board’s statutory managerial authority, the standard of director’s conduct required to discharge the duty of care, skill and diligence as provided for in section 76(3)(c), and the features and functions of the business-judgment rule will also be examined. Section 5(2) of the Act provides that, to the extent appropriate, a court interpreting or applying the provisions of the Act may consider foreign-company law. This is complementary to section 5(1) which directs that the Act must be interpreted and applied in a manner that gives effect to the purpose of section 7. The article will refer to the highly developed corporate law in the State of Delaware to assist the research in examining the content and meaning of the decision-making function as a standard of director’s conduct. For this reason, the corporate legislative framework of the State of Delaware will also be discussed.

Download Full-text