scholarly journals KEPUTUSAN BISNIS DAN TANGGUNGJAWAB DIREKSI DALAM PRINSIP FIDUCIARY DUTIES PADA PERSEROAN TERBATAS

2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 37-56
Author(s):  
Ali Muhayatsyah
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
General Principle ◽  
Limited Liability ◽  
Good Faith ◽  
Fiduciary Duty ◽  
Limited Liability Company ◽  
Fiduciary Duties ◽  
Business Judgment Rule ◽  
The Board Of Directors ◽  
Full Sense

The main party charged with fiduciary duty is the board of directors. In UUPT No. 40/2007 it does not specifically regulate fiduciary duty but rather regulates general principles. From the general principle of fiduciary duty, directors in managing the company must pay attention to the interests of the company above other interests; directors must act in accordance with the aims and objectives of the company (intra vires), and pay attention to the limitations and restrictions determined by the law and the articles of association of the company. In carrying out their duties as directors, they are required to have in good faith and in full sense of responsibility; Directors must carry out their duties diligently, carefully, and smartly and skillfully. Keywords: Directors, Fiduciary Duty, Business Judgment Rule, Limited Liability Company,   Abstrak Pihak utama yang dibebankan kewajiban fiduciary duty adalah direksi. Dalam UUPT Nomor 40 Tahun 2007 tidak mengatur secara khusus mengenai fiduciary duty tetapi mengatur prinsip-prinsip umumnya. Dari prinsip umum fiduciary duty makadireksi dalam mengurus perseroan harus memperhatikan kepentingan perseroan di atas kepentingan lainnya;direksi harus bertindak sesuai dengan maksud dan tujuan perseroan (intra vires), serta memperhatikan batasan dan larangan yang ditentukan UU dan anggaran dasar Perseroan. Dalam melaksanakan tugas sebagai direksi, diharuskan memiliki itikad baik (in good faith) dan tanggung jawab (in full sense of responsibility); Direksi harus melaksanakan tugasnya dengan rajin (diligently), penuh kehati-hatian (carefully), dan pintar serta terampil (skillfully). Kata kunci: Direksi, Fiduciary Duty, Business Judgement Rule, Perseroan Terbatas,

scholarly journals IMPLEMENTASI DOKTRIN BUSINESS JUDGEMENT RULE DI INDONESIA

2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 77-87
Author(s):  
Muhamad Hafizh Akram ◽  
Nisriina Primadani Fanaro
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Limited Liability ◽  
Good Faith ◽  
Limited Liability Company ◽  
Literature Study ◽  
Business Decisions ◽  
Business Judgment Rule ◽  
The Board Of Directors ◽  
Do So

The Board of Directors is one of the most important organs in a Limited Liability Company. Management of the Company that carried out by the board of directors includes running business activities, controlling, and making business decisions that have an impact on a Limited Liability Company whether the decision will cause loss or profit. In making business decisions, the Board of Directors must do so in the manner of good faith, carefully, and in accordance with the aims and objectives of the Company's establishment. If the directors already made the decision the correct manner, they cannot be held personally accountable for the decisions they make. That is what a Business judgment rules is, a doctrine that provides protection to directors to not be personally responsible if the business decisions taken cause losses to the company. Relying on a literature study, the business judgment rule is implicitly regulated in article 92 paragraph 1 and 97 paragraph 5 of Law no. 40 of 2007 regarding the Limited Liability Companies, several cases related to the business judgment rule, this article intends to analyze the implementation of the doctrine of the business judgment rule in Indonesia

scholarly journals Responsibilities of the Board of Directors in the Bankruptcy of the Limited Liability Company

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 66
Author(s):  
Padriadi Wiharjokusumo ◽  
Novita Romauli Saragih
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Analysis ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Limited Liability ◽  
Company Law ◽  
Good Faith ◽  
Limited Liability Company ◽  
Full Responsibility ◽  
The Board Of Directors ◽  
Data Source

Article 97 paragraph (1) of the Company Law requires each member of the Board of Directors to be required in good faith and full responsibility to undertake the supervision of the company for the interests and business of the company. This implies the Board of Directors is liablefor each management and representation of the company in the company’s framework in pursuing its purposes and objectives.This  researchexaminesthe responsibilities of the board of Directors in the bankruptcy of the Limited Liability Company based on Law No. 40 of 2007. This research was conducted through a normative juridical approach.The  data  source  of  this  research  was  gained from the library study. Then  it  was  analyzed  using the qualitative  analysis  which depicts and dissects the significant information.The conclusion  of  this  research is  thatthe responsibilities of the Board of Directors in Bankruptcy Limited Liability Company based on Law No. 40 of 2007 comprises 2 (two) aspects, in particular; civil liability and criminal liability.

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 Implementation of the Doctrine of the Business Judgment Rule on Bankruptcy Law in Indonesia

Yuridika ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 35 (1) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Andika Wijaya
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Limited Liability ◽  
Company Law ◽  
Bankruptcy Law ◽  
Limited Liability Company ◽  
Business Judgment Rule ◽  
Accounts Payable ◽  
The Board Of Directors ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Oriented Research

One of the mechanisms that can be taken in resolving accounts payable to a limited liability company in bankruptcy. In the case of bankruptcy due to mistakes made personally by the Board of Directors and the Board of Commissioners, they must be responsible for debts held by limited liability companies. The company law regulates the way for the Board of Directors and Board of Commissioners to avoid liability for losses suffered by the company, through the doctrine of the Business Judgment Rule (BJR). In practice, the application of the BJR doctrine in bankruptcy law is characterized by differences in interpretation between law enforcers. Differences in interpretation occur because there is no clear provision in the Republic of Indonesia Law Number 37 of 2004 concerning Bankruptcy and Delay of Obligations to Pay Debt (Law No. 37/2004) which limits the filing of bankruptcy applications to the personal Directors and Board of Commissioners. The research in this article is carried out by reform-oriented research methods, to make changes to Law No. 37/2004 to clarify the application of the BJR doctrine in bankruptcy law in Indonesia. With the implementation of legal reform, it is expected that there will be no difference in interpretation regarding the application of the BJR doctrine to bankruptcy law at the Commercial Court in Indonesia.

scholarly journals Application of the Principles of Business Judgment in the Authoritative Function of Directors of Limited Liability Company in Singaporean and Indonesian Legal Perspectives

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 93
Author(s):  
Daniel Hendrawan ◽  
Emilia Fitriana Dewi ◽  
Subiakto Sukarno ◽  
Isti Raafaldini Mirzanti
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Limited Liability ◽  
Comparative Law ◽  
Corporate Law ◽  
Good Faith ◽  
Limited Liability Company ◽  
The Board Of Directors ◽  
The Difference

The purpose of this study is to analyze the functions and authority of the director of limited liability company in applying business judgment principles, by taking comparative law studies in Singapore's common law and in Indonesia's civil law. By taking emphasis on the authority of directors in representing limited companies both in and out, there are several authorities that are regulated in it. This study was conducted with a comparative law approach, with descriptive qualitative analysis. The results showed that sometimes directors act outside their authority and can harm a limited liability company. On the other hand, that there are actions of the board of directors that are in accordance with their authority but still harm the limited liability company. In this case, the shareholders often hold accountable. In corporate law there is a principle of business judgment where a director cannot be held accountable if the directors are proven to have good faith. The difference between Singapore law and Indonesian law in regulating the authority of directors is the good faith assessment held by directors.

scholarly journals TRANSFORMASI DAN PENGAWASAN KEUANGAN NEGARA PADA BUMN DENGAN PRINSIP BUSINESS JUDGMENT RULE

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 192-203
Author(s):  
Nur Rohim Yunus ◽  
Latipah Nasution
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Limited Liability ◽  
Company Law ◽  
Limited Liability Company ◽  
Government Officials ◽  
Business Decision ◽  
Business Judgment Rule ◽  
The Board Of Directors ◽  
State Finance ◽  
Business Entities

Abstract, State assets in the form of shares of business entities are not state assets, but have been transformed into business entity assets. Likewise, government officials who become Directors/Commissioners and other shareholders have an equal position with private shareholders. The Board of Directors in carrying out their duties and authorities has the authority and protection in every business decision making, but this does not escape supervision through the BJR (Business Judgment Rule) principle, as contained in the Limited Liability Company Law. This study uses a qualitative research method with a statutory approach. The purpose of this study is to understand the criteria for state finances in SOEs and the legal consequences of financial losses and supervision of SOEs. The results of the study stated that the implementation of BJR on the Board of Directors of SOEs could be carried out after fulfilling the terms and conditions of the enactment of BJR. BJR can be implemented because a legal entity is actually subject to the Limited Liability Company law. Keywords: Supervision of SOEs ion; Business Judgment Rules; State Finance   Intisari: Kekayaan negara yang berbentuk saham dari badan usaha bukan merupakan kekayaan negara, tetapi telah bertransformasi menjadi kekayaan badan usaha. Demikian terhadap pejabat pemerintah yang menjadi Direksi/Komisaris dan pemegang saham lainnya memiliki kedudukan yang setara dengan pemegang saham swasta. Direksi dalam menjalankan tugas dan wewenang memiliki kewenangan dan perlindungan dalam setiap pengambilan keputusan bisnis, namun ini tak luput dari pengawasan melalui prinsip BJR (Business Judgment Rule), sebagaimana termuat dalam Undang-Undang Perseroan Terbatas. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode penelitian kualitatif dengan pendekatan perundang-undangan. Tujuan penelitian untuk dapat memahami kriteria keuangan negara pada BUMN dan akibat hukum kerugian keuangan dan pengawasan pada BUMN. Hasil penelitian menyatakan bahwa implementasi BJR terhadap Direksi BUMN dapat dilakukan setelah memenuhi syarat dan ketentuan berlakunya BJR. BJR dapat diimplementasikan karena badan usaha berbadan hukum sejatinya tunduk pada undang-undang Perseroan Terbatas. Kata Kunci: Pengawasan BUMN; Business Judgment Rule; Kuangan Negara

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 Tanggung Jawab dan Perlindungan Hukum Direksi dalam Pengurusan Perseroan Terbatas

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 107-137
Author(s):  
Raffles Raffles
Keyword(s):  
Legal Protection ◽  
Limited Liability ◽  
Company Law ◽  
Good Faith ◽  
Limited Liability Company ◽  
Business Judgment Rule ◽  
The Board Of Directors ◽  
Personal Accountability ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Personal Liability

This article discusses the responsibilities of directors and their legal protection in managing a limited liability company. The responsibility of the directors in managing a limited liability company as regulated in the 2007 Company Law is related to the duties and authority to run the management of the company for the benefit of the company and in accordance with the aims and objectives of the company. To carry out the management of the company, the directors are authorized to carry out the management of the company in accordance with policies deemed appropriate, within the limits specified in the 2007 Company Law and/or articles of association. The responsibility of members of the directors for the company’s losses can be seen from the nature of the responsibility is personal and collective. The directors’ liability is personal if the loss suffered by the company is due to an error or negligence of the individual members of the board of directors. The responsibility of the directors is collective if the company’s losses are caused by an error or negligence in the board’s decision or action. Legal protection for directors in company management is provided if the management is based on good faith and prudence, which is recognized as the business judgment rule doctrine. Basically, directors are responsible for all actions and decisions they make, even personal accountability. However, directors can avoid personal liability if they can prove the basis and reasons and are based on good faith and caution. Abstrak Artikel ini membahas tanggung jawab dan perlindungan hukum direksi dalam pengurusan perseroan terbatas. Pertanggungjawaban direksi dalam pengurusan perseroan terbatas sebagaimana diatur dalam UUPT Tahun 2007 terkait dengan tugas dan wewenangnya menjalankan pengurusan perseroan untuk kepentingan perseroan dan sesuai dengan maksud dan tujuan perseroan. Untuk menjalankan pengurusan perseroan, direksi berwenang menjalankan pengurusan perseroan sesuai dengan kebijakan yang dipandang tepat, dalam batas yang ditentukan dalam UUPT Tahun 2007 dan/atau anggaran dasar. Pertanggungjawaban anggota direksi atas kerugian perseroan dilihat dari sifat pertanggungjawabannya bersifat pribadi dan kolektif. Pertanggungjawaban direksi bersifat pribadi apabila kerugian yang dialami perseroan disebabkan kesalahan atau kelalaian individu anggota direksi. Pertanggungjawaban direksi bersifat kolektif apabila kerugian perseroan diakibatkan adanya kesalahan atau kelalaian dalam keputusan atau tindakan dewan direksi. Perlindungan hukum terhadap direksi dalam pengurusan perusahaan diberikan jika pengurusan tersebut didasarkan pada itikad baik dan hati-hati, yang dikenali sebagai doktrin business judgement rule. Pada dasarnya direksi bertanggung jawab atas segala tindakan dan keputusan yang dibuatnya, bahkan pertanggungjawaban pribadi. Namun demikian, direksi dapat terhindar dari tuntutan pertanggungjawaban secara pribadi apabila dapat membuktikan dasar dan alasannya dan didasarkan pada itikad aik dan hati-hati.

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 Penerapan Asas Piercing The Corporate Veil: Perspektif Tanggung Jawab Direksi Perseroan Terbatas

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 45
Author(s):  
Putri Sari Harahap ◽  
Tumanggor Tumanggor
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Descriptive Analysis ◽  
Secondary Data ◽  
Good Faith ◽  
Fiduciary Duty ◽  
Legal Research ◽  
The Board Of Directors ◽  
Piercing The Corporate Veil ◽  
The Veil

<p>Piercing The Corporate Veil principle is a common law doctrine that teaches about the veil special breakout company (corporate veil) covering the Board of Directors and other organs in running the company does not fit or have violated the principle of fiduciary duty (good faith) to the intent and purpose of the company.This type of research in this thesis is a normative legal research means tend to use secondary data in the form of primary legal materials, secondary law and tertiary  legal materials. To collect the data in this research is a stud y done by the descriptive analysis. The resulted in losses for both the company and third parties, First Defendant's actions can be categorized  as a tort (onrechtmatige daad) under Article 1365 of the Civil Code. In the verdict the judge in his ruling has been applying the principle of piercing the corporate veil but does not necessarily resolve the matter of debts between the Compa- ny (Plaintiff) with rights holders of promissory notes "mayofield notes" or the Board of Directors (Defendant 1) with the holders of promissory notes " mayofield note.</p><p>Keywords: Piercing the corporate veil, directors fiduciary duty</p>

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document