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.

scholarly journals Perjanjian Kerjasama (Joint Venture) Penanaman Modal Asing dalam Usaha Perhotelan

2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 346-351
Author(s):  
I Gusti Ngurah Rendra Suryana ◽  
I Nyoman Putu Budiartha ◽  
Ni Made Puspasutari Ujianti
Keyword(s):  
Research Method ◽  
Joint Venture ◽  
Limited Liability ◽  
Limited Liability Company ◽  
Legal Research ◽  
Legal Consequence ◽  
Hospitality Business ◽  
A Company ◽  
Open Nature ◽  
Legal Consequences

The formation of investment activities in a country varies greatly according to the open nature of the country and its people. Therefore, cooperation is created and established between the two parties is because of the desire to seek profit so that a group of people together create a company, either with parties from one country or across countries. This is what forms a joint venture agreement. Based on this background, this research was conducted with the aim of describing how the procedure for making a joint venture agreement in the hotel business and what the legal consequences are for the default of the joint venture agreement in the hotel business. This research was conducted using a normative legal research method. The results of this study indicated that the procedure for making a joint venture agreement in a hotel business must be in the form of a limited liability company and must have conditions in providing a hotel company and are required to apply for a principle license and a permanent business license subject to the investor coordinating body to submit reports on the investor's activities. In addition, the legal consequence of the joint venture agreement default in the hospitality business is that those who violate the agreement, the parties related to the agreement, will be subject to statutory sanctions related to the rules of the joint venture agreement as well as the regulations that they have agreed upon together.

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 Tanggung Jawab Direksi atas Terjadinya Pailit Perseroan Terbatas

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 83
Author(s):  
Antonius Faebuadodo Gea ◽  
Hirsanuddin Hirsanuddin ◽  
Djumardin Djumardin
Keyword(s):  
Limited Liability ◽  
Company Law ◽  
Limited Liability Company ◽  
Conceptual Approach ◽  
The Board Of Directors ◽  
Approach Method ◽  
Separate System ◽  
Accountability Mechanism ◽  
The Law ◽  
Legal Consequences

This research was conducted to find out how the directors' accountability mechanism caused by an error or negligence caused the limited company to go bankrupt and how the legal consequences on the bankruptcy of a limited liability company. This type of research was classified as a normative legal research or also called doctrinal research, namely research that examined the law as a separate system that was separate from various other systems in society so as to provide a boundary between the legal system with other systems. The approach method used was the statutory approach; and Conceptual Approach. In principle, the Board of Directors was not personally responsible for acts committed for and on behalf of the company based on its authority. The scope of conduct that would be personally accounted for by the directors of the company was negligence because the directors did not fulfill the contents of the agreement and mistakes because the directors commit acts against the law. Bankruptcy of a Limited Liability Company was the bankruptcy of itself, not the bankruptcy of its management, even though the bankruptcy was due to the negligence of its management. So that management should not be held liable jointly for any losses due to negligence and could only be held accountable if the company's assets were not sufficient to cover losses due to bankruptcy Article 90 paragraph (2) of the Limited Liability Company Law).

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 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 ANALISIS YURIDIS PEMBERHENTIAN ANGGOTA DIREKSI DENGAN TANPA DIDAHULUI ADANYA PEMBELAAN DIRI DALAM RUPS [JURIDIC ANALYSIS REGARDING TERMINATION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS WITHOUT SELF DEFENSE IN THE GENERAL MEETING OF SHAREHOLDERS]

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 133
Author(s):  
Felicia Darlene
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Limited Liability ◽  
General Meeting ◽  
Company Law ◽  
District Court ◽  
Limited Liability Company ◽  
Self Defense ◽  
The Board Of Directors ◽  
Bahasa Indonesia

<em>One of the sectors being developed by the Indonesian government is economic growth, which impact on increasing Limited Liability Companies. Provisions that contain procedures for managing a Limited Liability Company are regulated in Law Number 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Companies (UU PT), one of which is the procedure for dismissing members of the Board of Directors. Article 105 of the Company Law stipulates that the dismissal of a member of the Board of Directors is taken after the person concerned is given the opportunity to defend himself. Furthermore, regarding legal protection for the dismissal of members of the Board of Directors who violate the provisions of the Company Law. The Law on Judicial Power regulates the absolute competence of each judiciary. With absolute competence, each judicial body has different jurisdiction to judge. The method used in this study is normative juridical. The results and conclusions of this study are that the dismissal of members of the Board of Directors without any prior self-defense in the GMS is invalid if the members of the Board of Directors object to his dismissal. Legal protection for members of the Board of Directors who are dismissed not in accordance with the provisions of the Company Law is to file a lawsuit to the District Court.<br /><br /></em><strong>BAHASA INDONESIA ABSTRACT:</strong><p>Salah satu sektor yang sedang dikembangkan oleh pemerintah Indonesia adalah pertumbuhan ekonomi, yang berdampak pada meningkatnya Perseroan Terbatas. Ketentuan yang memuat tata cara pengurusan Perseroan Terbatas diatur dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 40 Tahun 2007 tentang Perseroan Terbatas (UU PT), salah satunya adalah tata cara pemberhentian anggota Direksi. Dalam Pasal 105 UU PT diatur bahwa keputusan pemberhentian anggota Direksi diambil setelah yang bersangkutan diberi kesempatan untuk membela diri. Selanjutnya mengenai perlindungan hukum atas pemberhentian anggota Direksi yang melanggar ketentuan UU PT. Undang-Undang Kekuasaan Kehakiman mengatur mengenai kompetensi absolut setiap peradilan. Dengan adanya kompetensi absolut, maka setiap badan peradilan mempunyai yurisdiksi mengadili yang berbeda-beda. Metode yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah yuridis normatif. Hasil dan kesimpulan dari penelitian ini adalah pemberhentian anggota Direksi dengan tanpa didahului adanya pembelaan diri dalam RUPS adalah tidak sah jika anggota Direksi keberatan atas pemberhentian dirinya. Perlindungan hukum bagi anggota Direksi yang diberhentikan tidak sesuai dengan ketentuan UUPT adalah mengajukan gugatan ke Pengadilan Negeri.</p>

scholarly journals STATUS HUKUM PEKERJA YANG DIANGKAT MENJADI ANGGOTA DIREKSI PADA PERSEROAN TERBATAS TANPA ADANYA PENGAKHIRAN PERJANJIAN KERJA

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 33
Author(s):  
Bima Nuranda ◽  
Anita Afriana ◽  
Holyness N Singadimedja
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Limited Liability ◽  
General Meeting ◽  
Limited Liability Company ◽  
Legal Problem ◽  
The Board Of Directors ◽  
Legal Consequences

<em>The appointment of a director in a Limited Liability Company can be chosen from its own workers. In reality, this raises a legal problem when the worker appointed to the Board of Directors is dismissed by the General Meeting of Shareholders (GMS), while the termination has been regulated in Law Number 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Companies, but when workers appointed as members of the board of directors do not accept such dismissals, the aforementioned directors choose to submit the fulfillment of their workers’ rights as stipulated in Law Number 13 of 2003 concerning Employment. From this problem, it can be inferred that there is a lack of clarity regarding the legal status of a worker who is appointed as a board of directors through GMS and the legal consequences when the worker appointed as director is dismissed.</em>

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.

Effectiveness of clauses restricting equity transfer in articles of association of limited liability companies using fuzzy AHP: A data analysis of related cases in China from 2010 to 20191

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-12
Author(s):  
Peng Chen ◽  
Yingzhi Nie
Keyword(s):  
Fuzzy Ahp ◽  
Limited Liability ◽  
Limited Liability Company ◽  
Analytic Hierarchy ◽  
Legal Norms ◽  
The Past ◽  
Analytic Hierarchical Process ◽  
Closed Characteristics ◽  
A Company ◽  
External Equity

Based on the company cases published in China over the past ten years, both theoretical methods and Artificial intelligence technologies were applied to analysis cases data on the effectiveness of clauses restricting equity transfer in articles of association of limited liability companies (LLCs). With its unique characters based on shareholders and strong vitality, limited liability company (LLC), as the “evergreen tree” among the market players, is a company form adopted by many investors. Nevertheless, due to its prominent closed characteristics, equity transfer has become a bottleneck for the development of LLCs. According to this paper, it is necessary to distinguish between the effectiveness of clauses restricting internal and external equity transfer in articles of association of LLCs. Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchical Process (AHP) is utilized for which involves process of analytic hierarchy modelled with utilizing theory of fuzzy logic. Moreover, instead of being confined to the existing legal norms, the judgment standard of clauses restricting equity transfer in articles of association of LLCs should be comprehensively measured by the golden rules, i.e. “fairness”, “autonomy” and “operability”.

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. 

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document