Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Pada tesis ini, notaris Z yang membuat Akta Berita Acara RUPS PT X telah membuat akta yang tidak sesuai dengan ketentuan perundang-undangan yang berlaku. Pembuatan Akta Berita Acara RUPS PT X tersebut melanggar ketentuan pemanggilan sebagaimana yang diatur dalam Pasal 82 Undang- Undang Nomor 40 Tahun 2007 tentang Perseroan Terbatas (UU PT).Tesis ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui akibat dari pelanggaran terhadap ketentuan pemanggilan RUPS terhadap keabsahan akta tersebut. Pelanggaran tersebut mengakibatkan keputusan RUPS PT X tidak sah dan mengikat yang berarti bahwa akta tersebut menjadi batal demi hukum. Akta yang batal demi hukum tersebut tentunya menimbulkan kerugian bagi para pihak yang berkepentingan. Notaris Z tersebut harus mengganti biaya, rugi serta bunga kepada pihak yang dirugikan akibat Perbuatan Melanggar Hukum yang telah ia dilakukan.Metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah yuridis normatif yaitu dengan mengkaji penerapan UU PT, Undang-Undang Nomor 2 Tahun 2014 Tentang Jabatan Notaris serta Undang-Undang Nomor 25 Tahun 2007 Tentang Penanaman Modal dikaitkan dengan kasus pada Akta Berita Acara RUPS PT X. Penelitian ini memberikan saran untuk diadakan RUPS kembali agar tidak terdapat inkonsistensi pengaturan serta kesalahan-kesalahan dalam anggaran dasar PT X yang dapat berimplikasi pada keabsahannya.

---

In this thesis , Notary Z who makes the Deed of general meeting of shareholders of PT X has made a deed that is not in accordance with the statutory provisions applicable. Making of the deed news general meeting of shareholders of PT X has violated the provisions of the call as set forth in Article 82 of law number 40 of 2007 regarding Limited Liability Company (Company Law).

This thesis aims to find out as a result of the violation of the provisions of the summons general meeting of shareholders on the validity of the deed. The violation resulted in general meeting of shareholders PT X is not legally binding, which means that the deed becomes null and void. Deed null and void it would cause harm to the parties concerned. Notary Z should reimburse the costs, damages and interest to the injured party as a result of Unlawful Acts he has done.

The method used is a normative juridical namely by reviewing the application of the Company Law , Law number 2 of 2014 about position of the Notary and Law number 25 of 2007 on Investment associated with the case at the of deed news of General Meeting of Shareholders PT X. This study provides suggestions for the general meeting of shareholders is held back so that there are no inconsistencies settings as well as errors in the articles of association of PT X which may have implications for its validity."

"Tesis ini membahas mengenai suatu akta berita acara Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham yang dibuat oleh Notaris yang bertentangan dengan Anggaran Dasar Perseroan dan Undang-Undang Nomor 40 Tahun 2007 tentang Perseroan Terbatas UUPT . Oleh karena pengambilan keputusan dalam Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham RUPS yang tercantum dalam akta berita acara Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham yang dibuat oleh Notaris tersebut merugikan pemegang saham perseroan yang tidak hadir dalam RUPS. Rumusan masalah yang diangkat dalam tesis ini adalah mengenai keabsahan akta berita acara RUPS yang bertentangan dengan Anggaran Dasar Perseroan dan UUPT, dan implikasi hukumnya terhadap akta berita acara RUPS tersebut.Penelitian tesis ini merupakan penelitian hukum normatif, yaitu penelitian hukum dilakukan dengan cara meneliti bahan pustaka. Penelitian bersifat deskriptif analitis yang bermaksud memperkuat teori yang sudah ada. Kemudian simpulan dari tesis ini adalah bahwa akta berita acara RUPS yang bertentangan dengan Anggaran Dasar Perseroan dan UUPT adalah tidak sah dan batal demi hukum, dan implikasi hukum tidak hanya terjadi pada akta saja melainkan juga kepada perseroan, para pemegang saham dan Notaris. Sehingga organ perseroan dan Notaris perlu memahami dengan baik segala ketentuan dalam Anggaran Dasar Perseroan dan UUPT.

---

This thesis discusses minutes of a general meeting of shareholders by Notary which made against Constitutional Documents and Law of The Republic of Indonesia Number 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Company Company Law 40 2007 . Therefore that minutes of a general meeting of shareholders causes financial loss to another shareholder who absence the general meeting of shareholders GMS. Issues of this thesis are the legality minutes of a general meeting of shareholders by Notary which made against Article of Association and Company Law 40 2007 and legal implication towards that minutes of a general meeting of shareholders.

This thesis uses normative legal research which is the focuses on the research literature and analyzed using an analytical descriptive study to strengthen the existing theory. The conclusion this thesis is the minutes of a general meeting of shareholders by Notary which made against Article of Association and Company Law 40 2007 is invalid by law and the legal implication is not only to the minutes itself but also the company, shareholders, and Notary. So, all parts of the company and Notary need yo understand well about all the clauses in the Article of Association and Company Law 40 2007. "

"Tesis ini membahas mengenai keputusan pemegang saham di luar Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham Perseroan Terbatas sebagai dokumen luar negeri yang dianalisa dengan dokumen hukum PT X. Adapun permasalahan yang akan diangkat dalam penelitian ini adalah terkait keabsahan dokumen hukum yang dibuat di luar negeri yang akan dipergunakan di Indonesia berkaitan dengan perubahan anggaran dasar dan data PT dalam bentuk keputusan pemegang saham di luar RUPS PT; dan keabsahan keputusan pemegang saham PT X (analisa dokumen hukum PT X). Penelitian ini menggunakan metode penelitian berbentuk yuridis normatif. Hasil dari penelitian ini adalah keabsahan suatu dokumen asing berupa keputusan pemegang saham dapat dilihat dari 3 (tiga) aspek, yaitu aspek bahasa, aspek UUPT, dan aspek bentuk formil. Legalisasi bukanlah suatu syarat formil sehingga dilegalisasi atau tidaknya keputusan pemegang saham tidak mempengaruhi keabsahan dari keputusan pemegang saham. Dalam hal ini Keputusan Pemegang Saham PT X yang dituangkan dalam Akta Pernyataan Keputusan Rapat No. 22 Tanggal 27 Februari 2019 telah memenuhi keabsahan dari aspek bahasa, aspek UUPT, dan aspek bentuk formil. Walaupun tidak dilegalisasi, Keputusan Pemegang Saham tetap berlaku secara sah. Namun, pemerintah perlu bersikap tegas apakah prosedur legalisasi terhadap dokumen asing ini wajib dilakukan atau tidak. Apabila wajib dan bermaksud diberlakukan secara umum, maka kewajiban legalisasi harus diatur dalam suatu undang-undang.

---

This thesis discussed on shareholders resolution in lieu of General Meeting of Shareholders of Limited Liability Company as foreign documents which will be analyzed with legal document of PT X. The issues to be raised in these studies are related to the validity of foreign legal documents which will be used in Indonesia related to the change of article of association and company`s data in form of shareholder resolution in lieu of GMS; and the validity of shareholder resolution of PT X (analysis of legal documents of PT X). These studies adopted legal normative method. The result of these studies are the validity of foreign documents in form of shareholder resolution shall be observed in 3 (three) aspects, i.e. language, Company Law, and formal form aspects. Legalization is not a formal form aspect, therefore shareholders resolution without legalization shall not affect the validity of the shareholder resolution itself. In this regard, the Shareholders Resolution of PT X as stated in Deed of Statement of Meeting Resolution No. 22 dated 27 February 2019 has complied with the validity based on language, company law, and formal form aspect. Even though the Shareholders Resolution has not been legalized, the Shareholders Resolution are still legally valid. However, the government shall take decisive action whether the legalization procedures for foreign documents are mandatory or not. If such procedures are mandatory and intended to be applied generally, then the obligation for legalization shall be governed under specific law."

"ABSTRAKNotaris dalam menjalankan tugas dan jabatannya harus bersikap jujur, teliti, dan amanah. Jika tidak maka akan melanggar terhadap ketentuan dalam Pasal 16 ayat 1 Undang-UndangJabatan Notaris. Hal ini seperti mengenai kesesuaian antara akta Risalah Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham yang dibuat oleh Notaris dengan keadaan yang sebenarnya. tanggung jawab Notaris dalam Pembuatan Akta Risalah Rapat, Akibat Hukum dari Akta yang tidak sesuai dengan fakta yang sebenarnya. Metode yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini yuridis normatif yang bersifat deskriptif analitis, Jenis data yang digunakan ialah data sekunder dengan menggunakan menggunakan metode pengumpulan data studi dokumen, didukung wawancara dan diolah secara kualitatif. Dari hasil penelitian ini, bahwa Notaris harus bertanggung jawab terhadap akta yang dibuatnya, artinya Notaris wajib membacakan akta di hadapan Penghadap, kecuali untuk relaas akta sebagaimana diatur dalam 46 UUJN yang harus dijelaskan alasan tidak dibacakan, dan yang melakukan pelanggaran dapat dikenai sanksi. Sedangkan bagi Notaris yang bersangkutan dapat dikenai sanksi baik secara perdata, jika terbukti menimbulkan kerugian perdata maupun sanksi pidana, dan juga dapat dikenakan sanksi administratif dari Majelis Pengawas. Dapat diketahui bahwa akibat bagi akta yang tidak dibuat sesuai dengan peraturan-peraturan yang berlaku dapat mengakibatkan akta yang bersangkutan menjadi dapat dibatalkan, batal demi hukum, maupun akta menjadi nonexistent. UUJN harus mengatur secara tegas mengenai sanksi yang dikenakan terhadap Notaris yang melakukan pelanggaran terhadap ketentuan UUJN dan Kode Etik Notaris karena nilai itu merupakan kaidah moral yang positif. Selain itu diharapkan agar ketentuan sanksi yang diatur dalam UUJN tersusun secara sistematis.Sanksi Administratif terjadi apabila suatu akta tidak memenuhi syarat, dimana Notaris dalam melaksanakan tugas jabatannya tidak melakukan serangkaian tindakan tertib pelaksanaan tugas jabatan kerja Notaris.

---

ABSTRACTNotary, in performing its duty and function should be honest, meticulous and trustworthy. Otherwise, it will cause a violation toward the provision stipulated in Article 16 Paragraph 1 the law of Position on Notary. As such can be saw as to in the compatibility between the deed made by those and the real condition in shareholder rsquo s annual general meeting, notary rsquo s responsibility in the process of making minutes of shareholder, legal consequences from the deed. Method used in this research is analytical normative juridical. The type data used is secondary data by using collecting document study rsquo s data method and supported by interview which is proceeded qualitatively. According to the result of this research, it stipulates that notary must read the deed in front of appearer, except for the authentic deed as regulated in the article 46 of position of notary law that must be explained the reason for not being read. In addition, the trespasser also can be punished. It is commonly believed that the implication from the deed which is made in contradict with the applicable law could cause the deed to be revoked, null and void or to be nonexistent. Whereas, for the notary itself, they could be punished alternatively civil, criminal, administrative and supervisory suit . The law of position of notary explicitly regulates sanction for the notary breaking its provisions and notary code of conduct because it derives from the positive moral norm. Moreover, it hopes that the provision of sanctions stipulated in the law of position of notary codifies systematically. The civil sanction will cause the deed legally binding as unauthorized deed or can be revoked. The administrative sanction occurs when there is a deed does not fulfill internal requirement where the notary in performing its duty does not perform a series of act pertaining to performance of duty of notary"

"ABSTRAKTesis ini membahas tentang efektivitas ahli waris menjadi pemegang saham dalam suatu perseroan terbatas. Meninggalnya pemegang saham perseroan terbatas tidak langsung secara yuridis membuat ahli warisnya menjadi pemegang saham perseroan terbatas yang bersangkutan, serta tidak langsung memberikan hak bagi ahli waris pemegang saham hak-hak pemegang saham sebagaimana dimaksud dalam Pasal 52 Undang-Undang Nomor 40 Tahun 2007 Tentang Perseroan Terbatas. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode pendekatan yuridis normatif. Metode analisis data yang digunakan adalah metode analisis kualitatif yang menghasilkan bentuk hasil penelitian ini preskriptif-analitis. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa untuk dapat efektif dan sah menjadi pemegang saham dalam perseroan terbatas yang bersangkutan, nama ahli waris harus tercatat dalam Daftar Pemegang Saham yang disimpan oleh perseroan terbatas yang bersangkutan. Ahli waris harus mengajukan permohonan untuk dicatatkan dalam Daftar Pemegang Saham perseroan yang bersangkutan secara tertulis. Pengajuan permohonan pencatatan harus disertai dengan dokumen-dokumen pendukung, yaitu Akta Kematian Pewaris yang dikeluarkan oleh Catatan Sipil tempat pewaris tinggal semasa hidupnya, Surat Keterangan Waris atau putusan pengadilan mengenai penetapan ahli waris, Kartu Tanda Penduduk atau identitas lainnya dari seluruh ahli waris. Notaris diharapkan dapat memberikan penyuluhan hukum pada ahli waris pemegang saham agar lebih berperan aktif untuk memberikan informasi meninggalnya pewaris kepada perseroan yang sahamnya dimiliki oleh pewaris.

---

ABSTRACTThis thesis discusses the effectiveness of the heirs of shareholders to be a shareholder in a limited liability company. The death of shareholder in limited liability company not automatically by law make the heirs of shareholder become the shareholders of the concerned limited liability company, nor give the rights of shares as mentioned in Article 52 Law Number 40 of 2007 concerning limited liability companies. The author conducted research using normative juridical approach. Data analyzing method used is qualitative analysis method that produces these results prescriptive form analytical. The results showed that in order to be effective and be the legitimate shareholders of the limited liability company, the name of the heirs should be registered in the register of shareholders saved by the concerning limited liability company. The heirs must submit written application to be registered in the register of shareholders of the concerning limited liability company. The submittance of application must be included with some supporting documents such as death certificate issued by civil registration, ceritificate of heirship, and all the heir rsquo s resident ID cards. Notary is expected to give legal counseling to the heir of shareholder to be more active to report the death of the heir to the concerned limited liability company."

"Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham (RUPS) terkait perubahan susunan pemegang saham seharusnya dilaksanakan sesuai prosedur serta persyaratan pelaksanaan RUPS dan syarat pemindahan hak atas saham sebagaimana ditentukan dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 40 Tahun 2007 tentang Perseroan Terbatas. Namun pada kenyataanya RUPS PT AN tidak memenuhi syarat pemindahan hak atas saham yang mengakibatkan pembatalan akta pernyataan keputusan RUPS seperti yang ditemukan dalam Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 223 PK/PDT/2022. Oleh karena itu penelitian ini dilakukan dengan mengangkat permasalahan tentang keabsahan pemindahan hak atas saham pada PT AN dan tanggung jawab notaris terhadap akta pernyataan keputusan RUPS yang telah dibatalkan oleh hakim. Penelitian hukum doktrinal ini dilakukan dengan melakukan pengumpulan bahan hukum primer, sekunder, dan tersier melalui studi dokumen yang selanjutnya dianalisis. Dapat dikemukakan 2 (dua) hasil analisis dari penelitian ini yaitu: Pertama, pemindahan hak atas saham pada Akta Pernyataan Keputusan Bersama Para Pemegang Saham Nomor 42 Tanggal 28 November 2014 sebagian sah untuk 60 (enam puluh) saham karena telah memenuhi prosedur serta persyaratan pengambilan keputusan sirkuler dan syarat pemindahan hak atas saham tetapi sebagian lainnya tidak sah untuk 129 (seratus dua puluh sembilan) saham karena tidak ada akta pemindahan hak atas saham. Pada Akta Pernyataan Keputusan Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham Nomor 14 Tanggal 24 Desember 2014 tidak sah seluruhnya serta melawan hukum karena melanggar syarat pemindahan hak atas saham yaitu tanpa akta pemindahan hak atas saham dan tanpa persetujuan pemegang saham melalui RUPS; Kedua, notaris memiliki tanggung jawab atas pembatalan Akta Pernyataan Keputusan Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham Nomor 14 Tanggal 24 Desember 2014 secara perdata berupa ganti rugi. Notaris juga dapat diberikan sanksi administratif berupa teguran lisan/tulisan atau pemberhentian dengan hormat/tidak hormat sebagai notaris oleh majelis pengawas notaris. Selain itu, notaris juga dapat dikenakan sanksi kode etik oleh dewan kehormatan notaris berupa teguran lisan/tulisan atau pemberhentian dengan hormat/tidak hormat dari keanggotaan organisasi notaris.

---

The General Meeting of Shareholders (GMS) related to changes in the composition of shareholders must be carried out by the procedures and requirements for implementing the GMS and the provisions for transferring rights to shares as stipulated in Law Number 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Companies. However, in reality, PT AN's GMS did not fulfill the requirements for transferring rights to shares, which resulted in the cancellation of the deed of the statement of the GMS decision as found in Supreme Court Decision Number 223 PK/PDT/2022. Therefore, this research was conducted by raising issues regarding the validity of the transfer of rights to shares in PT AN and the responsibility of the notary regarding the deed of the GMS decision, which the judge canceled. This doctrinal legal research was conducted by collecting primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials through document studies which were then analyzed. It can be stated 2 (two) results of the analysis of this study, namely: First, the transfer of rights to shares in the Deed of Statement of Joint Contract of Shareholders Number 42 dated 28 November 2014 is partially valid for 60 (sixty) shares because it has fulfilled the procedures and decision-making requirements circular and requirements for the transfer of rights over shares, but the other part is not valid for 129 (one hundred twenty-nine) shares because there is no deed of transfer of rights over shares. The Deed of Statement of Resolutions of the General Meeting of Shareholders Number 14, dated 24 December 2014 invalid as a whole and against the law because of a violation of the requirements for the transfer of rights to shares, namely without the deed of transfer of shares ownership and without the approval of shareholders through the GMS; Second, the notary has the responsibility for canceling the Deed of Statement of Resolutions of the General Meeting of Shareholders Number 14 dated 24 December 2014 in the form of compensation. Notaries can also be subject to administrative sanctions in the form of verbal/written warnings or respectful/disrespectful dismissal as a notary by the notary supervisory board. In addition, notaries can also be subject to code of ethics sanctions by the notary honor council in the form of verbal/written warnings or dismissal with respect/disrespect from the notary organization."

"Selain mengikuti ketentuan Undang-Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 2004 yang diperbarui dengan Undang-Undang Nomor 2 Tahun 2014 tentang Jabatan Notaris, dalam pembuatan akta perseroan, Notaris harus memperhatikan Undang-Undang yang lain, khususnya Undang-Undang Nomor 40 Tahun 2007 tentang Perseroan Terbatas. Dalam hal ini, Notaris harus cermat, teliti, dan seksama dalam memahami dan mematuhi ketentuan dalam sebuah Perseroan atas pembuatan akta berkaitan dengan Perseroan. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode kepustakaan dan analisis kasus dengan mengumpulkan data sekunder dan hasil wawancara guna menunjang penulisan. Analisis kasus dilakukan terhadap Putusan Mahkamah Agung Republik Indonesia Nomor 1607 K/Pdt/2013, dimana pembuatan akta hibah atas saham dilakukan tanpa mematuhi ketentuan dalam Perseroan yang menyebabkan pengalihan hak atas saham tersebut tidak sah dan dapat dibatalkan. Pembuatan akta dibuat secara Notariil yang kemudian mengalami degradasi karena terdapat cacat pada akta tersebut. Tidak dipenuhinya syarat subjektif dalam sebuah akta menjadikan cacat pada akta dan menyebabkan akta tersebut menjadi dapat dibatalkan.

---

Instead of regarding the rules in Indonesian Law Number 2 Year 2014 amendment of Indonesian Law Number 30 Year 2004 concerning Regulation of Notary Office, Notary, on making limited liability company-related deed, should be aware of relevant regulations, in this case, Indonesian Law Number 40 Year 2007, concerning Law of Limited Liability Company. It is very important to Notary to be precise and careful when making the deed related to limited liability company. This research is done using literature method and an analysis over a case which is completed by collecting primary and secondary data to support the reference of this thesis. The case to be analysed in this thesis, conducted from Judgement of Supreme Court of Republic of Indonesia Decree Number 1607 K/Pdt/2013, in which, the Notary, who made the share grant deed did not obey the regulations concerning limited liability company causing the deed annulable and not valid, therefore resulted deed nullification of such grant share deed. When a party could not carry out subjective condition of an agreement, therefore the agreement is voidable."

"[ABSTRAKUndang-Undang No. 40 Tahun 2007 tentang Perseroan Terbatas menetapkan 3 (tiga) organ perseroan yaitu Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham, Direksi, dan Dewan Komisaris. Direksi berfungsi pada pokoknya untuk bertanggung jawab penuh atas pengurusan perseroan untuk kepentingan perseroan sedangkan Dewan Komisaris berfungsi melakukan pengawasan umum dan/atau khusus sesuai dengan Anggaran Dasar serta memberi nasihat kepada Direksi. Pada setiap masa akhir jabatannya, Direksi mempertanggung jawabkan pengurusan perseroan dalam Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham, yang memiliki kewenangan yang tidak diberikan kepada Direksi atau Dewan Komisaris dalam batas yang ditentukan Undang-Undang dan/atau Anggaran Dasar perseroan. Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham kemudian memberikan pelunasan dan pembebasan tanggung jawab (acquit et de charge) kepada Direksi jika tindakan kepengurusan perseroan telah tercermin dalam laporan keuangan.Pada tahun 2006, PT Indosat Mega Media sebagai perseroan yang menyediakan jasa internet (Internet Service Provider) menyelenggarakan jasanya melalui jaringan bergerak seluler milik PT Indosat Tbk melalui perjanjian kerjasama broadband. Kerjasama ini telah dipertanggung jawabkan dalam Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham pada tahun 2011 dan telah mendapatkan acquit et de charge kepada Direksi yang diwakili oleh Indar Atmanto selaku Direktur Utama. Kejaksaan Agung sebagai aparat penegak hukum mendakwa Indar Atmanto telah menggunakan frekuensi 2.1 GHz (3G) untuk menyelenggarakan jasa internetnya sehingga mengakibatkan kerugian negara sedangkan telah diketahui Direksi telah mendapatkan acquit et de charge dari Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham. Permasalahan hukum timbul atas pertanyaan sejauh mana acquit et de charge melindungi Direksi secara perdata dan pidana.

---

ABSTRACTAct No. 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Company establishes three (3) organs of the company i.e. General Meeting of Shareholders, the Board of Directors, and the Board of Commissioners. Board of Directors take full responsibility for the management of the company for the benefit of the company, while the Board of Commissioners for performing general supervision and/or in accordance with the Articles of Association as well as giving advice to the Board of Directors. At the end of their period, the Board of Directors accountable to the shareholder or management in General Meeting of Shareholders, which has special authority which is not granted to the Board of Directors or Board of Commissioners within construed to the Act and/or the Articles of Association of the company. Afterward, General Meeting of Shareholders grant release and discharge of responsibility (acquit et de charge) to the company's Board of Directors if the duty has been reflected in the financial statements.In 2006, PT Indosat Mega Media as an Internet Service Provider company, provide services through mobile cellular network owned by PT Indosat Tbk through broadband cooperation agreements. This cooperation has been accountable to the General Meeting of Shareholders in 2011 and the Board of Directors, represented by Indar Atmanto as CEO, has gained acquit et de charge. Attorney General as law enforcement officers indicted Indar Atmanto has been using 2.1 GHz frequency (3G) to provide internet services, therefore, resulting state loss while it is known that the Board of Directors has been obtained acquit et de charge from the General Meeting of Shareholders. Legal problem arisen is how acquit et de charge could protect the Board of Directors from the liability of civil lawsuit and the criminal indicment.;Act No. 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Company establishes three (3) organs of the company i.e. General Meeting of Shareholders, the Board of Directors, and the Board of Commissioners. Board of Directors take full responsibility for the management of the company for the benefit of the company, while the Board of Commissioners for performing general supervision and/or in accordance with the Articles of Association as well as giving advice to the Board of Directors. At the end of their period, the Board of Directors accountable to the shareholder or management in General Meeting of Shareholders, which has special authority which is not granted to the Board of Directors or Board of Commissioners within construed to the Act and/or the Articles of Association of the company. Afterward, General Meeting of Shareholders grant release and discharge of responsibility (acquit et de charge) to the company's Board of Directors if the duty has been reflected in the financial statements.In 2006, PT Indosat Mega Media as an Internet Service Provider company, provide services through mobile cellular network owned by PT Indosat Tbk through broadband cooperation agreements. This cooperation has been accountable to the General Meeting of Shareholders in 2011 and the Board of Directors, represented by Indar Atmanto as CEO, has gained acquit et de charge. Attorney General as law enforcement officers indicted Indar Atmanto has been using 2.1 GHz frequency (3G) to provide internet services, therefore, resulting state loss while it is known that the Board of Directors has been obtained acquit et de charge from the General Meeting of Shareholders. Legal problem arisen is how acquit et de charge could protect the Board of Directors from the liability of civil lawsuit and the criminal indicment.;Act No. 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Company establishes three (3) organs of the company i.e. General Meeting of Shareholders, the Board of Directors, and the Board of Commissioners. Board of Directors take full responsibility for the management of the company for the benefit of the company, while the Board of Commissioners for performing general supervision and/or in accordance with the Articles of Association as well as giving advice to the Board of Directors. At the end of their period, the Board of Directors accountable to the shareholder or management in General Meeting of Shareholders, which has special authority which is not granted to the Board of Directors or Board of Commissioners within construed to the Act and/or the Articles of Association of the company. Afterward, General Meeting of Shareholders grant release and discharge of responsibility (acquit et de charge) to the company's Board of Directors if the duty has been reflected in the financial statements.In 2006, PT Indosat Mega Media as an Internet Service Provider company, provide services through mobile cellular network owned by PT Indosat Tbk through broadband cooperation agreements. This cooperation has been accountable to the General Meeting of Shareholders in 2011 and the Board of Directors, represented by Indar Atmanto as CEO, has gained acquit et de charge. Attorney General as law enforcement officers indicted Indar Atmanto has been using 2.1 GHz frequency (3G) to provide internet services, therefore, resulting state loss while it is known that the Board of Directors has been obtained acquit et de charge from the General Meeting of Shareholders. Legal problem arisen is how acquit et de charge could protect the Board of Directors from the liability of civil lawsuit and the criminal indicment.;Act No. 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Company establishes three (3) organs of the company i.e. General Meeting of Shareholders, the Board of Directors, and the Board of Commissioners. Board of Directors take full responsibility for the management of the company for the benefit of the company, while the Board of Commissioners for performing general supervision and/or in accordance with the Articles of Association as well as giving advice to the Board of Directors. At the end of their period, the Board of Directors accountable to the shareholder or management in General Meeting of Shareholders, which has special authority which is not granted to the Board of Directors or Board of Commissioners within construed to the Act and/or the Articles of Association of the company. Afterward, General Meeting of Shareholders grant release and discharge of responsibility (acquit et de charge) to the company's Board of Directors if the duty has been reflected in the financial statements.In 2006, PT Indosat Mega Media as an Internet Service Provider company, provide services through mobile cellular network owned by PT Indosat Tbk through broadband cooperation agreements. This cooperation has been accountable to the General Meeting of Shareholders in 2011 and the Board of Directors, represented by Indar Atmanto as CEO, has gained acquit et de charge. Attorney General as law enforcement officers indicted Indar Atmanto has been using 2.1 GHz frequency (3G) to provide internet services, therefore, resulting state loss while it is known that the Board of Directors has been obtained acquit et de charge from the General Meeting of Shareholders. Legal problem arisen is how acquit et de charge could protect the Board of Directors from the liability of civil lawsuit and the criminal indicment.;Act No. 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Company establishes three (3) organs of the company i.e. General Meeting of Shareholders, the Board of Directors, and the Board of Commissioners. Board of Directors take full responsibility for the management of the company for the benefit of the company, while the Board of Commissioners for performing general supervision and/or in accordance with the Articles of Association as well as giving advice to the Board of Directors. At the end of their period, the Board of Directors accountable to the shareholder or management in General Meeting of Shareholders, which has special authority which is not granted to the Board of Directors or Board of Commissioners within construed to the Act and/or the Articles of Association of the company. Afterward, General Meeting of Shareholders grant release and discharge of responsibility (acquit et de charge) to the company's Board of Directors if the duty has been reflected in the financial statements.In 2006, PT Indosat Mega Media as an Internet Service Provider company, provide services through mobile cellular network owned by PT Indosat Tbk through broadband cooperation agreements. This cooperation has been accountable to the General Meeting of Shareholders in 2011 and the Board of Directors, represented by Indar Atmanto as CEO, has gained acquit et de charge. Attorney General as law enforcement officers indicted Indar Atmanto has been using 2.1 GHz frequency (3G) to provide internet services, therefore, resulting state loss while it is known that the Board of Directors has been obtained acquit et de charge from the General Meeting of Shareholders. Legal problem arisen is how acquit et de charge could protect the Board of Directors from the liability of civil lawsuit and the criminal indicment.;Act No. 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Company establishes three (3) organs of the company i.e. General Meeting of Shareholders, the Board of Directors, and the Board of Commissioners. Board of Directors take full responsibility for the management of the company for the benefit of the company, while the Board of Commissioners for performing general supervision and/or in accordance with the Articles of Association as well as giving advice to the Board of Directors. At the end of their period, the Board of Directors accountable to the shareholder or management in General Meeting of Shareholders, which has special authority which is not granted to the Board of Directors or Board of Commissioners within construed to the Act and/or the Articles of Association of the company. Afterward, General Meeting of Shareholders grant release and discharge of responsibility (acquit et de charge) to the company's Board of Directors if the duty has been reflected in the financial statements.In 2006, PT Indosat Mega Media as an Internet Service Provider company, provide services through mobile cellular network owned by PT Indosat Tbk through broadband cooperation agreements. This cooperation has been accountable to the General Meeting of Shareholders in 2011 and the Board of Directors, represented by Indar Atmanto as CEO, has gained acquit et de charge. Attorney General as law enforcement officers indicted Indar Atmanto has been using 2.1 GHz frequency (3G) to provide internet services, therefore, resulting state loss while it is known that the Board of Directors has been obtained acquit et de charge from the General Meeting of Shareholders. Legal problem arisen is how acquit et de charge could protect the Board of Directors from the liability of civil lawsuit and the criminal indicment., Act No. 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Company establishes three (3) organs of the company i.e. General Meeting of Shareholders, the Board of Directors, and the Board of Commissioners. Board of Directors take full responsibility for the management of the company for the benefit of the company, while the Board of Commissioners for performing general supervision and/or in accordance with the Articles of Association as well as giving advice to the Board of Directors. At the end of their period, the Board of Directors accountable to the shareholder or management in General Meeting of Shareholders, which has special authority which is not granted to the Board of Directors or Board of Commissioners within construed to the Act and/or the Articles of Association of the company. Afterward, General Meeting of Shareholders grant release and discharge of responsibility (acquit et de charge) to the company's Board of Directors if the duty has been reflected in the financial statements.In 2006, PT Indosat Mega Media as an Internet Service Provider company, provide services through mobile cellular network owned by PT Indosat Tbk through broadband cooperation agreements. This cooperation has been accountable to the General Meeting of Shareholders in 2011 and the Board of Directors, represented by Indar Atmanto as CEO, has gained acquit et de charge. Attorney General as law enforcement officers indicted Indar Atmanto has been using 2.1 GHz frequency (3G) to provide internet services, therefore, resulting state loss while it is known that the Board of Directors has been obtained acquit et de charge from the General Meeting of Shareholders. Legal problem arisen is how acquit et de charge could protect the Board of Directors from the liability of civil lawsuit and the criminal indicment.]"

"ABSTRAKPengangkatan dan pemberhentian anggota Direksi Perseroan Terbatas telah diatur dalam Undang-Undang Perseroan Terbatas Nomor 40 Tahun 2007 (UUPT), yaitu melalui Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham Luar Biasa (RUPS LB) yang keputusannya dibuat dalam bentuk akta notaris seperti Akta Risalah RUPS maupun Akta Pernyataan Keputusan Rapat. Namun kurangnya pemahaman mengenai keabsahan penyelenggaraan RUPS banyak menyebabkan akta notaris yang telah dibuat sebagai hasil keputusan RUPS dibatalkan oleh Pengadilan, sehingga Notaris yang membuat akta tersebut turut diminta pertanggungjawabannya. Seperti PT. NP yang membuat Akta Risalah RUPS LB mengenai pemberhentian dan pengangkatan Direksi yang baru tanpa mematuhi ketentuan pemanggilan RUPS dalam UUPT, sehingga akta tersebut dibatalkan oleh Pengadilan. Tesis ini mengangkat permasalahan mengenai akibat pembatalan Akta Risalah RUPS LB Perseroan Terbatas yang berisi tentang pemberhentian dan pengangkatan Direksi yang baru, serta tanggung jawab Notaris yang dikaitkan dengan Putusan Mahkamah Agung Republik Indonesia Nomor 549 K/Pdt/2018. Metode Penelitian dalam penulisan tesis ini menggunakan bentuk penelitian yuridis normative, yakni dengan meneliti bahan pustaka atau data sekunder dan menghasilkan data deskriptif analitis. Akibat dari akta risalah rapat yang telah dibatalkan ialah segala perbuatan hukum yang dilakukan setelah akta itu dibuat adalah tidak sah, tidak mengikat dan batal demi hukum. Akta tersebut dianggap tidak pernah ada dan situasi kembali seperti saat akta tersebut belum dibuat, sehingga pengangkatan Aan sebagai Direksi baru adalah tidak sah dan EN tetap menjabat sebagai Direksi, serta Notaris yang bersangkutan dapat diminta pertanggungjawaban secara administrasi dan perdata. Notaris dalam menjalankan jabatannya seharusnya menerapkan prinsip kehati-hatian dengan memperhatikan ketentuan penyelenggaraan RUPS sesuai Undang-Undang Perseroan Terbatas.

---

ABSTRACTThe appointment and termination of the Board of Directors of the limited liability company is governed by the law of limited liability company number 40 year 2007, namely through the extraordinary General Meeting of shareholders, whose decision is made in the form of notarial deed such as the treatise Act General Meeting of Shareholder and the Deed of statement of meeting. However, the lack of understanding of the validity of the General Meeting of Shareholders has led to a notarized deed which has bEN made as a result of the General Meeting of Shareholders decision to be canceled by the court, so that the notary Such as PT. NP which makes the treatise Act of General Meeting of Shareholders on the termination and appointment of the new board of directors without adhering to the provisions of the General Meeting of Shareholders in the law of limited liability company, until the deed is cancelled by the court. This thesis raises the problem of the result of the cancellation of the treatise Act of the extraordinary General Meeting of shareholders Limited company containing the termination and appointment of new board of directors in the decision of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia No. 549 K/PDT/2018, and the legal responsibility associated with the decision of Supreme Court of Republic of Indonesia number 549 K/PDT/2018 The research method in the writing of this thesis uses normative juridical form of research, which is by researching the library material or secondary data and generating analytical descriptive data. The result of the treatise deed that has bEN cancelled is any legal action performed after the deed is made invalid, not binding and null and void. The deed is deemed to have never existed and the situation is returned as if the deed has not bEN made, and the notaries may be asked for administrative and civil liability. The notary in his office should apply the principle of prudence by observing the provisions of The General Meeting of shareholders under the law of limited liability company."

"Tesis ini membahas mengenai tanggung jawab Notaris terhadap Akta Berita Acara Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham Perseroan Terbatas yang didasarkan pada kuasa penghadap yang tidak sah dan menimbulkan sengketa ke pengadilan dalam Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Sorong Nomor 27/Pdt.G/2018/PN.Son. Akta Berita Acara Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham (RUPS) Perseroan Terbatas (PT) yang dibuat Notaris dinyatakan tidak sah oleh Majelis Hakim karena isinya dinilai menyalahi ketentuan peraturan perundang-undangan. Permasalahan yang diangkat dalam tesis ini ialah keabsahan Akta Berita Acara RUPS PT yang didasarkan pada kuasa penghadap yang tidak sah, peran dan tanggung jawab Notaris terhadap Akta Berita Acara RUPS PT yang didasarkan kuasa penghadap yang tidak sah. Tipologi penelitian ini bersifat eksplanatoris, jenis penelitian yang digunakan adalah penelitian hukum yuridis normatif. Teknik pengumpulan data diperoleh dengan cara penelitian kepustakaan (library research) berupa studi dokumen. Analisis data menggunakan analisis kualitatif. Hasil penelitian ini adalah keabsahan Akta Berita Acara RUPS PT yang didasarkan pada kuasa penghadap yang tidak sah adalah Akta Berita Acara RUPS PT menjadi tidak sah. Peranan Notaris terhadap Akta Berita Acara RUPS PT yang didasarkan pada kuasa penghadap yang tidak sah adalah Notaris tidak memeriksa kewenangan bertindak penghadap, tidak menghitung kuorum RUPS dan tidak melakukan penyuluhan hukum kepada penghadap terkait pembuatan Akta BA RUPS PT, Tanggung jawab Notaris terhadap Akta Berita Acara RUPS PT yang didasarkan pada kuasa penghadap yang tidak sah meliputi tanggung jawab perdata, pidana, administrasi dan kode etik.

---

This thesis discusses the Notary's responsibility for the Deed of Minutes of the General Meeting of Shareholders (GMS) which based on an invalid power of attorney and raises a dispute to the court in the Sorong District Court Decision Number 27/Pdt.G/2018/PN.Son. The Deed of Minutes of the GMS made by a Notary is declared invalid by the Panel of Judges because its contents are considered to violate the provisions of the legislation. The issues raised in this thesis are validity of Deed of Minutes of the GMS which is based on invalid power of attorney, the role and responsibilities of Notary to the Deed of Minutes of GMS which based on an invalid power of attorney. The typology of this research is explanatory, the type of research used is normative legal research (normative juridical). Technical data collection is obtained by means of library research in the form of document studies. Data analysis uses qualitative analysis The result of this research are the invalidity of the Deed of Minutes of GMS which based on an invalid power of attorney. The role of the Notary in the Deed of Minutes of the GMS which based on an invalid power of attorney is the Notary does not examine the authority to act of appearers before GMS, does not examine the quorum of the GMS and does not provide legal counseling to the appearers regarding the holding of the GMS. The Notary's responsibilities for the Deed of Minutes of the PT GMS which is based on invalid power of attorney include civil, criminal, administrative and code of ethics responsibilities."