Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"ABSTRAKTesis ini membahas tentang pelaksanaan wasiat berupa saham dalam perseroan terbatas. Permasalahan yang menjadi fokus analisa adalah selain ahli waris yang ditetapkan menurut undang-undang, terdapat pula ahli waris yang diangkat dengan wasiat testamenter . Saham termasuk dalam harta peninggalan yang dapat diwariskan kepada ahli waris dilihat dari Pasal 52 Ayat 5 Undang-Undang Nomor 40 tahun 2007 tentang Perseroan Terbatas. Penelitian ini menggunakan motode penelitian yuridis normatif oleh karena itu jenis data yang digunakan adalah data sekunder, dimana alat pengumpulan data yang digunakan adalah studi kepustakaan. Tipologi penelitian adalah yuridis normatif. Metode analisis data yang digunakan adalah metode analisis kualitatif yang menghasilkan bentuk penelitian yuridis normatif. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa wasiat berupa saham kepada ahli waris yang diangkat dengan wasiat dapat dilaksanakan asalkan pewaris tidak memiliki ahli waris legitimaris. Di samping itu untuk dapat mempergunakan hak-haknya sebagai pemegang saham, ahli waris yang diangkat dengan wasiat namanya harus tercatat dalam Daftar Pemegang Saham perseroan terkait terlebih dahulu dengan mengajukan permohonan kepada Direksi perseroan terkait serta melampirkan dokumen pendukung, seperti Akta Kematian Pewaris, Wasiat, Surat Keterangan Waris, dan identitas Ahli Waris. Kata kunci : saham, daftar pemegang saham, perseroan terbatas, wasiat, testameter.

---

ABSTRACTThis thesis discusses the implementation of wills in of shares in a limited liability company. The problems that are the focus of the analysis are in addition to the heirs established by law, There are also heirs who are appointed with a will testamenter . Shares are included in the heritage that can be inherited to the heirs seen from Article 52 Paragraph 5 of Law Number 40 of 2007 on Limited Liability Company. This study uses normative juridical research methods therefore the type of data used is secondary data, Where the data collection tool used is literature study. Research typology is normative juridical. Data analysis method used is qualitative analysis method which produce normative juridical research form. The results of the study indicate that the testament of a shares to the heirs appointed with the testament may be carried out provided that the heir does not have a legitimacy heir. In addition to being able to exercise its rights as a shareholder, the heirs appointed by the will of their name must be listed in the Registered Shareholder of the relevant company by submitting a request to the Board of Directors of the relevant company and attaching supporting documents, such as the Death Certificate of the Heir, Wills, Letter Description of Inheritance, and identity of the Heirs. "

"[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.]"

"Tesis ini membahas mengenai 2 dua aturan yang berbeda terkait permohonan pemeriksaan terhadap Perseroan Terbatas PT oleh pemegang saham minoritas, yaitu Undang-Undang Nomor 40 Tahun 2007 tentang Perseroan Terbatas UU No. 40/2007 dan Keputusan Ketua Mahkamah Agung Republik Indonesia Nomor 032/SK/IV/2006 tentang Memberlakukan Buku II Pedoman Pelaksanaan Tugas dan Administrasi Pengadilan KKMA Pedoman Teknis 2006, yang juga dibahas melalui contoh kasus permohonan pemeriksaan PT SLJ Global Tbk. Secara khusus, tesis ini mengkaji bagaimana sifat pemeriksaan dari permohonan pemeriksaan terhadap PT oleh pemegang saham minoritas menurut UU No. 40/2007 dan ketentuan mana yang berlaku dalam hal terjadi perbedaan pengaturan mengenai sifat pemeriksaan dari permohonan pemeriksaan terhadap PT antara KKMA Pedoman Teknis 2006 dengan UU No. 40/2007. Hasil analisis yang dilakukan dengan menggunakan metode penelitian yuridis normatif menunjukkan bahwa pemeriksaan dari permohonan pemeriksaan terhadap PT dalam UU No. 40/2007 seharusnya bersifat voluntair, bukan contentiosa. Hal ini berdasarkan pada ketentuan-ketentuan terkait permohonan pemeriksaan terhadap PT dalam UU No. 40/2007 yang: i menggunakan terminologi upaya hukum yang mengacu pada sifat voluntair, yaitu 'permohonan', ii pengaturan mengenai pihak berperkara hanya diberikan terhadap 'pemohon', iii menunjukkan ketiadaan sengketa, dan iv memberikan batas waktu penyelesaian pemeriksaan PT oleh ahli pemeriksa terhitung sejak tanggal pengangkatan ahli pemeriksa berdasarkan penetapan pengadilan negeri. Adapun penentuan aturan mana yang berlaku seharusnya mengacu kepada asas pembentukan peraturan perundang-undangan, yaitu asas kesesuaian jenis, hierarki dan materi muatan. Dalam hal ini, demi terciptanya kepastian hukum, seharusnya KKMA Pedoman Teknis 2006 tunduk pada ketentuan UU No. 40/2007 mengenai permohonan pemeriksaan terhadap PT.

---

This thesis discusses about 2 two different regulations related to the company examination petition by minority shareholders, namely Law Number 40 Year 2007 on Limited Liability Company the 'Company Law' and Decision of Head of Supreme Court of Republic of Indonesia Number 032 SK IV 2006 on Enforcing the Book II of Guidance of Court rsquo s Duties and Administration the 'Supreme Court Guidance', which are also discussed through a case study of the company examination petition of PT SLJ Global Tbk. Specifically, this thesis assesses on how the nature of the examination of the company examination petition by minority shareholders under the Company Law and which regulation should be applied when there are different provision on the nature of the examination of the company examination petition between the Supreme Court Guidance and the Company Law.

The result of the analysis conducted through the method of normative juridical research shows that the examination of the company examination petition under the Company Law should be in the nature of 'voluntair' voluntary, not 'contentiosa' contentious. The foregoing is based on the relevant provisions of the company examination petition under the Company Law which i use a term for legal remedy that refers to the nature of voluntary, namely 'petition' ii regulate that the litigant party is only given to 1 one party, 'petitioner' iii indicate the absence of dispute and iv provide that examination completion deadline by the examiner expert as of the appointment of the examiner expert based on the district court stipulation. As for the determination of the applicable regulation, it should refer to the principle of the lawmaking, namely principle of suitability of type, hierarchy and content material. In this regard, for the sake of the legal certainty, the Supreme Court Guidance should be subject to the provisions under the Company Law on the company examination petition. "

"Direksi PT Y telah memberikan kuasa secara lisan kepada manajer pemasaran PT Y tersebut untuk melaksanakan impor High Speed Diesel (HSD), mencari pembeli dan melakukan pengiriman HSD tersebut. Namun manajer pemasaran tersebut menandatangani perjanjian jual beli atas nama PT Y dengan PT X sebagai pembeli tanpa persetujuan PT Y. Manajer pemasaran tersebut gagal mendapatkan sumber HSD sehingga lalai untuk melakukan pengiriman. Sedangkan PT X telah menyediakan fasilitas dengan mengeluarkan biaya besar. Atas kerugian tersebut, PT X menuntut ganti rugi kepada PT Y melalui penyelesaian sengketa alternatif Badan Arbitrase Nasional Indonesia. Dalam Arbitrase tersebut, PT Y diputus untuk membayar ganti rugi sebesar kerugian yang diderita PT X. Sedangkan manajer pemasaran PT Y tidak menanggung biaya apapun.

---

The Director of PT Y Limited Liability Company (LLC) gave verbal empowerment to his sales manager to do this deal; seek for High Speed Diesel (HSD) source, find the buyer then, make the delivery. The sales manager found PT X LLC as the buyer. The sales purchase agreement was signed. However, it was signed without PT Y`s director`s consent. On the promised delivery date HSD was not available due to the sales manager`s negligence in finding source of HSD that could be trusted. Therefore, PT X pressed charges against PT Y through alternative dispute resolution of Badan Arbitrase Nasional Indonesia (BANI). BANI ordered PT Y to pay the amount suffered by PT X while Y?s sales manager walked away without having to pay anything."

"Penelitian ini menganalisis legalitas keanggotaan Perseroan Terbatas (PT) dalam koperasi, dengan fokus pada Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 2113 K/Pid.Sus/2023. Menyelidiki kerangka regulasi yang mengatur koperasi dan PT di Indonesia, penelitian ini mengevaluasi pelanggaran operasional dalam praktik keanggotaan koperasi oleh KSP Indosurya. Tujuan penelitian mencakup pemeriksaan kerangka regulasi, analisis kasus KSP Indosurya, evaluasi kritis Putusan Mahkamah Agung, eksplorasi pembatasan keanggotaan PT, dan penyusunan rekomendasi. Dengan menggunakan metodologi penelitian hukum normatif, penelitian ini difokuskan pada analisis norma hukum yang tercantum dalam undang-undang. Kesimpulan menegaskan kerangka regulasi untuk koperasi dan PT, mengevaluasi Putusan Mahkamah Agung, dan menekankan pembatasan keanggotaan PT berdasarkan hukum koperasi, khususnya melarang PT menjadi anggota koperasi. Rekomendasi disajikan untuk memperkuat pengawasan pemerintah, memberlakukan sanksi pada koperasi yang tidak patuh, meningkatkan pemahaman masyarakat tentang operasi koperasi, meningkatkan pemahaman tentang Hukum Koperasi di kalangan penegak hukum, dan memastikan kepatuhan yang teliti terhadap regulasi koperasi selama penerbitan izin oleh Kementerian Koperasi dan Usaha Kecil Menengah.

---

This study analyzes the legality of Limited Liability Company (LLC) membership within cooperatives, with a focus on Supreme Court Decision Number 2113 K/Pid.Sus/2023. The research delves into the regulatory framework governing cooperatives and LLCs in Indonesia, assessing operational violations within cooperative membership practices by KSP Indosurya. Research objectives encompass an examination of the regulatory framework, an analysis of the KSP Indosurya case, a critical evaluation of the Supreme Court Decision, an exploration of LLC membership restrictions, and the formulation of recommendations. Employing a normative legal research methodology, the study concentrates on the analysis of legal norms outlined in laws. The conclusion underscores the regulatory framework for cooperatives and LLCs, evaluates the Supreme Court Decision, and emphasizes the LLC membership restriction grounded in cooperative law, specifically prohibiting LLCs from being members of cooperatives. Recommendations are presented to augment government oversight, enforce sanctions on non-compliant cooperatives, enhance public understanding of cooperative operations, elevate comprehension of Cooperative Law among legal enforcers, and ensure scrupulous compliance with cooperative regulations during permit issuance by the Ministry of Cooperatives and Small and Medium Enterprises. "

"Tesis ini membahas keabsahan badan usaha milik desa BUMDesa sebagai pendiri dan pemilik saham Lembaga Keuangan Mikro berbadan hukum Perseroan Terbatas PT LKM , akibat hukum PT LKM yang didirikan dan sahamnya dimiliki oleh Pemerintah Provinsi atau Pemerintah Desa, dan peran notaris dalam pendirian PT LKM oleh BUMDesa. Metode penelitian yang digunakan dalam tesis ini adalah yuridis normatif. Hasil penelitian menyimpulkan bahwa BUMDesa dapat menjadi pendiri dan pemilik saham PT LKM. Keabsahan BUMDesa sebagai pendiri dan pemegang saham PT LKM ditentukan oleh keabsahan pendirian BUMDesa itu sendiri, kewenangan bertindak penghadap yang mewakili BUMDesa ketika membuat akta pendirian, dan bukti kepemilikan saham PT LKM oleh BUMDesa. Saat ini terdapat PT LKM yang telah memperoleh izin usaha namun struktur kepemilikan sahamnya bertentangan dengan Undang-Undang Nomor 1 Tahun 2013 tentang Lembaga Keuangan Mikro UU LKM , karena didirikan dan sahamnya dimiliki oleh Pemerintah Provinsi atau Pemerintah Desa. PT LKM tersebut diberikan jangka waktu hingga 29 Desember 2020 untuk menyesuaikan struktur kepemilikan sahamnya, jika tidak maka dapat dikenakan sanksi administratif berupa peringatan tertulis hingga pencabutan izin usaha. Notaris berperan penting dalam pembuatan akta pendirian PT LKM, terutama dalam menentukan keabsahan BUMDesa sebagai pendiri dan pemegang saham PT LKM. Hasil penelitian menyarankan agar Otoritas Jasa Keuangan OJK dan instansi terkait terus berkoordinasi dan menyamakan pandangan terkait keabsahan BUMDesa sebagai pendiri dan pemegang saham PT LKM. OJK dan instansi terkait lainnya perlu lebih masif melakukan sosialisasi UU LKM dan peraturan pelaksanaannya, serta melibatkan notaris dalam membahas keabsahan BUMDesa sebagai pendiri dan pemilik saham PT LKM.

---

This thesis explains the legitimacy of village owned enterprise BUMDesa as the founder and shareholder of Micro Financial Institution in the form of Limited Liability Company PT LKM , legal consequences for PT LKM that founded and its shares owned by the Province Government or Village Government, and the role of notary on its establishment. The research method on this thesis is normative juridical. The results of this research concludes that BUMDesa permitted to be the founder and shareholder of PT LKM. The legitimacy of BUMDesa as the founder and shareholder of PT LKM is determined by the legitimacy of the establishment of BUMDesa itself, authority of a person who act as a representative of BUMDesa when making the deed of establishment of PT LKM, and proof of PT LKM shares ownership by BUMDesa.

Currently, there are PT LKM who have obtained business license but their shares ownership structure are not in accordance with Law Number 1 of 2013 on Micro Financial Institution UU LKM , because it founded and its shares owned by the Province Government or Village Government. In that case, PT LKM was granted period until 29 December 2020 to adjust its share ownership structure, otherwise it can be subject to administrative sanction in the form of a written warning until revocation of business license. Notary has important roles on the establishment of PT LKM, especially on determining the legitimacy of BUMDesa as the founder and shareholder of PT LKM.

The results of this research suggest that the Indonesia Financial Services Authority OJK and other related institutions should coordinating and uniforming perception related to the legitimacy of BUMDesa as the founder and shareholder of PT LKM. OJK and other related institutions need to be more massive to socialize UU LKM and its implementing regulations, and involving notary when discussing the legitimacy of BUMDesa as the founder and shareholder of PT LKM"

"Pengambilan Keputusan Para Pemegang Saham secara Sirkuler harus sesuai dengan prosedur yang diatur dalam Anggaran Dasar perseroan dan Undang-Undang Nomor 40 Tahun 2007 tentang Perseroan Terbatas (UUPT). Dalam pembuatan akta notaris yang isinya dimaksudkan untuk menuangkan hasil keputusan sirkuler tersebut seharusnya berdasarkan keputusan sirkuler yang dibuat sesuai dengan kenyataan yang sebenarnya. Notaris yang membuat akta pernyataan keputusan rapat berdasarkan keputusan sirkuler yang isinya tidak sesuai dengan keadaan yang sebenarnya, atau secara aktif turut serta membantu pembuatan keputusan sirkuler tersebut yang mengandung kepalsuan dapat dikenakan sanksi pidana sebagaimana yang terjadi terhadap Notaris IWDW dalam putusan Pengadilan Negeri Denpasar nomor 147/Pid.B/2022/PN Dps juncto Mahkamah Agung nomor 1134 K/Pid/2022. Tesis ini menganalisis implikasi hukum keputusan sirkuler yang cacat hukum terhadap perubahan data Perseroan terbatas dan menganalisis tanggung jawab Notaris atas pembuatan akta pernyataan keputusan rapat yang cacat hukum terkait perubahan data perseroan terbatas. Metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah doktrinal, dengan bentuk penelitian deskriptif analitis menggunakan sumber data sekunder. Hasil penelitian menyimpulkan implikasi hukum keputusan sirkuler yang cacat hukum terhadap perubahan data Perseroan terbatas yaitu keputusan sirkuler mengenai perubahan data perseroan tersebut tidak sah atau batal demi hukum. Tanggung jawab Notaris atas pembuatan akta yang cacat hukum terkait perubahan data perseroan terbatas tersebut dapat dikenakan sanksi pidana karena berperan aktif turut serta dalam pembuatan akta yang tidak sesuai dengan keadaan yang sebenarnya.

---

Circular decisions of shareholders must be in accordance with the procedures stipulated in the company's Articles of Association and Law Number 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Companies (UUPT). In making a notarial deed whose contents are intended to express the results of the circular resolution, it should be based on a circular resolution made in accordance with the actual facts. Notaries who make a deed stating the meeting's decision based on a circular decision whose contents are not in accordance with the actual situation, or actively participate in the making of the circular decision which contains falsehood can be subject to criminal sanctions as happened to Notary IWDW in the Denpasar District Court decision number 147/Pid.B/2022/PN Dps juncto Supreme Court number 1134 K/Pid/2022. This thesis analyzes the legal implications of circular decisions that are legally flawed against changes in limited liability company data and analyzes the responsibility of Notaries for making deeds of statement of meeting decisions that are legally flawed related to changes in limited liability company data. The research method used is doctrinal, with an analytical descriptive form of research using secondary data sources. The results of the study concluded that the legal implications of circular decisions that are legally flawed towards changes in limited liability company data are that the circular decision regarding changes in company data is invalid or null and void. Notary's responsibility for making a legally defective deed related to changes in limited liability company data can be subject to criminal sanctions for actively participating in making deeds that are not in accordance with the actual circumstances."

"Pemisahan adalah perbuatan hukum yang dilakukan oleh Perseroan untuk memisahkan usaha yang mengakibatkan seluruh aktiva dan pasiva Perseroan beralih karena hukum kepada dua Perseroan/ lebih atau sebagian aktiva dan pasiva kepada satu Perseroan/ lebih. Tesis ini meneliti dan mengkaji mengenai permasalahan cara, prosedur dan mekaniseme Pemisahan Perseroan Terbatas yang beregerak di bidang perbankan dengan meneliti implementasinya pada kasus BNI Syariah. Metodologi penelitian yang dipergunakan dalam meneliti permasalahan tersebut adalah metodologi yuridis normatif dan dianalisis secara deskriptif analitis dengan mendasarkan pada perundang-undangan yang berlaku, khususnya Undang-Undang Perseroan Terbatas Nomor 40 Tahun 2007 dan Undang-Undang Perbankan Syariah Nomor 21 Tahun 2008. Temuan dari penelitian adalah cara pemisahan dalam Perseroan Terbatas antara lain pemisahan murni dan pemisahan tidak murni, prosedur dan mekanisme Pemisahan yang dilakukan oleh Perseroan Terbatas yang bergerak di bidang Perbankan yang akan melakukan Pemisahan seperti pengajuan permohonan persetujuan prinsip kepada Bank Indonesia, permohonan persetujuan pemisahan kepada Dewan Komisaris, menyusun rancangan pemisahan yang diumumkan dalam surat kabar harian, mengadakan Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham yang agendanya membahas Pemisahan, pengumuman rencana pengalihan hak dan kewajiban unit usaha syariah BNI dalam surat kabar, rancangan pemisahan dituangkan dalam Akta Notaris, kemudian penandatanganan Akta pendirian Bank Umum syariah hasil Pemisahan. Setelah mendapat persetujuan prinsip dari Bank Indonesia, dalam waktu maksimal enam bulan harus mengajukan izin usaha kepada Bank Indonesia. Efektifnya pemisahan adalah pada saat pertama kali perseroan melakukan kegiatan usahanya.

---

Separation is a legal act performed by the company to separate the business that resulted in all assets and liabilities of the company switched to two companies/ more or partly of assets and liabilities to a company/ more by law. This thesis are to find out how, procedures and mechanisms separation of Limited Liability Company conducting in banking activity by its implementation in the case of BNI Syariah. This research descriptively analyzed analytically using a normative juridical method, based on prevailing legislation, particularly the Law of Limited Liability Company Number 40 Year 2007 and the Islamic Banking Act Number 21 Year 2008.

The findings of the study is how the separation of the Limited Liability Company, among others, pure and impure separation, procedures and mechanisms of separation which performed by Limited Liability Company conducting in banking activity are submit the application to Bank Indonesia to get the principle approval, submit the application about separation to the Board of Commissioners, announced a draft of separation in daily newspapers, held a General Meeting of Shareholders to discuss the separation and get the approval from them, announced the planned transfer of the rights and obligations of Sharia business unit of BNI in daily newspapers, draft of separation set forth in the notary deed, then signing the deed of establishment of new Sharia Bank as a result of separation. After receiving principle approval from Bank Indonesia, within a maximum of six months must submit an application for obtaining business license to Bank Indonesia. The effectiveness of separation is at the first time the company conducting its business."

"ABSTRAKTesis ini membahas implikasi hukum terhadap akta risalah rapat umum pemegang saham RUPS sebagai akta pejabat yang cacat yuridis. Dewasa ini para pengusaha sering menggunakan uang sebagai sarana mewujudkan segala sesuatu yang hendak dicapai yang mengakibatkan Notaris berada dalam keadaan dilema sehingga terjadi pelanggaran dalam pelaksanaan jabatan yang dapat mengakibatkan akta yang dibuatnya menjadi batal demi hukum, dapat dibatalkan maupun dipandang sebagai akta yang tidak sempurna. Permasalahan dalam tesis ini adalah membahas peran dan tanggung jawab Notaris dalam pembuatan akta risalah RUPS Perseroan Terbatas PT.X dan keabsahan RUPS PT. X berdasarkan Undang-Undang Nomor 40 Tahun 2007 Tentang Perseroan Terbatas UUPT dan anggaran dasar PT.X, serta kedudukan dan tanggung jawab Notaris atas akta risalah RUPS PT.X yang dibatalkan oleh pengadilan karena cacat prosedural. Metode penelitian yang digunakan ialah yuridis normatif dengan studi kepustakaan. Hasil dari penelitian ini adalah Notaris sebagai pejabat umum merupakan pihak yang dipercaya untuk membuat akta autentik dimana Notaris harus bertindak netral untuk menjaga kepentingan para pihak, sehingga Notaris dalam pembuatan akta risalah RUPS wajib memeriksa keabsahan penyelenggaraan RUPS. Pelaksanaan RUPS yang tidak sesuai dengan ketentuan UUPT dan anggaran dasar mengakibatkan keputusan RUPS yang diambil menjadi tidak sah dan tidak mengikat. Implikasi hukumnya adalah akta risalah rapat yang dibuat oleh Notaris yang menimbulkan kerugian di salah salah satu pihak menjadi dapat dibatalkan, yang berarti Notaris dapat dimintai pertanggungjawaban baik secara perdata maupun secara administratif.

---

ABSTRACTThis thesis analyze the legal implications of The General Meeting of The Shareholders as legally defect deed of the official. Nowadays the businessmen often use money as a media to create a goal that may cause Notary in a dilematic position, causing a violation of authority that may cause the deeds become legally defected, voidable, or deemed as non perfect evidence. The legal problematics in this thesis are to analyze the role and the liability of the Notary regarding the deed of GMS PT.X and the legality of the PT. X rsquo s GMS based on Law Number 40 of 2007 regarding limited libality company and article of association of PT. X and the role and liability Notary regarding the court stipulation that deem the GMS deed of PT. X void because of procedural error. This thesis uses the juridical normative methods along with literature study. The result of this thesis are Notary as a public official is a trusted party who draw authentic deed, therfore the Notary shall be neutral to protect the interest of the parties, thus the Notary shall check the legality of the GMS when he or she draws the GMS deed. The GMS which is not in accordance with Company Law and article of association cause the stipulations in the GMS are invalid and unbinding. The legal implication is the GMS deed that was drawn by Notary which cause loss in one of party become voidable, which means the Notary may be sued privately or administratively "