Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

Abstrak :
ABSTRAK
Tingkat voluntary disclosure yang tinggi pada laporan tahunan nkan memberika'l manfilat bagi perusahaan berupa adanya penurunan cost of equity (Botosan, 1997) maupun cost of debt (Sengupta, 1998). Mengingat manfaat tersebut banyak penelitian berusaba mempelajari mengenai adanya faktor-faktor yang mempengaruhi dan mendorong perusahaan untnk meningkatkan tingkat disclosure perusabaan. Berbeda dengan penelitian-penelitian yang dilakukan sebelumnya di Indonesia dimana sebagian besar meneliti masalah pengaruh internal perusahaan terbadap tingkat disclosure perusabaan. Pada penelitian yang dilakukan menggunnkan data 101 perusabaan manufaktur yang terdaflar pada Bursa Efek Indonesia ini, mempelajari adanya pengarub ekternal yaitu kompetisi disamping pengarub yang berasal dari internal perusabaan yaitu total aset dan kepentilikan pemegang sabam besar. Dalam penelitian ini tingkat disclosure pe.rusabaan diukur dengan menggunnkan indeks Botosan. Sedangkan untuk mengukur tingkat kompetisi perusahaan, dalam penelitian ini perusahaan dikelompokan dalam jenis industri berdasarkan klasifikasi StanckJrd Indu.stry Code (SIC) dan dibitung tingkat kompetisi menggunnkan rnetode Herfindahllndeks (HI). Hasi! dari penelidan ini mendnkang dan mernberikan bukti empiris babwa faktor internal:total aset perusabaan dan kepemilikan pemegang sabam besar serta lilktor ekstemal yaltu kompetisi yang memberikan pengarub yang positif terhadap tingkat disclosure perusahaan.

Abstrak :
Skripsi ini adalah suatu karya ilmiah yuridis normatif yaitu penelitian yang dilakukan melalui kepustakaan dengan melakukan perbandingan hukum. Latar belakang penelitian ini adalah dalam Undang-Undang No. 40 Tahun 2007 tentang Perseroan Terbatas ditemukan adanya keterbatasan untuk mengajukan gugatan derivatif yang merupakan salah satu perlindungan hukum bagi pemegang saham, terutama pemegang saham minoritas. Sedangkan sebagai perbandingan pengaturan dalam peraturan perundang-undangan lain, yaitu pengaturan dalam Undang-Undang Perusahaan Singapura 1994 dan Undang-Undang Perusahaan Jepang 2005, dalam penelitian ini ditemukan aspek-aspek tertentu dalam Undang-Undang Perusahaan Singapura 1994 dan Undang-Undang Perusahaan Jepang 2005 yang mampu mewujudkan keadilan dan kepastian hukum bagi pemegang saham, meliputi akses yang luas kepada seluruh pemegang saham, terutama pemegang saham minoritas dalam mengajukan gugatan derivatif, memberikan perlindungan terhadap Perseroan dengan menjadikan gugatan derivatif sebagai upaya hukum terakhir guna menjaga kestabilan Perseroan, dan memberikan perlindungan terhadap Perseroan dari itikad buruk pemegang saham yang mengajukan gugatan derivatif.

---

This undergraduate thesis is a normative juridical scientific work, that is a study conducted through literature by doing comparative study of law. The background of this research is that in Act No. 40 of 2007 on Limited Liability Companies, it is found limitations to file derivative action which is one of the legal protections for shareholders, especially minority shareholders. Meanwhile, as a comparison from other legislations, i.e. the regulation in the Singapore Company Act 1994 and the Japan Company Act 2005, in this study it is found certain aspects in the Singapore Company Act 1994 and the Japan Company Act 2005 which are able to bring about justice and legal certainty for shareholders, including extensive access to all shareholders, especially minority shareholders to file derivative action, to provide protection against the Companies by making a derivative action as the last legal effort to maintain the stability of the Companies, and to provide protection against the Companies from bad faith of shareholders filing the derivative action.

Abstrak :
Konsepsi Derivative Action tidak dapat dipisahkan dari konsep perlindungan dan hak-hak Pemegang Saham Minoritas. Derivative Right atau Derivative Action merupakan salah satu hak yang diberikan oleh Undang-undang Nomor 1 Tahun 1995 tentang Perseroan Terbatas, kepada pemegang saham yang mempunyai minimal 10% saham, untuk menggugat direksi atau komisaris atas nama perseroan, dalam hal Direksi atau Komisaris melakukan kesalahan yang menyebabkan kerugian pada perusahaan. Jadi pada hakikatnya Derivative Action adalah bertujuan untuk melindungi kepentingan perseroan, dan tidak secara langsung melindungi kepentingan pemegang saham minoritas. Konsep Derivative Action merupakan terobosan dalam hukum perusahaan yang bertujuan untuk mencegah terjadinya penyalahgunaan wewenang oleh direksi atau komisaris, yang pada umumnya didominasi oleh pemegang saham mayoritas. Makna perlindungan kepentingan pemegang saham minoritas dalam konsep Derivative Action, bukanlah kepentingan materil secara langsung, dan karenanya ganti rugi yang dihasilkan dari Derivative Action, akan dibayarkan kepada perusahaan, bukan kepada pemegang saham minoritas Penggugat.

Abstrak :
[ABSTRAK
Undang-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.

---

ABSTRACT
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., 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.]

Abstrak :
Skripsi ini membahas mengenai permasalahan-permasalahan konsep gugatan derivatif dalam suatu gugatan perbuatan melawan hukum di Indonesia apabila ditinjau dari putusan-putusan pengadilan yang dipublikasi pada situs Mahkamah Agung khususnya pada periode tahun 2007-2018.  Penelitian ini menggunakan metode yuridis normatif, dimana data yang digunakan bersumber dari studi kepustakaan dan wawancara dengan narasumber. Adapun hasil penelitian mengenai permasalahan yang dibahas dalam penelitian ini adalah bahwa terdapat beberapa permasalahan penerapan gugatan derivatif dalam suatu gugatan perbuatan melawan hukum pada prakteknya, antara lain yaitu: 1) permasalahan terkait Legal Standing baik terkait kepemilikan saham maupun keturutsertaan pihak ke-3; 2) permasalahan mengenai ganti kerugian; 3) permasalahan penerapan unsur-unsur perbuatan melawan hukum, serta 4) terdapatnya inkonsistensi putusan pengadilan terkait gugatan derivatif perbuatan melawan hukum tersebut. Dari hasil penelitian, ditemukan bahwa permasalahan-permasalahan tersebut dapat disebabkan antara lain oleh karena hal-hal sebagai berikut: tidak diterapkannya Schutznorm Theorie di Indonesia, kurangnya pengaturan mengenai gugatan derivatif berdasarkan hukum positif yang berlaku di Indonesia, serta tidak terdapatnya pedoman dalam bentuk apapun dari pihak Mahkamah Agung yang dapat menjadi pegangan bagi para hakim dalam memutus kasus yang berkaitan dengan gugatan derivatif.

---

This thesis discusses several Problems of Derivative Action in Tortious Liability Claim in Indonesia by reviewing at Indonesia court decisions which are published at the Indonesia Supreme Court website, especially the decisions period of 2007 until 2018. This study uses normative juridical methods, where the data used are sourced from literature studies and interviews with informants. The results of this researches are that there are some problems of derivative action in Tortius Liability Lawsuit in Indonesia, which includes: 1) problems about Legal Standing including both about the share ownership and about the third party participation on Lawsuit; 2) problems about the compensation; 3) problems about the application of Indonesia tortius liability lawsuit elements, also 4) inconsistency problems of Indonesia Court decision on derivative action in Tortius Liability lawsuit. As obtained in the research, each of those problems may be caused by the following thins: the inapplicable Schutznorm Theorie in Indonesia, the lack of regulations about derivative action in Indonesia, and the absence of guidance from the Supreme Court of Indonesia that could become the guidelines for judges all over Indonesia to decide cases related to derivative action in tortius liability lawsuit.