Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

Abstrak :
[Pemberian kuasa merupakan langkah hukum yang dibenarkan oleh Undang-Undang. Pemberi Kuasa atau Prinsipal dapat memberikan kuasa kepada pihak yang menurutnya bisa mewakili kepentingan hukumnya. Berdasarkan Pasal 1338 KUHPerdata mengenai prinsip kebebasan berkontrak, kuasa tersebut dapat diberikan dengan kuasa yang tidak dapat ditarik kembali. Akan tetapi Pasal 1338 KUHPerdata tersebut telahdiberi batasan dengan Pasal 1337 KUHPerdata yang menyatakan bahwa suatu sebab adalah terlarang, jika sebab itu dilarang oleh undang-undang dan Pasal 85 ayat 5 UUPT menyatakan bahwa dalam hal pemegang saham hadir sendiri dalam RUPS, surat kuasa yang telah diberikan tidak berlaku untuk rapat tersebut. Pada penulisan tesis ini, penulis menggunakan bentuk penelitian normatif, dengan tipe penelitian deskriptif analistis, dan jenis data yang digunakan data sekunder. Dijelaskan dalam pokok permasalahanmengenai kuasa yang tidak dapat ditarik kembali dalam meghadiri dan memberikan suara pada Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham dilihat dari peraturan perundang-undangan yang berlaku dan pandangan pengadilan pada tiap-tiap putusannya.Penelitian dilakukan terhadap putusan Pengadilan, mulai dari Pengadilan Negeri, Pengadilan Tinggi, dan Mahkamah Agung terhadap Sengketa Antara Para Pemegang Saham PT. Cipta Televisi Pendidikan Indonesia melawan PT. Berkah Karya Bersama. Ditemukan jawaban bahwa kuasa yang tidak dapat ditarik kembali tersebut tetap dapat dicabut berdasarkan Pasal 1337 KUHPerdata dan Pasal 85 ayat 5 UUPT;The power of attorney as a legal step allowed by regulation, principal has been given power of attorney to a party as represent in person for legal interest. Based on article 1338 Indonesian Civil Code Authorization on principle freedom of contract, The Power of Attorney can be form of hereby confers an irrevocable power of attorney. But article 1338Indonesian Civil Code has been restricted with article 1337 Indonesian Civil Code a cause is not permissible if it is prohibited by law, or if it violates good conduct, or public orderand article 85 paragraph 5 concerning Limited Liability Companies in the event that shareholders are present at the GMS in person, any power of attorney they have given shall not be valid for that meeting.In this Thesis in writer adopt a juridical normative and descriptive analyst method or research and relies on secondary data sources. For research matter this researchwill be explain the irrevocable power of attorney to attend and give a vote to General Meeting of Shareholders has been seen form all of regulations and the courts view from each decisions. Research conducted on the decision by judge, starting from the Court, High Court, and The Supreme Court to dispute between shareholders PT. Cipta Televisi Pendidikan Indonesia versus PT. Berkah Karya Bersama. Already found the answer irrevocable power of attorney still be revoked based on article 1337 Indonesian Civil Code and article 85 paragraph 5 concerning Limited Liability Companies.;The power of attorney as a legal step allowed by regulation, principal has been given power of attorney to a party as represent in person for legal interest. Based on article 1338 Indonesian Civil Code Authorization on principle freedom of contract, The Power of Attorney can be form of hereby confers an irrevocable power of attorney. But article 1338Indonesian Civil Code has been restricted with article 1337 Indonesian Civil Code a cause is not permissible if it is prohibited by law, or if it violates good conduct, or public orderand article 85 paragraph 5 concerning Limited Liability Companies in the event that shareholders are present at the GMS in person, any power of attorney they have given shall not be valid for that meeting.In this Thesis in writer adopt a juridical normative and descriptive analyst method or research and relies on secondary data sources. For research matter this researchwill be explain the irrevocable power of attorney to attend and give a vote to General Meeting of Shareholders has been seen form all of regulations and the courts view from each decisions. Research conducted on the decision by judge, starting from the Court, High Court, and The Supreme Court to dispute between shareholders PT. Cipta Televisi Pendidikan Indonesia versus PT. Berkah Karya Bersama. Already found the answer irrevocable power of attorney still be revoked based on article 1337 Indonesian Civil Code and article 85 paragraph 5 concerning Limited Liability Companies.;The power of attorney as a legal step allowed by regulation, principal has been given power of attorney to a party as represent in person for legal interest. Based on article 1338 Indonesian Civil Code Authorization on principle freedom of contract, The Power of Attorney can be form of hereby confers an irrevocable power of attorney. But article 1338Indonesian Civil Code has been restricted with article 1337 Indonesian Civil Code a cause is not permissible if it is prohibited by law, or if it violates good conduct, or public orderand article 85 paragraph 5 concerning Limited Liability Companies in the event that shareholders are present at the GMS in person, any power of attorney they have given shall not be valid for that meeting.In this Thesis in writer adopt a juridical normative and descriptive analyst method or research and relies on secondary data sources. For research matter this researchwill be explain the irrevocable power of attorney to attend and give a vote to General Meeting of Shareholders has been seen form all of regulations and the courts view from each decisions. Research conducted on the decision by judge, starting from the Court, High Court, and The Supreme Court to dispute between shareholders PT. Cipta Televisi Pendidikan Indonesia versus PT. Berkah Karya Bersama. Already found the answer irrevocable power of attorney still be revoked based on article 1337 Indonesian Civil Code and article 85 paragraph 5 concerning Limited Liability Companies., The power of attorney as a legal step allowed by regulation, principal has been given power of attorney to a party as represent in person for legal interest. Based on article 1338 Indonesian Civil Code Authorization on principle freedom of contract, The Power of Attorney can be form of hereby confers an irrevocable power of attorney. But article 1338Indonesian Civil Code has been restricted with article 1337 Indonesian Civil Code a cause is not permissible if it is prohibited by law, or if it violates good conduct, or public orderand article 85 paragraph 5 concerning Limited Liability Companies in the event that shareholders are present at the GMS in person, any power of attorney they have given shall not be valid for that meeting.In this Thesis in writer adopt a juridical normative and descriptive analyst method or research and relies on secondary data sources. For research matter this researchwill be explain the irrevocable power of attorney to attend and give a vote to General Meeting of Shareholders has been seen form all of regulations and the courts view from each decisions. Research conducted on the decision by judge, starting from the Court, High Court, and The Supreme Court to dispute between shareholders PT. Cipta Televisi Pendidikan Indonesia versus PT. Berkah Karya Bersama. Already found the answer irrevocable power of attorney still be revoked based on article 1337 Indonesian Civil Code and article 85 paragraph 5 concerning Limited Liability Companies.]

Abstrak :
ABSTRAK
Nama : Maria Imakulata WahyoProgram Studi : Kajian Administrasi Rumah SakitJudul Tugas Akhir : Pengembangan Prosedur Tetap dan Kriteria Clinical MeetingDalam Rangka Upaya Pelaksanaan Tata Kelola Klinis Yang Baikdi Rumah Sakit Santo Borromeus Kriteria clinical meeting yang telah disusun tahun 2011 di Rumah Sakit Santo Borromeuskurang disosialisasikan, sementara potensi komplain menjadi tuntutan bertambah banyak.Tujuan penelitian menganalisis kriteria dan menyusun prosedur tetap pelaksanaanclinical meeting. Metode penelitian adalah kualitatif dengan wawancara pertanyaanterbuka kepada dua belas informan yang ditentukan dengan mekanisme purposif dandilakukan analisis konten. Kecukupan informan diperoleh dengan mekanisme ldquo;snowballing rdquo;. Langkah terakhir dilakukan Fokus Grup Diskusi bersama manajemen untukmendapatkan saran atau rekomendasi yang sahih. Penelitian ini menemukan bahwakriteria yang telah disusun sulit dalam penerapannya dan tidak sederhana denganmenggunakan bobot dan skor. Rekomendasi penelitian setelah case manager melakukanevaluasi kepada pasien, bila didapatkan skor penapisan lebih dari sepuluh, melakukanpenilaian ulang empat aspek yaitu usia dan tingkat kesadaran, prognosa dubia dan atauad malam, gagal organ dua atau lebih dan tindakan berisiko tinggi, apabila ditemukansalah satunya kecuali usia dan tingkat kesadaran maka clinical meeting akan diusulkankepada Komite Medik melalui Direktur Medis. Komite medik dalam menyelenggarakantata kelola klinis yang baik melalui pelaksanaan clinical meeting, akan menerima usulandari case manager dan Biro Pemasaran dan Pengelolaan Pelanggan. Case manajer yangberkualitas diharapkan sebagai alat perwakilan manajemen mampu menyelenggarakan clinical meeting.

---

ABSTRACT
Developing A Permanent Clinical Meeting Procedure In St. Borromeus HospitalAbstractIn 2011, St. Borromeus Hospital has composed a criteria for clinical meeting, but is not well socialized, while facing the increasing potention of medical law suit. The purpose of this research is to analyze the existing criteria and establish a permanent clinical meeting procedure. The method is qualitative with open questionnaire interview to twelve informants sorted with purposive mechanism, snow balling mechanism and content analysis. The final step is by performing a Focused Group Discussion to get valid advice and reccomendation. We found that all informants expressed that the earlier clinical meeting criteria is difficult to aplly due to it rsquo s complicated scoring. The new criteria involves the role of Case Manager that will screen the patients. We suggested that all patients with score eleven or higher is further evaluated using four criterias age and level of consciousness, prognosis dubia and or ad malam, organ failure involving two or more organs, high risk procedures. Any criterias other than age and level of consciousness, the case manager will propose a clinical meeting to medical committee with the acknowledgement of Medical director. Medical Committee will also receive suggestion from customer management. A qualified Case Manager is expected to represent the management in holding clinical meeting. Keyword case manager clinical meeting

Abstrak :
ABSTRAK
Pemegang saham yang ingin melaksanakan Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham RUPS dan permintaan untuk diselenggarakan RUPS diabaikan oleh Direksi dan Komisaris, Pemegang Saham dapat meminta diadakannya RUPS, yaitu dengan mengajukan permohonan penetapan pemberian izin Untuk Melakukan Pemanggilan dan Menyelenggarakan Sendiri Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham ke Pengadilan Negeri. Hakim apabila mengabulkan sebuah permohonan penetapan akan menjatuhkan penetapan. Tesis ini membahas mengenai keabsahan terhadap permohonan penetapan RUPS yang dikabulkan berupa putusan dan mengenai upaya hukum yang dapat dilakukan terhadap putusan mengenai persetujuan penyelenggaraan RUPS. Pokok permasalahan dalam penelitian ini meliputi pertimbangan Hakim dalam memberikan putusan atas permohonan penetapan penyelenggaraan RUPS dan upaya-upaya hukum pihak terkait terhadap putusan pengadilan mengenai persetujuan penyelenggaraan RUPS. Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian yuridis normatif. Hasil dari penelitian ini adalah Putusan yang berisi Penetapan pemberian izin kepada Pemohon untuk melakukan pemanggilan sendiri RUPS oleh Pengadilan Negeri merupakan aturan khusus dalam dinamika praktik penyelesaian Permohonan di Pengadilan. Permohonan yang diajukan oleh Pemohon akan diselesaikan dengan proses Hukum Acara Perdata yang biasa digunakan untuk menyelesaikan perkara contentiosa dan upaya hukum yang dapat dilakukan terhadap putusan tersebut pun terbatas dan/atau limitatif yang wajib tunduk pada ketentuan pasal 80 ayat 6 dan 7 UUPT 2007.

---

ABSTRACT
Shareholders who want to implement General Meeting of Shareholders GMS and requests to be held The GMS is ignored by the Board of Directors and Commissioners Shareholders may ask for arranging the GMS by submitting an application the determination of the provision of licenses to perform call for and administering own general meeting of shareholders to the district court So, judge when answer the stipulation of will drop the stipulation of. This thesis discusses About the legality of to entreaty the stipulation of GMS who granted of decision and About the legal action can be implemented towards the decree of the heavenly regarding the approval of the convention of GMS. The main issues in this research includes the judge 39 s consideration in giving decision on the pleas for the execution of the GMS and legal action of the parties concerned against the court 39 s decision concerning the approval of the GMS. This research is a normative juridical research. The results of this research is the decision containing the Stipulation for the Applicant To perform call for GMS themselves by district courts is a special rule in the dynamics of practices the completion of the plea in court. Plea filed by the applicant will be solved by process Civil Law Procedure commonly used to solve cases contentiosa and the legal action that can be made against such decisions is limited, which is subject to the terms article 80 paragraph 6 and 7 UUPT 2007.

Abstrak :
Tesis ini membahas mengenai kewajiban Direksi sebagai organ Perseroan yang mempunyai tugas untuk melakukan kepengurusan Perseroan. Kewajiban Direksi tersebut terkait dengan kewajiban untuk menyelenggarakan Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham ( RUPS ) baik RUPS Tahunan maupun RUPS Lainnya sebagaimana diamanatkan oleh Undang Undang. Selain kewajiban Direksi dalam penyelenggaraan RUPS, tesis ini juga membahas mengenai peranan institusi peradilan dalam memberikan kepastian hukum terkait dengan permohonan Pemegang Saham Perseroan untuk melakukan pemanggilan sendiri RUPS karena Direksi tidak melaksanakan kewajibannya tersebut. Penelitian ini adalah penelitian hukum normatif yang dilakukan secara deskriptif analisis melalui bahan-bahan kepustakaan dan analisa terhadap penetapan dan putusan institusi peradilan. Hasil penelitian menyarankan agar Direksi tetap memenuhi permintaan Pemegang Saham yang meminta penyelenggaraan RUPS sebagai bagian dari hak Pemegang Saham. Pengadilan Negeri yang mempunyai wewenang untuk menetapkan permohonan Pemegang Saham dalam hal Pemegang Saham mengajukan permohonan penetapan pemberian ijin pemanggilan sendiri RUPS wajib memeriksa dengan cermat permohonan Pemegang Saham tersebut apakah sudah memenuhi persyaratan dan ada kepentingan yang wajar dari Pemegang Saham untuk menyelenggarakan RUPS tersebut.

---

This Thesis contains analysis of obligation of Board of Directors as an organ of a limited liability company to manage the company. Such obligation is related to conduct General Meeting of Shareholders (GMS) of the company, either Annual GMS or Extra-Ordinary GMS as mandated by the law. Besides analyzes the obligation to conduct GMS, this Thesis also analyzes the role of Court of Law institution in providing law assurance in relation with the right of shareholder of a company to by itself make convocation of/formal call for the GMS, in case the Board of Directors did not do that. This analysis is a legal normative analysis, which carried-out by descriptive analysis method to literature materials and analysis to decisions or verdicts of Court of Law. Considering the result of this analysis, the Board of Directors should suggestively honor the right of shareholder who requested the GMS to be conducted. An authorized District Court is competent to examine if the request of shareholder has duly fulfilled all the requirements and if are there any normal interest of such shareholder in requesting the GMS.

Abstrak :
Tesis ini membahas mengenai Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham Luar Biasa (untuk selanjutnya disebut RUPS LB) yang dilakukan dan dihadiri oleh seluruh pemegang saham PT. Golden Bird Metro pada tanggal 18 Maret 2008. RUPS LB ini adalah yang kedua kalinya diadakan karena pada saat RUPS pertama tidak memenuhi kuorum. Panggilan Rapat kedua dilakukan oleh Direksi pada tanggal 10 Maret 2008. Kemudian RUPS LB ini menimbulkan permasalahan hukum dan menjadi objek sengketa di Pengadilan. Akta Risalah RUPS LB diminta pembatalan di pengadilan, dan Notaris yang membuat akta tersebut juga digugat oleh pihak yang merasa dirugikan. Dalam kasus ini Penggugat yang merupakan Direktur Utama dan sekaligus pemegang saham 33,3 % saham dari PT. Golden Bird Metro menggugat Notaris PM, notaris di Jakarta Pusat yang membuat akta risalah RUPS LB PT. Golden Bird Metro nomor 24 tanggal 18 Maret 2008. Penggugat menyatakan bahwa pada saat pelaksanaan RUPS tidak pernah ada pembahasan terhadap agenda RUPS dikarenakan pada rapat terjadi perdebatan mengenai siapa yang berwenang memimpin RUPS dan menyatakan tergugat telah menyalahgunakan wewenang sebagai notaris dengan menuangkan rekayasa peristiwa hukum RUPS LB ke dalam berita acara RUPS. RUPS LB ini bukan dipimpin oleh Pengugat karena dalam kedudukannya selaku Direksi masih terlibat sengketa dengan perseroan di pengadilan. Menurut ketentuan yang berlaku pasal 99 Undang-Undang Perseroan Terbatas Nomor 40 Tahun 2007, Direktur Utama (Penggugat) menjadi tidak berwenang mewakili perseroan. Penyelenggaraan RUPS LB ini sesuai dengan ketentuan Undang-Undang Perseroan Terbatas mengenai jangka waktu pemanggilan RUPS akan tetapi melanggar Anggaran Dasar perseroan mengenai pihak yang berwenang memimpin RUPS. Perbuatan hukum memimpin Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham tidak termasuk tindakan hukum pengurusan perseoran. Penelitian ini dilakukan berdasarkan metode penelitian kepustakaan yang bersifat yuridis normatif.

---

This thesis discusses Extraordinary General Meeting of Shareholders (hereinafter referred to as RUPS LB) executed and attended by all shareholders of PT. Golden Bird Metro on 18 March 2008. This RUPS LB is convened in the second time due to the failure of quorum in the First RUPS. The Second Meeting Summon was convened by Directors on 10th March 2008. Then this RUPS LB results in legal dispute and becomes the object of dispute in the Court. Deed of Minutes of RUPS LB is requested to be ineffective by the Court, and Notary who prepared the deed is also claimed by a suffered party. In this case, the Plaintiff constituting President Director and the holder of 33% shares from PT. Golden Bird Metro files claim to the Notary of PM, notary public practicing in Central Jakarta executing the deed of minutes of Extraordinary General Meeting of Shareholders of PT. Golden Bird Metro Number 24 dated 18 March 2008. The Plaintiff said that during the performance of RUPS, there was no discussion concerning the agenda of RUPS, because in the course of RUPS, there was debate regarding an authorized party who would chair the RUPS and declared that the defendant has misused the authority as notary by entering manipulation of legal circumstance of RUPS LB into in minutes of RUPS. This RUPS LB was not chaired by the Plaintiff because in their capacity as Directors, they remain in dispute in court. Pursuant to the prevailing provisions under Article 99 of Law of Limited Liability Company Number 40 Year 2007, President Director (The Plaintiff) shall reserve no authority to represent the company. The performance of this RUPS LB is in accordance with provision of Law of Limited Liability Company regarding period of summon of RUPS, but they violated Articles of Association of the company regarding a party authorized to chair the RUPS. Legal act in chairing the General Meeting of shareholders shall exclude legal act, administration of law, personal administration. This research is conducted on the basis of library research method with the nature of normative jurisdiction.

Abstrak :
ABSTRAK
Tesis ini membahas mengenai kewenangan Pengadilan Negeri dalam hal mengabulkan permohonan Pemegang Saham untuk menyelenggarakan dan menentukan kuorum dalam Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham. Kewenangan tersebut diberikan oleh Undang-Undang Perseroan Terbatas kepada Pengadilan Negeri guna mencegah kemacetan penyelenggaraan dan pengambilan keputusan dalam Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham Perseroan yang apabila Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham tersebut tidak dapat berjalan, maka akan dapat memengaruhi berjalannya suatu perseroan. Dalam memberikan dan mengeluarkan penetapan, Pengadilan Negeri menggunakan pertimbangan hukum berupa ketentuan dan pengaturan tentang penyelenggaraan Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham (RUPS) yang terdapat di dalam Anggaran Dasar Perseroan dan Undang-Undang No 40 Tahun 2007 tentang Perseroan Terbatas. Selain itu, hakim dalam memberikan penetapan juga memperhatikan hal-hal lain yang diajukan pemohon seperti surat-surat sebagai bukti tertulis, keterangan pemohon sampai dengan ada atau tidaknya sangkalan yang diberikan oleh termohon (apabila ada) atau ada atau tidaknya penolakan yang diajukan oleh Direksi sebagai pihak yang berwenang dalam menyelenggarakan Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham. Namun, pada akhirnya pertimbangan hakim tetap mengacu kepada Anggaran Dasar Perseroan dan Undang-Undang Perseroan Terbatas No 40 Tahun 2007 yang berlaku. Selama tidak bertentangan dengan Anggaran Dasar dan Undang-Undang Perseroan Terbatas No 40 Tahun 2007, maka hakim akan mengabulkan permohonan penyelenggaraan dan penetapan kuorum Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham tersebut.

---

Abstract
This thesis analysis about the authority of the District Court in granting approval on the application for conducting and determining the quorum in general meeting of shareholders. This authority is given by The Law of Limited Liability Company to the District Court to avoid the delay in the implementation and decision making in the general meeting of shareholders, which affecting the company to run its activity. In granting of its approval or decision, the District Court uses legal consideration in form of provisions and regulation regarding implementation of the General Meeting of Shareholders which is stated in the company?s Articles of Association and Law No. 40 year 2007 regarding Limited Liability Company. In addition to that, in providing the stipulation, the Judge will also consider about other matters submitted by the applicant such as documents as written evidence, other information from applicant up to if any refusal from the defendant or if any refusal from Board of Directors as the party who has the authority to conduct General Meeting of Shareholders. But at last, Judge consideration shall refer to the valid Company?s Article of Association and the Law of Limited Liabilty Company No. 40 year 2007. As long as there is no contradiction with the Company?s Article of Association and the Law of Limited Liability Company No. 40 year 2007, then the Judge will grant the decision of implementation and quorum determination of the General Meeting of Shareholders.

Abstrak :
Therefore the standardization is important in the global market. The standardization may give certain effects to the industry and to the market. This thesis try to offer a tool to predict the future effect of the mandatory standard implementation to the domestic industry. Hopefully this thesis be useful and inspiring for the people