Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"The rise of the independent director in Asia is an issue of global consequence that has been largely overlooked until recently. Less than two decades ago, independent directors were oddities in Asia's boardrooms. Today, they are ubiquitous. Independent Directors in Asia undertakes the first detailed analysis of this phenomenon. It provides in-depth historical, contextual and comparative perspectives on the law and practice of independent directors in seven core Asian jurisdictions (China, Hong Kong, India, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan) and Australia. These case studies reveal the varieties of independent directors in Asia, none of which conform to its original American concept. The authors develop a taxonomy of these varieties, which provides a powerful analytical tool for more accurately understanding and effectively researching independent directors in Asia. This new approach challenges foundational aspects of comparative corporate governance practice and suggests a new path for comparative corporate governance scholarship and reform."

"Perubahan susunan anggota Direksi/ Dewan Komisaris Perseroan merupakan aktivitas penting yang sarat dengan konflik kepentingan di antara para pemangku-kepentingan dalam Perseroan. Perubahan ini disyaratkan dilakukan berdasarkan keputusan Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham (selanjutnya disebut “RUPS”). Penyelenggaraan RUPS ini merupakan wewenang Direksi, dan dalam hal-hal tertentu, pemanggilan RUPS dapat dilakukan oleh Dewan Komisaris, atau pemegang saham dengan kriteria tertentu atas izin Ketua Pengadilan Negeri (selanjutnya disebut “PN”) yang berwenang.Dalam situasi adanya konflik kepentingan antara pemegang saham yang memiliki hak untuk meminta diadakannya RUPS tentang perubahan susunan anggota Direksi/Dewan Komisaris di satu pihak dan Direksi/ Dewan Komisaris di lain pihak, maka dapat dipastikan pemegang saham yang bersangkutan tidak akan menghadapi hambatan yuridis yang signifikan dalam penyelenggaraan RUPS dengan agenda itu, karena UUPT telah menyiapkan jalan keluar dengan memberikan hak kepada pemegang saham terkait untuk dapat melakukan sendiri pemanggilan RUPS tersebut atas izin Ketua PN yang berwenang, atau dalam hal permohonan izin pemanggilan RUPS tersebut ditolak oleh PN terkait, pemegang saham yang bersangkutan masih dapat mengajukan upaya kasasi untuk izin dimaksud.Akan tetapi, dalam hal konflik kepentingan terjadi antara pemegang saham/RUPS yang telah mengambil keputusan tentang perubahan susunan anggota Direksi/Dewan Komisaris di satu pihak, dan Direksi/Dewan Komisaris yang telah diberhentikan di lain pihak, maka konflik ini berpotensi menimbulkan penolakan dalam pelaksanaan keputusan RUPS tersebut oleh Direksi/Dewan Komisaris yang lama, dengan cara tetap menguasai Perseroan secara de facto dan/atau mengajukan gugatan pembatalan keputusan RUPS terkait.Dari beberapa kasus yang menjadi obyek dalam penelitian ini, hambatan yuridis teridentifikasi dalam upaya hukum yang dapat dilakukan oleh pemegang saham terkait dalam realisasi keputusan RUPS ini apabila secara de facto Perseroan masih dikuasai Direksi/Dewan Komisaris yang lama, yaitu hanya melalui gugatan perdata. Proses panjang upaya di pengadilan justru mengancam kelangsungan hidup Perseroan.Hambatan yuridis yang lain teridentifikasi pula dalam masa daluwarsa untuk pengajuan gugatan pembatalan keputusan RUPS. Masa daluwarsa ini masih berdasarkan Hukum Acara Perdata, dan bagi Perseroan masih relatif cukup panjang. Hambatan ini menimbulkan ketidak-pastian hukum baik bagi Perseroan maupun pihak ketiga yang akan atau telah melakukan hubungan hukum dengan Perseroan, khususnya bila hubungan hukum itu didasarkan oleh keputusan RUPS.

---

A change of members of the Company’s Board of Directors/Auditors, is an important activity which has many conflicts of interest among stakeholders in the Company. This change is required to be based on a resolution of the shareholders’ meeting (refer to as “Meeting”). The convening of this Meeting is an authority of the Board of Directors, and in some particular cases, the convocation of this Meeting may be conducted by the Board of Auditors, or by a specified shareholder with a permission from the Head of a competent Local Court (refer to as “LC”).

In a situation where there is a conflict of interest between a specified shareholder who has a right to demand the convocation of a Meeting for changing members of the Board of Directors/Auditors in one side, and the Board of Directors/Auditors in another side, it is clarified that the related shareholder will not face significant judicial obstacles for convoking this Meeting. Because, the Company Law has prepared a solution, by providing that shareholder a right to convoke this Meeting with a permission from the Head of a competent LC, or in case the application for this permission is rejected by the LC, the related shareholder may appeal for that permission to the Supreme Court.

However, in case the conflict occurs between the shareholder(s)/the Meeting which has taken a resolution for changing the members of the Board of Directors/Auditors in one side, and the dismissed Board of Directors/ Auditors in another side, this conflict will potentially cause to a refusal from the former Directors/ Auditors for executing that resolution, by occupying the Company as de facto Directors/Auditors and/or by filing a lawsuit for voiding the related resolution.

From some cases those are being objected in this research, a judicial obstacle is identified in the legal effort that may be taken by the shareholder for realizing this Meeting’s resolution when the Company is still occupied in de facto by the former Directors/Auditors, that is only by filing a civil lawsuit. The long process for this judicial effort, on the contrary, will threaten an existence of the Company itself.

Another judicial obstacle is also identified in the valid time-span for filing a lawsuit for voiding a Meeting’s resolution. This time-span is still based on the Law on Civil Procedure, and relatively too long for a Company. This obstacle causes a law uncertainty for both the Company and the third party who will make or has made a legal transaction with the Company, especially if that transaction is based on a Meeting’s resolution."

"Tesis ini membahas tentang Direksi Perseroan yang menjalankan Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham Luar Biasa yang tidak memenuhi syarat sehingga akta Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham Luar Biasa yang dituangkan ke dalam akta Notaris dibatalkan demi hukum dan dianggap tidak berkekuatan hukum. Penelitian ini dilakukan dengan metode penilitian yuridis-normatif, yaitu dengan menelaah norma hukum yang tertulis dengan teknik pengumpulan data studi dokumen dengan tipologi penilitian yang digunakan adalah deskriptif-analitis. Permasalahan dalam tesis ini adalah tanggung jawab Direksi Perseroan dalam menjalankan Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham yang tidak memenuhi syarat dan kedudukan akta Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham Luar Biasa yang dibuat oleh Notaris yang tidak memenuhi syarat. Adapun hasil penilitian dalam tesis ini adalah syarat-syarat yang harus dilakukan agar Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham dapat dianggap sah tidak hanya terdapat dalam peraturan perundang-undangan saja namun Direksi juga harus menjalankan kewajibannya dalam Perseroan agar dapat menyelenggarakan Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham Luar Biasa. Akta Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham Luar Biasa yang dituangkan oleh Notaris juga menjadi batal demi hukum karena Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham Luar Biasa diselenggarakan dengan perbuatan melawan hukum.

---

This thesis discusses about the Board of Directors who held the General Meeting of Shareholders who did not fulfill the requirements so the deed of the General Meeting of Shareholders as outlined in the Notary deed was null and void. The deed was considered to have no legal force. This research was conducted with a juridical-normative research method, namely by examining the written legal norms with the document study data collection technique. The research typology used for this research was descriptive-analytical. The problems in this thesis are the responsibilities of the companys Board of Directors in carrying out the General Meeting of Shareholders that does not fulfil the requirements and the deed of the General Meeting of Shareholders, made by Notary, that does not meet the requirements stands. The conclusions in this thesis are the conditions that must be done so that the General Meeting of Shareholders can be considered valid are not only found in the laws and regulations, but the Board of Directors must also carry out its obligations in the company in order to hold a General Meeting of Shareholders. The deed of the General Meeting of Shareholders made by Notary also becomes null and void due to the General Meeting of Shareholders are held in an illegal manner."

"Direksi sebagai organ perseroan memiliki peran penting dalam menjalankan pengurusan perseroan dan mempunyai wewenang dalam pengambilan keputusan bisnis. Sering kali direksi dihadapkan pada suatu kondisi dimana harus mengambil suatu keputusan dan tindakan yang cepat agar perusahaan yang dikelolanya tetap bisa memperoleh peluang bisnis. Begitu pula pada Badan Usaha Milik Negara khususnya Perusahaan Perseroan yang tujuan utamanya mengejar keuntungan, mungkin saja seorang direksi yang memiliki wewenang dalam mengambil keputusan untuk peluang tersebut mengabaikan dan melanggar prinsip-prinsip good corporate governance yang memungkinkan terjadinya tindakan benturan kepentingan. Situasi demikian bilamana terdapat kepentingan yang berbenturan antara pribadi direksi dengan perseroan, maka akan dapat mempengaruhi pengambilan suatu keputusan yang pada akhirnya merugikan perseroan. Oleh karena itu kelima prinsip good corporate governance yakni prinsip transparansi, akuntabilitas, pertanggungjawaban, kemandirian, dan kewajaran wajib untuk diterapkan oleh Badan Usaha Milik Negara guna mencegah terjadinya tindakan benturan kepentingan yang dilakukan oleh direksi.

---

The Board of Directors as an organ of the company has an important role in carrying out the management of the company and has the authority to make business decisions. Often the directors are faced with a condition where they have to take a decision and take quick action so that the company they manage can still get business opportunities. Likewise, in State-Owned Enterprises, especially corporate companies whose main goal is to pursue profit, it is possible that a director who has the authority to make decisions for these opportunities ignores and violates the principles of good corporate governance which allows conflicts of interest to occur. Such a situation if there is a conflict of interest between the directors and the company, it will be able to influence the making of a decision that will ultimately harm the company. Therefore, the five principles of good corporate governance, namely the principles of transparency, accountability, responsibility, independency, and fairness, must be implemented by State-Owned Enterprises in order to prevent conflicts of interest by the directors."