Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

Abstrak :
Tingkat kecerdasaan suatu bangsa memiliki arti penting dalam pembangunan hukum ataupun penciptaan proses demokratisasi hukum

Abstrak :
This article does trying to give more horizon regarding two mainstreams on ultra virus doctrine's. The conservative propositions is said on (he rigid nature of the doctrine whilst the another has thought on the fllexibility toward the principle. Those flexibility is embarks from their existence which absolutely needs within any modification thats still available. Bur then how far through modification can be done will invite also the relevance factor's itself. In case of any misconduct done (ultra vires) by flee company management (direction boards member's). so it shall punish them under unlimited responsibiliyy and can be personally alleged. The general principle considered is that the company management boards ought to comply and run law and regulations, company by laws. share holders meeting within also norms inside of fiduciary duties doctrine's

Abstrak :
Both MSAA and MRNIA are chiefly as tools to collecting liquidity credits from Bank Indonesia for prior liquidity troubles banking. Those agreements have a benchmark models, even though in practice was happened dissimilarity in such transactions. The author proposes legal analysis regarding po.5'l banking bankcruptcy settlement through Indonesian banking that was hold by Indonesian Bank Restructuring Agency (IBR/1). The distinction transactions were emerged on pattern of relevant transaction to apply through certain share holders which in case d%rent to another. More over this situation was raised by transaction's complexity that also put barriers out from inconsistence of law and regulations applied Under Article i320 and 1321 Indonesian Civil Law the author has thought that MSAA and MRNIA can be annulled; or null and void by law because in both agreements had avoided penal sanctions that has thought as against the law.

Abstrak :
Implementation of company registration shall be constrained because of differences in the interpretation of the meaning of the provisions of Article 29 of Law No. 40 of 2007 on Limited Liability Company, which determines that the registration of the company held by the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights. The provisions of Article 29 is interpreted by many practitioners as lex specialis of Act 3 of 1982 regarding Company Registration Requirement. The reality is not so. Company registration remains to be done pursuant to Act 3 of 1982. There are no provisions that override or cancel that Act 3 of 1982 to enforce Article 29 of Law No. 40 of 2007. Each law urgency is equally important. Act 40 of 2007 for the purpose of publication, while Act 3 of 1982 is to find out information about the company, either types of business activities, locations, shares and so forth. Registration of the company is still to be done on both the ministry under the provisions of law referred to.

Implementasi wajib daftar perusahaan menjadi terkendala dikarenakan adanya perbedaan penafsiran dalam memaknai ketentuan Pasal 29 Undang-Undang No.40 tahun 2007 tentang Perseroan Terbatas, yang menentukan bahwa pendaftaran perusahaan dilaksanakan oleh Kementerian Hukum dan Hak Asasi Manusia. Ketentuan Pasal 29 tersebut ditafsirkan oleh banyk praktisi sebagai lex specialis dari Undang-Undang No.3 tahun 1982 tentang Wajib Daftar Perusahaan. Realitasnya adalah tidak demikian. Pendaftaran Perusahaan tetap harus dilakukan berdasarkan Undang-Undang No.3 tahun 1982. Tidak ada ketentuan yang mengesampingkan atau membatalkan bahwa Undang-Undang No.3 tahun 1982 dengan berlakukan Pasal 29 Undang- Undang No.40 tahun 2007. Masing-masing undang-undang dimaksud memiliki urgensi yang sama pentingnya. Undang-Undang No.40 tahun 2007 untuk kepentingan publikasi, sedangkan Undang-Undang No.3 tahun 1982 adalah untuk mengetahui informasi tentang perusahaan, baik jenis kegiatan usaha, lokasi, saham dan lain sebagainya. Pendaftaran perusahaan adalah tetap harus dilakukan dikedua kementerian berdasarkan ketentuan undang-undang yang dirujuk.

Abstrak :
The General Meeting of Shareholders (GMS) is one of the company?s organs with the significant role of determining the business course and other issues related to corporate actions; as it is granted by law to the shareholders of the company. Any decision can be made in the GMS; such as determining the shareholders? unanimous concurrence on the proposed meeting agenda or even if the results of the meeting are actually contrary to such agenda caused by dissenting among themselves. However, the GMS can also pose certain obstacles in situations where one or more shareholders (that appear to be a majority shareholder) fail to act in good faith or have an internal dispute with other shareholder(s) in the company. The shareholder concerned can use such majority position to cause a dead-lock in the GMS, as a result of which the rest of the shareholder(s) are unable to make any decisions concerning the proposed GMS agenda. The aim of this article is to look at the effectiveness of Article 86 of the Indonesian Company Law for the purpose of overcoming the above described situation. The said Article 86 was formulated without considering the possibility of shareholder intentionally undertaking such unlawful measures. Moreover, the article is aimed at observing the concordance between the Indonesian Company Law and the Indonesian Procedural Law.