Application of the Piercing the Corporate Veil Doctrine in the Accountability of the Board of Directors Linked to Law Number 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Companies

Moh. Asep Suharna

Abstract


The purpose of this paper is to analyze the position of the Board of Directors in a Limited Liability Company according to Law Number 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Companies, and the application of the Piercing the Corporate Veil doctrine in the accountability of the Board of Directors in relation to Law Number 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Companies. The research method used in this research is descriptive analytical, with a normative juridical approach. This research was conducted by means of library research and field research with data collection techniques through documentation studies and interviews as well as data analysis methods used in this study using qualitative juridical analysis. Based on the results of the discussion above, it can be concluded: First, UUPT to some extent acknowledge the validity of this theory of Piercing the Corporate Veil. The application of this theory to the actions of a company causes legal responsibility not only to be requested from the company (even though it is a legal entity), but legal liability can also be requested from its shareholders, Directors or Commissioners. Second, The actions of the Board of Directors which are not based on the principle of fiduciary duty that cause losses to the PT, the Board of Directors can not only be fully responsible personally for the losses that occur in accordance with Article 97 paragraphs (3) and (4) of the Company Law, the Board of Directors must be responsible for the losses incurred by the company due to his or her mistakes and omissions.


Keywords


limited liability company; directors; piercing the corporate veil doctrine

Full Text:

PDF

References


Ais, Chatamarrasjid Ais. 2000. Menyingkap Tabir Perseroan “Piercing the Corporate Veil” Kapita Selekta Hukum Perusahaan. Bandung: Citra Aditya Bakti.

Chatamarrasjid Ais, 2003. “Pengaruh Piercing The Corporate Veil Dalam Perseroan Terbatas”, Jurnal Hukum Bisnis, volume 22-No. 6 Tahun 2003.

Chatamarrasjid Ais, 2004. Penerobosan Cadar Perseroan dan Soal-soal Aktual Hukum Perusahaan. Bandung: Citra Aditya Bakti.

Doktrin Fiduciary Duty dan Peran Direksi, 7 April 2009.

Fisher, Simon, et.al. (2001). Corporation Law. Australia: Butterworths.

Friedman, Jack P.1987. Dictionary of Business Terms. New York : Baron’s Educational Services, Inc..

Fuady, Munir. 2010. Doktrin-doktrin Modern Dalam Corporate Law dan Eksistensinya Dalam Hukum Indonesia. Bandung: Citra Aditya Bakti.

Hadikusuma, Hilman. 1995. Metode Pembuatan Kertas Kerja atau Skripsi Ilmu Hukum. Bandung: Mandar Maju.

Hanitijo Soemitro, Ronny. 1998. Metodologi Penelitian Hukum dan Jurimetri. Semarang: Ghalia Indonesia.

http://www.rmol.co/read/2012/07/07/69992/5, Tersangka Kasus Askrindo Segera Digiring ke Pengadilan. Diakses pada tanggal 06 September 2012, pukul 20.00 WIB.

Mertokusumo, Sudikno. 1996. Penemuan Hukum (Sebuah Pengantar). Yogyakarta: Liberty.

Moeljatno, 2000. Asas-Asas Hukum Perdata. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta, h. 165.

Muhammad, Abdulkadir. 2002. Hukum Perseroan Indonesia. Bandung: Citra Aditya Bakti.

Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 121 K/Pid.Sus/2020.

Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 1401 K/Pid.Sus/2014.

Ray Widjaya, I.G. 2005. Hukum Perusahaan. Jakarta: Mega Poin.

Sembiring, Sentosa. 2008. Hukum Dagang. Bandung: Citra Aditya Bakti.

Shah, M. M., et al. (2020). The Development Impact of PT. Medco E & P Malaka on Economic Aspects in East Aceh Regency. Budapest International Research and Critics Institute-Journal (BIRCI-Journal). Volume 3, No 1, Page: 276-286

Sihombing, Bernard. 2008. Piercing The Corporate Veil dalam Korporasi. Depok: Fakultas Hukum Universitas Indonesia.

Soekanto, Soerjono dan Srimamudji, 2001. Penelitian Hukum Normatif. Jakarta: Raja Grafindo Persada.

Suharnoko, 2004. Hukum Perjanjian, Teori Dan Analisa Kasus. Jakarta: Prenada Media Group.

Sumadi, 1988. Metode Penelitian. Jakarta: Rajawali.

Umar Kasim, 2005. “Tanggung Jawab Korporasi dalam Hal Mengalami Kerugian, Kepailitan atau Likuidasi”, Informasi Hukum, Vol. 2, 2005, Tahun VII, http:// www.nakertrans.go.id/majalah_buletin/info_hukum/vol2_v_ii_2005/ Tanggung_jawab_korporasi.php. Diakses pada tanggal 15 September 2012, pukul 13.00 WIB.

Undang-Undang Nomor 40 tahun 2007 tentang Perseroan Terbatas

Widjaja, Gunawan dan Yani, Ahmad. 2000. Seri Hukum Bisnis: Perseroan Terbatas. Jakarta: Rajagrafindo Persada.

Widjaja, Gunawan. 2004. Seri Aspek Hukum dalam Bisnis: Pemilikan, Pengurusan, Perwakilan dan Pemberian Kuasa dalam Sudut Pandang KUH Perdata. Jakarta: Kencana.

_____, 2008. Risiko Hukum Sebagai Direksi, Komisaris dan Pemilik PT. Jakarta: Forum Sahabat.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.33258/birci.v5i2.5459

Article Metrics

Abstract view : 39 times
PDF - 12 times

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

 

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.