Agustina, Devi (2021) Batasan Tanggung Jawab Direksi PT. Mandiri Agung Jaya Utama Menurut Doktrin Business Judgement Rule (Studi Putusan Nomor: 514 K/PDT.SUS-PAILIT/2013). Sarjana thesis, Universitas Brawijaya.
Abstract
"Penelitian ini dilatarbelakangi diperlukannya pemahaman mengenai ratio legis hakim dalam Putusan Nomor: 514 K/PDT.SUS-PAILIT/2013 terkait tanggung jawab direksi dan bagaimana seharusnya batasan tanggung jawab direksi PT. MAJU dalam Putusan Nomor: 514 K/PDT.SUS-PAILIT/2013 sesuai dengan doktin business judgement rule. Terdapat adanya permasalahan yang muncul mengenai pertanggungjawaban yang diputus oleh Hakim yang dijatuhkan pada PT. MAJU. Hal ini dikarenakan perbuatan yang dilakukan direksi PT. MAJU bertentangan dengan UUPT dan Anggaran dasar PT. MAJU. Metode penelitian yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah yuridis empiris dengan menggunakan pendekatan perundang-undangan, pendekatan kasus, dan pendekatan analisis. Teknik analisis yang digunakan penulis dalam penelitian ini adalah analisis preskriptif, interpretasi gramatikal, dan interpretasi sistematis. Berdasarkan hasil penelitian ini, pertimbangan hukum Majelis Hakim dalam menjatuhkan pailit pada PT. MAJU dan menjatuhkan tanggung jawab pada PT. MAJU kurang tepat. Hal ini dikarenakan dalam melakukan perjanjian tersebut, Toyib Saman tidak mendapatkan persetujuan dewan komisaris yang mana melanggar Pasal 98 ayat (3) UUPT dan Pasal 12 ayat (1) poin a Anggaran Dasar PT. Maju. Terlebih lagi, pengiriman uang pinjaman tersebut dikirmkan kepada rekening pribadi milik Toyib Saman bukanlah kepada rekening PT. MAJU. Apabila dianalisis menggunakan doktrin business judgement rule yang diatur dalam Pasal 97 ayat (5) UUPT, Toyib Saman tidak dapat dilindungi dengan doktrin ini karena direksi tidak menjalankan prinsip kehati-hatian dan itikad baik serta melampaui kewenangan yang dimilikinya. Dengan demikian pembebanan tanggung jawab seharusnya ada pada Toyib Saman secara pribadi. "
English Abstract
In this research, the author raises the issues related to the limitations of the responsibilities of the directors of PT. Mandiri Agung Jaya Utama according to the Business Judgment Rule Doctrine. This theme choice was motivated by the Decision Number: 514 K / PDT.SUS-PAILIT / 2013 which brought down the bankruptcy of PT. MAJU and assign responsibility for its debts to PT. MAJU. This bankruptcy decision was based on a debt settlement agreement made by Toyib Saman as the director of PT. MAJU with PT. GSG. However, in the agreement there is no approval from the board of commissioners, which violates the Company Law and Articles of Association of PT. MAJU. Based on the foregoing, this research raises the formulation of the problem: (1) What is the legis ratio of judges in Decision Number: 514 K / PDT.SUS-PAILIT / 2013 regarding the responsibilities of the board of directors of PT. Mandiri Agung Jaya Utama according to the Business Judgment Rule doctrine? (2) What is the limitation of the responsibilities of the board of directors of PT. Mandiri Agung Jaya Utama according to the doctrine of the Business Judgment Rule in Decision Number: 514 K / PDT.SUS-PAILIT / 2013? Then the writing of this research uses a normative juridical method with a statutory statue approach, a case approach, and an analytical approach. The primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials obtained by the author will be analyzed using prescriptive analysis techniques, grammatical interpretation, and systematic interpretation. This is used as a reference in resolving legal problems that are the object of study. From the results of research with the method above, the authors get the answer that in making a settlement agreement on accounts payable with PT. GSG, Toyib Saman does not have the capacity to represent PT. MAJU in signing the peace agreement. So that the legal considerations of the Panel of Judges were inaccurate in bringing down bankruptcy to PT. MAJU and drop the responsibility to PT. This is because in carrying out the agreement, Toyib Saman didn’t get the approval of the board of commissioners which violated Article 92 paragraph (2) of the Company Law and Article 12 paragraph (1) point a of the Articles of Association of PT. Maju. Moreover, the loan money was sent to Toyib Saman's personal account, not to PT. MAJU. When analyzed using the business judgment rule doctrine as stipulated in Article 97 paragraph (5) of the Company Law, Toyib Saman cannot be protected by this doctrine because the directors do not apply the principles of prudence and good faith and exceed their authority. Thus the imposition of responsibility should be on Toyib Saman personally
Other obstract
-
| Item Type: | Thesis (Sarjana) |
|---|---|
| Identification Number: | 052101 |
| Divisions: | Fakultas Hukum > Ilmu Hukum |
| Depositing User: | Unnamed user with username lilik |
| Date Deposited: | 21 Oct 2021 04:43 |
| Last Modified: | 23 Feb 2022 03:12 |
| URI: | http://repository.ub.ac.id/id/eprint/184574 |
![[thumbnail of DALAM MASA EMBARGO]](http://repository.ub.ac.id/style/images/fileicons/text.png) |
Text (DALAM MASA EMBARGO)
devi agustina.pdf Restricted to Registered users only until 31 December 2023. Download (1MB) |
Actions (login required)
 |
View Item |