Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"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."

"ABSTRACTTesis ini membahas tentang batasan kewenangan Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham (?RUPS?) sehubungan dengan situasi dimana suatu RUPS tidak terselenggara sebagaimana disyaratkan ketentuan UUPT No. 40/2007, hal mana mempengaruhi keabsahan keputusan RUPS tersebut. Kewenangan RUPS untuk memulihkan perbuatan hukum yang dikategorikan ultra vires dengan cara meratifikasi atau membatalkan perbuatan hukum tersebut belum diatur secara jelas dalam UUPT No. 40/2007, kecuali ketentuan sehubungan dengan RUPS yang pertama kali diadakan oleh Perseroan sejak Perseroan disahkan menjadi badan hukum. Tidak adanya aturan yang jelas dalam pemulihan perbuatan ultra vires oleh RUPS dapat mempengaruhi kepastian hukum atas keabsahan keputusan RUPS dan ini akhirnya dapat berdampak terhadap kepentingan Perseroan dan pihak ketiga yang mempunyai hubungan hukum dengan Perseroan.

---

ABSTRACT

This thesis discusses the limits of the authority of the General Meeting of Shareholders (?GMS?) in connection with the convening of a GMS which was not carried out in accordance with the provisions of Company Law No. 40/2007, which matter affects the validity of the GMS? decision. The GMS?s authority to remedy a legal act which is categorized as ultra vires by way of ratification or cancellation of the legal act has not been fully regulated yet in the Company Law No. 40/2007 except for some provisions in relation to the first GMS held by the Company after the Company has obtained the status of a separate legal entity. The absence of clear provisions on the remedy of ultra vires acts by the GMS may affect the validity of the GMS? decision, this could ultimately also affect the Company?s interests and third parties who have a legal relationship with the Company."

"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."

"Pandemi Covid-19 memaksa manusia untuk memanfaatkan teknologi dalam melakukan kegiatan sehari-hari. RUPS secara daring dapat menjadi solusi untuk tetap berjalannya RUPS dalam Perseroan Terbatas. Pelaksanaan RUPS secara elektronik dapat dilakukan dengan berlandaskan Undang-Undang Perseroan Terbatas, Perseroan Terbatas Tertutup belum memiliki regulasi untuk penyelenggaraan RUPS secara elektronik. Permasalahan yang diangkat dalam penelitian ini adalah mengenai Penyelenggaraan RUPS secara elektronik dan keabsahan akta pernyataan keputusan rapat yang dibuat berdasarkan notulen RUPS melalui Video Conference pada PT X. Metode penelitian yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah kepustakaan yuridis-normatif.Hasil dari Penelitian ini menyimpulkan bahwa Penyelenggaraan Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham Perseroan Terbatas PT X yang dilaksanakan melalui Video Conference telah memenuhi ketentuan penyelenggaraan pada Undang-Undang Perseroan Terbatas, namun Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham secara elektronik belum memiliki regulasi yang lebih rinci, dan Akta pernyataan Keputusan Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham PT X sah secara hukum karena secara memenuhi syarat terkait formil dan materilnya.

---

The Covid-19 pandemic that hit the world forced humans to utilize technology in carrying out daily activities. Online GMS can be a solution to keep the GMS running in Limited Liability Companies. The implementation of the GMS electronically can be done based on the Limited Liability Company Act, Closed Limited Liability Companies do not yet have regulations for the implementation of the GMS electronically. The issues raised in this study are about the implementation of the GMS electronically and the validity of the deed of meeting decision statement made based on the minutes of the GMS through Video Conference at PT X. The research method used in this study is juridical-normative literature. The results of this Research concluded that the Implementation of the General Meeting of Shareholders of PT X Limited Liability Company conducted through Video Conference has fulfilled the provisions of the implementation of the Limited Liability Company Law, but the General Meeting of Shareholders electronically does not have more detailed regulations, and the Deed of Statement of The General Meeting of Shareholders of PT X is legally valid because it is qualified related to formil and materially."

"[ABSTRAKUndang-Undang No. 40 Tahun 2007 tentang Perseroan Terbatas menetapkan 3 (tiga) organ perseroan yaitu Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham, Direksi, dan Dewan Komisaris. Direksi berfungsi pada pokoknya untuk bertanggung jawab penuh atas pengurusan perseroan untuk kepentingan perseroan sedangkan Dewan Komisaris berfungsi melakukan pengawasan umum dan/atau khusus sesuai dengan Anggaran Dasar serta memberi nasihat kepada Direksi. Pada setiap masa akhir jabatannya, Direksi mempertanggung jawabkan pengurusan perseroan dalam Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham, yang memiliki kewenangan yang tidak diberikan kepada Direksi atau Dewan Komisaris dalam batas yang ditentukan Undang-Undang dan/atau Anggaran Dasar perseroan. Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham kemudian memberikan pelunasan dan pembebasan tanggung jawab (acquit et de charge) kepada Direksi jika tindakan kepengurusan perseroan telah tercermin dalam laporan keuangan.Pada tahun 2006, PT Indosat Mega Media sebagai perseroan yang menyediakan jasa internet (Internet Service Provider) menyelenggarakan jasanya melalui jaringan bergerak seluler milik PT Indosat Tbk melalui perjanjian kerjasama broadband. Kerjasama ini telah dipertanggung jawabkan dalam Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham pada tahun 2011 dan telah mendapatkan acquit et de charge kepada Direksi yang diwakili oleh Indar Atmanto selaku Direktur Utama. Kejaksaan Agung sebagai aparat penegak hukum mendakwa Indar Atmanto telah menggunakan frekuensi 2.1 GHz (3G) untuk menyelenggarakan jasa internetnya sehingga mengakibatkan kerugian negara sedangkan telah diketahui Direksi telah mendapatkan acquit et de charge dari Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham. Permasalahan hukum timbul atas pertanyaan sejauh mana acquit et de charge melindungi Direksi secara perdata dan pidana.

---

ABSTRACTAct No. 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Company establishes three (3) organs of the company i.e. General Meeting of Shareholders, the Board of Directors, and the Board of Commissioners. Board of Directors take full responsibility for the management of the company for the benefit of the company, while the Board of Commissioners for performing general supervision and/or in accordance with the Articles of Association as well as giving advice to the Board of Directors. At the end of their period, the Board of Directors accountable to the shareholder or management in General Meeting of Shareholders, which has special authority which is not granted to the Board of Directors or Board of Commissioners within construed to the Act and/or the Articles of Association of the company. Afterward, General Meeting of Shareholders grant release and discharge of responsibility (acquit et de charge) to the company's Board of Directors if the duty has been reflected in the financial statements.In 2006, PT Indosat Mega Media as an Internet Service Provider company, provide services through mobile cellular network owned by PT Indosat Tbk through broadband cooperation agreements. This cooperation has been accountable to the General Meeting of Shareholders in 2011 and the Board of Directors, represented by Indar Atmanto as CEO, has gained acquit et de charge. Attorney General as law enforcement officers indicted Indar Atmanto has been using 2.1 GHz frequency (3G) to provide internet services, therefore, resulting state loss while it is known that the Board of Directors has been obtained acquit et de charge from the General Meeting of Shareholders. Legal problem arisen is how acquit et de charge could protect the Board of Directors from the liability of civil lawsuit and the criminal indicment.;Act No. 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Company establishes three (3) organs of the company i.e. General Meeting of Shareholders, the Board of Directors, and the Board of Commissioners. Board of Directors take full responsibility for the management of the company for the benefit of the company, while the Board of Commissioners for performing general supervision and/or in accordance with the Articles of Association as well as giving advice to the Board of Directors. At the end of their period, the Board of Directors accountable to the shareholder or management in General Meeting of Shareholders, which has special authority which is not granted to the Board of Directors or Board of Commissioners within construed to the Act and/or the Articles of Association of the company. Afterward, General Meeting of Shareholders grant release and discharge of responsibility (acquit et de charge) to the company's Board of Directors if the duty has been reflected in the financial statements.In 2006, PT Indosat Mega Media as an Internet Service Provider company, provide services through mobile cellular network owned by PT Indosat Tbk through broadband cooperation agreements. This cooperation has been accountable to the General Meeting of Shareholders in 2011 and the Board of Directors, represented by Indar Atmanto as CEO, has gained acquit et de charge. Attorney General as law enforcement officers indicted Indar Atmanto has been using 2.1 GHz frequency (3G) to provide internet services, therefore, resulting state loss while it is known that the Board of Directors has been obtained acquit et de charge from the General Meeting of Shareholders. Legal problem arisen is how acquit et de charge could protect the Board of Directors from the liability of civil lawsuit and the criminal indicment.;Act No. 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Company establishes three (3) organs of the company i.e. General Meeting of Shareholders, the Board of Directors, and the Board of Commissioners. Board of Directors take full responsibility for the management of the company for the benefit of the company, while the Board of Commissioners for performing general supervision and/or in accordance with the Articles of Association as well as giving advice to the Board of Directors. At the end of their period, the Board of Directors accountable to the shareholder or management in General Meeting of Shareholders, which has special authority which is not granted to the Board of Directors or Board of Commissioners within construed to the Act and/or the Articles of Association of the company. Afterward, General Meeting of Shareholders grant release and discharge of responsibility (acquit et de charge) to the company's Board of Directors if the duty has been reflected in the financial statements.In 2006, PT Indosat Mega Media as an Internet Service Provider company, provide services through mobile cellular network owned by PT Indosat Tbk through broadband cooperation agreements. This cooperation has been accountable to the General Meeting of Shareholders in 2011 and the Board of Directors, represented by Indar Atmanto as CEO, has gained acquit et de charge. Attorney General as law enforcement officers indicted Indar Atmanto has been using 2.1 GHz frequency (3G) to provide internet services, therefore, resulting state loss while it is known that the Board of Directors has been obtained acquit et de charge from the General Meeting of Shareholders. Legal problem arisen is how acquit et de charge could protect the Board of Directors from the liability of civil lawsuit and the criminal indicment.;Act No. 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Company establishes three (3) organs of the company i.e. General Meeting of Shareholders, the Board of Directors, and the Board of Commissioners. Board of Directors take full responsibility for the management of the company for the benefit of the company, while the Board of Commissioners for performing general supervision and/or in accordance with the Articles of Association as well as giving advice to the Board of Directors. At the end of their period, the Board of Directors accountable to the shareholder or management in General Meeting of Shareholders, which has special authority which is not granted to the Board of Directors or Board of Commissioners within construed to the Act and/or the Articles of Association of the company. Afterward, General Meeting of Shareholders grant release and discharge of responsibility (acquit et de charge) to the company's Board of Directors if the duty has been reflected in the financial statements.In 2006, PT Indosat Mega Media as an Internet Service Provider company, provide services through mobile cellular network owned by PT Indosat Tbk through broadband cooperation agreements. This cooperation has been accountable to the General Meeting of Shareholders in 2011 and the Board of Directors, represented by Indar Atmanto as CEO, has gained acquit et de charge. Attorney General as law enforcement officers indicted Indar Atmanto has been using 2.1 GHz frequency (3G) to provide internet services, therefore, resulting state loss while it is known that the Board of Directors has been obtained acquit et de charge from the General Meeting of Shareholders. Legal problem arisen is how acquit et de charge could protect the Board of Directors from the liability of civil lawsuit and the criminal indicment.;Act No. 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Company establishes three (3) organs of the company i.e. General Meeting of Shareholders, the Board of Directors, and the Board of Commissioners. Board of Directors take full responsibility for the management of the company for the benefit of the company, while the Board of Commissioners for performing general supervision and/or in accordance with the Articles of Association as well as giving advice to the Board of Directors. At the end of their period, the Board of Directors accountable to the shareholder or management in General Meeting of Shareholders, which has special authority which is not granted to the Board of Directors or Board of Commissioners within construed to the Act and/or the Articles of Association of the company. Afterward, General Meeting of Shareholders grant release and discharge of responsibility (acquit et de charge) to the company's Board of Directors if the duty has been reflected in the financial statements.In 2006, PT Indosat Mega Media as an Internet Service Provider company, provide services through mobile cellular network owned by PT Indosat Tbk through broadband cooperation agreements. This cooperation has been accountable to the General Meeting of Shareholders in 2011 and the Board of Directors, represented by Indar Atmanto as CEO, has gained acquit et de charge. Attorney General as law enforcement officers indicted Indar Atmanto has been using 2.1 GHz frequency (3G) to provide internet services, therefore, resulting state loss while it is known that the Board of Directors has been obtained acquit et de charge from the General Meeting of Shareholders. Legal problem arisen is how acquit et de charge could protect the Board of Directors from the liability of civil lawsuit and the criminal indicment.;Act No. 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Company establishes three (3) organs of the company i.e. General Meeting of Shareholders, the Board of Directors, and the Board of Commissioners. Board of Directors take full responsibility for the management of the company for the benefit of the company, while the Board of Commissioners for performing general supervision and/or in accordance with the Articles of Association as well as giving advice to the Board of Directors. At the end of their period, the Board of Directors accountable to the shareholder or management in General Meeting of Shareholders, which has special authority which is not granted to the Board of Directors or Board of Commissioners within construed to the Act and/or the Articles of Association of the company. Afterward, General Meeting of Shareholders grant release and discharge of responsibility (acquit et de charge) to the company's Board of Directors if the duty has been reflected in the financial statements.In 2006, PT Indosat Mega Media as an Internet Service Provider company, provide services through mobile cellular network owned by PT Indosat Tbk through broadband cooperation agreements. This cooperation has been accountable to the General Meeting of Shareholders in 2011 and the Board of Directors, represented by Indar Atmanto as CEO, has gained acquit et de charge. Attorney General as law enforcement officers indicted Indar Atmanto has been using 2.1 GHz frequency (3G) to provide internet services, therefore, resulting state loss while it is known that the Board of Directors has been obtained acquit et de charge from the General Meeting of Shareholders. Legal problem arisen is how acquit et de charge could protect the Board of Directors from the liability of civil lawsuit and the criminal indicment., Act No. 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Company establishes three (3) organs of the company i.e. General Meeting of Shareholders, the Board of Directors, and the Board of Commissioners. Board of Directors take full responsibility for the management of the company for the benefit of the company, while the Board of Commissioners for performing general supervision and/or in accordance with the Articles of Association as well as giving advice to the Board of Directors. At the end of their period, the Board of Directors accountable to the shareholder or management in General Meeting of Shareholders, which has special authority which is not granted to the Board of Directors or Board of Commissioners within construed to the Act and/or the Articles of Association of the company. Afterward, General Meeting of Shareholders grant release and discharge of responsibility (acquit et de charge) to the company's Board of Directors if the duty has been reflected in the financial statements.In 2006, PT Indosat Mega Media as an Internet Service Provider company, provide services through mobile cellular network owned by PT Indosat Tbk through broadband cooperation agreements. This cooperation has been accountable to the General Meeting of Shareholders in 2011 and the Board of Directors, represented by Indar Atmanto as CEO, has gained acquit et de charge. Attorney General as law enforcement officers indicted Indar Atmanto has been using 2.1 GHz frequency (3G) to provide internet services, therefore, resulting state loss while it is known that the Board of Directors has been obtained acquit et de charge from the General Meeting of Shareholders. Legal problem arisen is how acquit et de charge could protect the Board of Directors from the liability of civil lawsuit and the criminal indicment.]"

"Pelaksanaan rights issue yang berjalan lancar perlu didukung dengan keteraturan proses dalam menggunakan dana hasil rights issue. PT Ancora Indonesia Resources Tbk melakukan rights issue pada tahun 2008 dan menghasilkan dana yang salah satu realisasi penggunaan dananya untuk mengakuisisi PT Multi Nitrotama Kimia dimana akuisisi tersebut mengandung transaksi material dan benturan kepentingan. Pada tanggal 18 September 2008, PT Ancora Indonesia Resources Tbk melakukan Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham Independen. Faktanya, terdapat 7 (tujuh) pihak yang tidak independen hadir dan memberikan suara dalam RUPS yang kepemilikan sahamnya hanya bersifat kepemilikan tercatat sementara pemilik manfaat atas saham adalah PT Ancora Resources yang merupakan pemegang saham pengendali PT Ancora Indonesia Resources Tbk. Hal tersebut dilakukan untuk memenuhi kuorum dalam RUPS. Pokok permasalahan dalam penulisan ini adalah bagaimana keabsahan pemegang saham Perseroan yang berhak untuk mendapatkan rights dalam Penawaran Umum Terbatas I PT Ancora Indonesia Resources Tbk, prosedur RUPS Independen dan peran Notaris sebagai profesi penunjang pasar modal dalam penyelenggaraan RUPS Independen. Metode penelitian yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah penelitian yuridis normatif. Penelitian dalam penulisan hukum ini menggunakan alat pengumpulan data berupa studi dokumen. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode analisis data dengan pendekatan kualitatif karena penelitian ini meneliti fakta tertentu yang bertujuan untuk mengerti atau memahami gejala yang diteliti. Kesimpulan yang didapat adalah bahwa keabsahan pemegang saham PT Ancora Indonesia Resources Tbk yang berhak untuk mendapatkan rights telah sesuai dengan peraturan perundang-undangan yang berlaku, prosedur RUPS Independen yang dilakukan oleh PT Ancora Indonesia Resources Tbk dalam rangka akuisisi PT MNK yang mengandung transaksi material dan benturan kepentingan tidak sesuai dengan peraturan perundang-undangan karena terdapat manipulasi terhadap kuorum kehadiran pemegang saham indepeden dan peran notaris dalam penyelenggaraan RUPS Independen diwujudkan dalam pembuatan akta Berita Acara RUPS.

---

A well implementation of rights issue should be supported by regularity in the process of using the result funds of rights issue. PT Ancora Indonesia Resources Tbk conducted its rights issue in 2008 and generated funds, in which one of the realizations of the utilization of such funds was to perform the acquisition of PT Multi Nitrotama Kimia whereby such acquisition contains material transactions and conflict of interest. On September 18, 2008, PT Ancora Indonesia Resources Tbk held its Independent General Meeting of Shareholders (?GMS?). The fact shows that there were 7 (seven) non-independent parties present and gave its votes in the GMS, whose shares ownership is only a registered ownership, while the beneficial owner of the shares is PT Ancora Resources, the controlling shareholder of PT Ancora Indonesia Resources Tbk. Such was done to meet the quorum in the GMS. The main problems in this paper are, how is the validity of the Company?s shareholders who are entitled to obtain rights in the Limited Public Offering I of PT Ancora Indonesia Resources, procedure of the Independent GMS and the role of Notary as capital market supporting professional in the administration of the Independent GMS. The research method used in this study is normative legal research. Research in this legal writing used data collection tool in form of document study. This study uses data analysis method with qualitative approach as this study examines certain facts that aim to know or understand the observed phenomena. It reaches the conclusion that the validity of the shareholders of PT Ancora Indonesia Resources Tbk who are entitled to obtain rights has been in accordance with applicable laws and regulations, the procedure of Independent GMS held by PT Ancora Indonesia Resources Tbk in relation to the acquisition of PT MNK which contains material transaction and conflict of interest are not in accordance with laws and regulations as it contains manipulation of the quorum of the presence of Independent shareholders and role of notary in holding the Independent GMS embodied in the deed of Minutes of Meeting of the GMS."

"ABSTRAKTesis ini membahas peran Notaris dalam Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham untukpersetujuan jual beli saham pada Perseroan Terbatas. Jual beli saham merupakanperbuatan hukum yang mengakibatkan perubahan kepemilikan saham dalamperseroan terbatas. Jual beli saham yang dibahas dalam tesis ini adalah jual belisaham yang memerlukan persetujuan Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham. Rapat UmumPemegang Saham adalah salah satu organ perseroan yang mewakili kepentinganseluruh pemegang saham dalam perseroan terbatas tersebut. Berdasarkan BeritaAcara Rapat PT. BIB, penulis menemukan bahwa penyelenggaraan Rapat UmumPemegang Saham dilakukan oleh orang yang kedudukannya sebagai KomisarisUtama PT. BIB dan juga pemegang saham PT. BIB yang beritikad tidak baik.Selanjutnya Akta Jual Beli Saham dibuat dengan Direktur Utama yang jugapemegang saham sebagaimana di atas, untuk melakukan perubahan kepemilikansaham miliknya yang telah dialihkan dan kemudian dialihkan kembali kepada pihaklain, sehingga terjadi benturan kepentingan. Berdasarkan Putusan Nomor:363/PDT.G/2007/PN.JKT.PST dan diperkuat dengan Putusan Nomor :608/PDT/2008/PT.DKI, Komisaris Utama yang bersangkutan dinyatakan bersalahmelakukan perbuatan melawan hukum dan gugatan kabur (obscuur libel). Penelitianini adalah penelitian yuridis-normatif dengan desain deskriptif. Hasil penelitianmenyimpulkan bahwa Notaris yang bersangkutan berkewajiban memberikanpenyuluhan hukum dan mernberikan pelayanan pembuatan akta dengan menanyakan,meminta dokumen-dokumen yang diperlukan, meneliti agar dokumen dalampenyusunan akta Iengkap dan dapat memenuhi maksud dan keinginan dari pihak-pihak yang memerlukan jasanya, dengan memperhatikan hukum yang berlaku.Perbuatan Pemegang Saham yang merangkap juga sebagai Komisaris Utama PT.BIB merupakan perbuatan melawan hukum sebagaimana yang dimaksud dalam Pasal1365 KUHPerdata, sehingga menimbulkan kewajiban untuk mengganti kerugiankepada pembeli lainnya yang dirugikan dengan perubahan kepemilikan saham.

---

AbstractThis thesis explores the role of the Notary in the General Meeting of Shareholdersfor approval of sale and purchase of shares in Limited Liability Company. Sharepurchase is a legal act that resulted in a change of ownership of shares in limitedliability companies. Buying and selling shares discussed in this thesis is to purchaseshares requires the approval of the General Meeting of Shareholders. GeneralShareholders' Meeting is one of the organs of the company that represents theinterests of all shareholders in the limited liability company. Based on page theMinutes of Meeting PT. BIB, the authors found that the Annual General Meeting ofShareholders by people who position as President Commissioner of PT. BIB and alsoshareholders of PT. BIB is not well intentioned. Furthermore, the Deed of Sale andPurchase of Shares made by Director who is also the holder of shares as above, tomake changes in his shareholding has been removed and then transferred back to theother party, so there is a conflict of interest. Based on the Decision Number:363/PDT.G/2007/PN.JKT.PST and strengthened by Decision Number:608/PDT/2008/PT.DKI, the relevant Commissioner found guilty of unlawful acts andvague claims (libel obseuur) . This research is a juridical-normative with descriptivedesign. The research concludes that the notary concerned is obliged to provide legalcounseling and provides services making the deed by asking, requesting thedocuments needed, scanning documents to complete the preparation of the deed andcan meet the intent and desire of the parties who require their services, with legalnotice applicable. Shareholders who concurrently acts also as the PresidentCommissioner of PT. BIB is an unlawful act as defined under Article 1365 CivilCode, giving rise to an obligation to indemnify the other buyers are harmed bychanges in share Ownership."

"Tesis ini membahas mengenai tanggung jawab Notaris terhadap akta relaas yang cacat hukum, serta akibat hukum terhadap akta relaas yang cacat hukum. Metode yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah penelitian yang bersifat yuridis normatif dengan data sekunder yang menggunakan pendekatan kualitatif. Notaris dituntut untuk bertindak secara amanah, jujur, seksama, mandiri, tidak berpihak dan menjaga kepentingan pihak yang terkait perbuatan hokum. Prakteknya sering dijumpai akta-akta Notaris yang seharusnya bersifat otentik dan dijadikan alat bukti yang sempurna, ternyata menjadi masalah di kehidupan masyarakat. Banyak pula dijumpai Notaris selaku pejabat umum tempat masyarakat mencari kepastian ternyata dalam menjalankan jabatannya tidak sesuai peraturan perundang-undangan hukum dan mencederai sumpah jabatannya. Penulis memiliki 2 (dua) permasalahan yang akan dibahas dalam penelitian ini, yaitu pertama tentang bagaimana akibat hukum atas akta relaas yang dibuat oleh Notaris tidak disetujui beberapa pemegang saham dan bagaimana tanggung jawab hukum Notaris terhadap akta relaas yang dibuatnya tidak disetujui beberapa pemegang saham. Hasil penelitian penulis atas akibat hukum terhadap Akta Notaris yang tidak memenuhi syarat dan prosedur pembuatan akta autentik sesuai UUJN dan UUPT dapat dibatalkan oleh para pihak dan terdegradasi kekuatan hukum pembuktiannya menjadi akta dibawah tangan. Notaris yang lalai maupun yang sengaja melakukan perbuatan melawan hukum dapat dikenakan sanksi-sanksi terkait atas perbuatannya. Notaris dalam pembuatan akta relaas memiliki 3 (tiga) tanggung jawab, yaitu tanggung jawab secara perdata, secara pidana maupun secara administratif.

---

This thesis is about responsibility of notary towards deeds of relaas which found to be flawed, and how the legal consequences towards them. The method used in this study is juridical normative research that used secondary data and qualitative approach. The Notaries are required to act in a trustworthy, honest, thorough, independent, impartial and take care of all interests parties related to legal actions. In practice, the Notary deeds that should be authentic and used as perfect evidence, often found to become a problem in the society. In addition, the notary as a public official where the people seeks legal certainty, was often found in carrying out their position not according to regulations and injured his oath of office. The author has two problems that will be discussed in this research. First about how the legal consequences of the voluntary deed made by a Notary are not approved by some shareholders and second, how the legal responsibility of the Notary on the relaas deed made is not approved by some shareholders. The results of the authors research on the legal consequences of the Notary Deed that violates the terms and the procedures according the regulations , can be canceled by the parties and degraded the legal force of proof to be under the hand. Notaries who are negligent or who intentionally commit acts against the law can be subject to sanctions related to their actions. A notary who makes a relaas deed having three responsibilities, namely civil, criminal and administrative responsibilities."