Analisis Hukum Terkait Piercing The Corporate Veil dalam Perkara Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang / PKPU

Main Article Content

Saka Triawan

Abstract

In running its business activities, a company in the context of the laws of the Republic of Indonesia must have at least 3 (three) main organs, namely the Board of Directors, Board of Commissioners, and General Meeting of Shareholders. Each organ of the Company also has its own responsibilities as regulated in the articles of association of the Company and the Statutory Regulations that regulate it so that when losses occur to the Company, both material and immaterial, the organ is responsible in accordance with their authority to act for and on behalf of the Company, but in certain circumstances, this limited liability can be waived or eliminated as known in the doctrine of Piercing The Corporate Veil. Proving the existence of losses caused by the Company's organs is quite difficult to do because of the inherent position actions of each of the Company's organs. On the other hand, in cases of Bankruptcy and Suspension of Payment where the proof must be simple, the Piercing the Corporate Veil doctrine is often difficult to apply because it is difficult to identify whether a loss to the Company was actually caused by the Company's organs themselves and not based on the Company's actions permitted according to the articles of association and Statutory Regulations.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Triawan, S. (2023). Analisis Hukum Terkait Piercing The Corporate Veil dalam Perkara Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang / PKPU. UNES Law Review, 6(1), 3973-3981. https://doi.org/10.31933/unesrev.v6i1.1225
Section
Articles

References

Abdul Rahman Praja Negara, The Doctrine of Piercing The Corporate Review in Court Decision No. 656/PDT.G/2015/PN.MDN, Journal (2015)
Abdurrahman; Pujiyono, Politik Hukum Doktrin Piercing The Corporate Veil Pada Pengelolaan Perseroan Terbatas di Indonesia, Journal (2021)
Adrian Sutedi (2019), Hukum Kepailitan, Jakarta: Ghalia Indonesia.
Badar Mohammed Almeajel Alanazi, Piercing The Corporate Veil in Various Jurisdictions – Principled or Unprincipled, Journal (2020).
Cheng Han Tan; Jlangyu Wang, Piercing the Corporate Veil: Historical, Theoritical and Comparative Perspective, Journal (2020).
H. Man Sastrawidjaja (2016), Hukum Kepailitan dan Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang, Bandung: PT Alumni.
Irma Sylviyani Herdian; Yeti Sumiyati,Penerapan Piercing the Corporate Veil Terhadap Direksi Perusahaan Asuransi Dalam Investasi Beresiko Tinggi Yang Mengandung Conflict of Interest, Journal (2020)
John H. Matheson, The Modern Law of Corporate Groups: An Empirical Study of Piercing the Corporate Veil in the Parent-Subsidiary Context, Journal (2008).
Jonker Sihombing (2010), Peran Aspek Hukum dalam Pembangunan Ekonomi, Bandung: PT Alumni.
J. Satrio (1995), Hukum Perikatan, Perikatan Yang Lahir Dari Perjanjian Buku 1, Bandung: PT Citra Aditya Bakti.
Leonid Shmatenko, Piercing the Corporate Veil, Journal (2012).
Mariam Darus Badrulzaman (1994), Aneka Hukum Bisnis, Bandung: Alumni.
Michal Rzadkowski, Piercing The Corporate Veil Doctrine in Poland?A Comparative Perspective, Journal (2015).
M.Yahya Harahap (2019), Hukum Perseroan Terbatas, Jakarta: Sinar Grafika.
Munir Fuady (1999), Hukum Perusahaan Dalam Paradigma Hukum Bisnis, Bandung: Citra Aditya Bakti.
Munir Fuady (2022), Doktrin-Doktrin Modern dalam Corporate law dan Eksistensinya Dalam Hukum Indonesia, Bandung: PT Citra Aditya Bakti.
N. Ejims Enwukwe, Piercing The Corporate Veil of An Incorporation to Ascertain the Real Actors: The United Kingdom Approach, Journal (2020).
Prasasti Dyah Nugraheni, Legal Analysis of Shareholders as an Organ of The Company Viewed From The Indonesian Commercial Code, Journal (2020)
Putusan Pengadilan Niaga Jakarta Pusat Nomor 248/Pdt.Sus-PKPU/2021/PN.Niaga.Jkt, hlm. 36.
Ronny Hanitijio Soemitro (1990), Metedologi Penelitian Hukum dan Jurimetri, cet ke-4, Jakarta: Ghalia Indonesia.
R.W. Hamilton, J. Macey, D. Moll, Cases and Materials on Corporations including Partnerships and Limited Liability Companies, Journal (2010).
Sengketa DeWitt Truck Brokers v. W. Ray Flemming [1976], 540 F.2d 681. (USA).
Timo Kaisanlahti, Extended liability of shareholders, Journal (2006).
Titik Tri Sulistyawati, Eksistensi Doktrin “Piercing The Corporate Veil” Atas Pelaksanaan Sentralisasi Procurement Anak Perusahaan Oleh Induk, Journal (2018)
Yafet Rissy, Doktrin Piercing The Corporate Veil: Ketentuan dan Penerapannya di Inggris, Australia dan Indonesia, Journal (2019).