DOKTRIN PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL: KETENTUAN DAN PENERAPANNYA DI INGGRIS, AUSTRALIA DAN INDONESIA

Refleksi Hukum: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum

View Publication Info
 
 
Field Value
 
Title DOKTRIN PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL: KETENTUAN DAN PENERAPANNYA DI INGGRIS, AUSTRALIA DAN INDONESIA
DOKTRIN PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL KETENTUAN DAN PENERAPANNYA DI INGGRIS, AUSTRALIA DAN INDONESIA
 
Creator Rissy, Yafet Yosafet W.
 
Description Artikel ini membahas ketentuan dan penerapan doktrin Piercing The Corporate Veil (PVC) di Inggris, Australia dan Indonesia. Isu utamanya adalah kapan dan bagaimana pengadilan dapat menerapkan doktrin PVC? Apakah doktrin PVC bisa diterapkan di luar pengadilan? Dalam tradisi common law, di Inggris dan Australia, pengadilan dapat menerapkan doktrin PVC bagi pemegang saham dan direktur jika terdapat keadaaan khusus yang menjamin untuk dilakukan. Hal yang sama terjadi di Indonesia dimana jauh sebelum Undang-Undang PT berlaku pertama kali tahun 1995, Mahkamah Agung RI telah menerapkan doktrin PVC. Bahkan di Indonesia, terjadi peristiwa hukum yang unik dan di luar kelaziman hukum perusahaan dimana dalam kasus Bantuan Likuiditas Bank Indonesia tahun 1998, Badan Penyehatan Perbankan Nasional menerapkan model out of court settlement untuk meminta pertanggung jawaban pribadi pemegang saham. Disarankan agar dilakukan kajian hukum dan ekonomi untuk melihat efektifitas pendekatan ini.
This article discusses about provisions and application of the Piercing The Corporate Veil (PVC) doctrine in the United Kingdom, Australia and Indonesia. The main issue is when and how the courts apply the PVC doctrine, also whether the doctrine can be applied outside the courts or not. In some states such as the United Kingdom and Australia which exercise common law tradition, the courts may apply the PVC doctrine on share holders and directors when there is an exceptional circumstance which requires to apply the doctrine. Similar to both states, Indonesia, through the Indonesian Supreme Court, has already applied the doctrine long before the law on Limited Liability Company was enacted. In 1998, a unique legal case about the Liquidity Aid of Bank Indonesia shows a phenomenon that was beyond the normal understanding of the Law. In that time, the Indonesian Bank Restructuring Agency applied an out-of-court settlement model to hold shareholders' liability. Finally, this article recommends that a legal and economic study should be considered to examine the effectiveness of this approach.
 
Publisher Universitas Kristen Satya Wacana
 
Date 2019-10-31
 
Type info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
Peer-reviewed Article
 
Format application/pdf
 
Identifier https://ejournal.uksw.edu/refleksihukum/article/view/2872
10.24246/jrh.2019.v4.i1.p1-20
 
Source Refleksi Hukum: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum; Vol 4 No 1 (2019): Refleksi Hukum: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum; 1-20
2541-5417
2541-4984
10.24246/jrh.2019.v4.i1
 
Language ind
 
Relation https://ejournal.uksw.edu/refleksihukum/article/view/2872/1305
 
Rights Copyright (c) 2019 Refleksi Hukum: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
 

Contact Us

The PKP Index is an initiative of the Public Knowledge Project.

For PKP Publishing Services please use the PKP|PS contact form.

For support with PKP software we encourage users to consult our wiki for documentation and search our support forums.

For any other correspondence feel free to contact us using the PKP contact form.

Find Us

Twitter

Copyright © 2015-2018 Simon Fraser University Library