{"title":"商业判断规则原则作为董事豁免权在公司法中的模糊适用(最高法院第121k/Pid.Sus/2020号判决书解析)","authors":"Alum Simbolon, Calvin Pramarta","doi":"10.55637/elg.3.1.6613.1-12","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Director is personally liable for the company's losses if proven guilty or negligent in carrying out his duties and may be personally sued by the shareholder as a result of his negligence or mistake in carrying out the management of the company which causes the company to suffer losses. This surely emits fear for Directors and hinders them in making important decisions for the Company. Essentially in carrying out their duties, Directors are always faced with uncertain so that fear of threats to the director’s personal liability is one of the factors that reduces performance. This research uses normative-empiric research by analyzing the written law from such various aspects as theory, history, philosophy, comparison, structure and composition, scope and material, consistency, general explanation, and article by article, formality, and binding power of law, and mainly BJR norm application in the Supreme Court Verdict Number 121K/PID.SUS/2020 \nThe results of this research shows that Judges in the Supreme Court Decision Number 121K/PID.SUS/2020 didn’t consider the criteria for \"readiness of information\" and \"the criteria for taking action to prevent continued losses\" which are the essential criterias of the business judgment rule but only considered PT Pertamina has an asset impairment, PT Pertamina Hulu Energi is a subsidiary of a state-owned Enterprise, the Defendant (incasu Karen Agustiawan) has obtained permission from the Board of Commissioners, and the business decision doesn’t contain elements of fraud, conflict of interest, unlawful acts and intentional errors, however these considerations create ambiguity and potential new legal disputes. because the actions of the Defendant (incasu Karen Agustiawan) have fulfilled all elements of the business judgment rule in Article 97 paragraph (5) of the Company Law, although the legal considerations of the Panel of Judges are incomplete, the business judgment rule can still be applied in the Supreme Court Verdict Number 121K/PID.SUS/2020.","PeriodicalId":156004,"journal":{"name":"Journal Equity of Law and Governance","volume":"19 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Ambiguity Application of Business Judgment Rule Doctrine As Director Immunity Right in the Company Law (Analysis of Supreme Court Verdict No 121k/Pid.Sus/2020)\",\"authors\":\"Alum Simbolon, Calvin Pramarta\",\"doi\":\"10.55637/elg.3.1.6613.1-12\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Director is personally liable for the company's losses if proven guilty or negligent in carrying out his duties and may be personally sued by the shareholder as a result of his negligence or mistake in carrying out the management of the company which causes the company to suffer losses. This surely emits fear for Directors and hinders them in making important decisions for the Company. Essentially in carrying out their duties, Directors are always faced with uncertain so that fear of threats to the director’s personal liability is one of the factors that reduces performance. This research uses normative-empiric research by analyzing the written law from such various aspects as theory, history, philosophy, comparison, structure and composition, scope and material, consistency, general explanation, and article by article, formality, and binding power of law, and mainly BJR norm application in the Supreme Court Verdict Number 121K/PID.SUS/2020 \\nThe results of this research shows that Judges in the Supreme Court Decision Number 121K/PID.SUS/2020 didn’t consider the criteria for \\\"readiness of information\\\" and \\\"the criteria for taking action to prevent continued losses\\\" which are the essential criterias of the business judgment rule but only considered PT Pertamina has an asset impairment, PT Pertamina Hulu Energi is a subsidiary of a state-owned Enterprise, the Defendant (incasu Karen Agustiawan) has obtained permission from the Board of Commissioners, and the business decision doesn’t contain elements of fraud, conflict of interest, unlawful acts and intentional errors, however these considerations create ambiguity and potential new legal disputes. because the actions of the Defendant (incasu Karen Agustiawan) have fulfilled all elements of the business judgment rule in Article 97 paragraph (5) of the Company Law, although the legal considerations of the Panel of Judges are incomplete, the business judgment rule can still be applied in the Supreme Court Verdict Number 121K/PID.SUS/2020.\",\"PeriodicalId\":156004,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal Equity of Law and Governance\",\"volume\":\"19 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal Equity of Law and Governance\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.55637/elg.3.1.6613.1-12\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal Equity of Law and Governance","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.55637/elg.3.1.6613.1-12","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
如果董事在履行其职责时被证明有罪或疏忽,则对公司的损失承担个人责任,并可能因其在执行公司管理时的疏忽或错误而导致公司遭受损失而被股东个人起诉。这无疑会让董事们感到恐惧,并阻碍他们为公司做出重要决策。从本质上讲,董事在履行其职责时总是面临着不确定性,对董事个人责任受到威胁的恐惧是降低绩效的因素之一。本研究采用规范-实证研究的方法,从理论、历史、哲学、比较、结构与构成、范围与材料、一致性、一般解释、逐条法、形式法、法律约束力等方面对成文法进行分析,主要以最高法院121K/PID号判决书中BJR规范的适用为研究对象。SUS/2020本研究结果显示,最高法院法官判决编号121K/PID。SUS/2020没有考虑“信息准备”和“采取行动防止持续损失的标准”这两个商业判断规则的基本标准,而只考虑PT Pertamina有资产减值,PT Pertamina Hulu Energi是一家国有企业的子公司,被告(incasu Karen Agustiawan)已经获得了委员会的许可,并且商业决策不包含欺诈要素。利益冲突,非法行为和故意错误,然而,这些考虑会产生歧义和潜在的新法律纠纷。由于被告(因案Karen Agustiawan)的行为已经满足《公司法》第97条第(5)款的商业判断规则的所有要素,尽管法官小组的法律考虑不完整,但最高法院第121K/PID.SUS/2020号判决书仍然可以适用商业判断规则。
The Ambiguity Application of Business Judgment Rule Doctrine As Director Immunity Right in the Company Law (Analysis of Supreme Court Verdict No 121k/Pid.Sus/2020)
Director is personally liable for the company's losses if proven guilty or negligent in carrying out his duties and may be personally sued by the shareholder as a result of his negligence or mistake in carrying out the management of the company which causes the company to suffer losses. This surely emits fear for Directors and hinders them in making important decisions for the Company. Essentially in carrying out their duties, Directors are always faced with uncertain so that fear of threats to the director’s personal liability is one of the factors that reduces performance. This research uses normative-empiric research by analyzing the written law from such various aspects as theory, history, philosophy, comparison, structure and composition, scope and material, consistency, general explanation, and article by article, formality, and binding power of law, and mainly BJR norm application in the Supreme Court Verdict Number 121K/PID.SUS/2020
The results of this research shows that Judges in the Supreme Court Decision Number 121K/PID.SUS/2020 didn’t consider the criteria for "readiness of information" and "the criteria for taking action to prevent continued losses" which are the essential criterias of the business judgment rule but only considered PT Pertamina has an asset impairment, PT Pertamina Hulu Energi is a subsidiary of a state-owned Enterprise, the Defendant (incasu Karen Agustiawan) has obtained permission from the Board of Commissioners, and the business decision doesn’t contain elements of fraud, conflict of interest, unlawful acts and intentional errors, however these considerations create ambiguity and potential new legal disputes. because the actions of the Defendant (incasu Karen Agustiawan) have fulfilled all elements of the business judgment rule in Article 97 paragraph (5) of the Company Law, although the legal considerations of the Panel of Judges are incomplete, the business judgment rule can still be applied in the Supreme Court Verdict Number 121K/PID.SUS/2020.