ANALISIS YURIDIS PELANGGARAN PRINSIP FIDUCIARY DUTY OLEH DIREKSI YANG MELAKUKAN RANGKAP JABATAN DALAM PERSEROAN TERBATAS

Rumondang Sihite; Appe Hutauruk; Mardiman Sane; Fendi Maruba Parlindungan Hutahaea

doi:10.56301/csj.v9i1.2357

Rumondang Sihite Fakultas Hukum, Universitas Mpu Tantular, Jakarta, Indonesia
Appe Hutauruk Fakultas Hukum, Universitas Mpu Tantular, Jakarta, Indonesia
Mardiman Sane Fakultas Hukum, Universitas Mpu Tantular, Jakarta, Indonesia
Fendi Maruba Parlindungan Hutahaea Fakultas Hukum, Universitas Mpu Tantular, Jakarta, Indonesia

DOI: https://doi.org/10.56301/csj.v9i1.2357

Keywords: Fiduciary Dut, Director, Concurrent Directorship, Limited Liability Company, Good Governance

Abstract

The principle of fiduciary duty is an obligation that requires directors to manage the company in good faith, prudence, loyalty, and solely in the best interests of the company. In practice, directors who hold concurrent positions have the potential to create conflicts of interest that can reduce independence and increase the risk of violations of fiduciary obligations. This study aims to examine the legal regulations regarding the principle of fiduciary duty for directors who hold concurrent positions in limited liability companies and analyze the forms of fiduciary duty violations and their legal responsibilities based on Supreme Court Decision Number 1005 K/Pdt/2016. This study uses a normative legal research method. Legal materials are analyzed qualitatively through legal interpretation and legal reasoning. The results of the study indicate that in Supreme Court Decision Number 1005 K/Pdt/2016, the actions of directors who issue corporate guarantees without the approval of the Board of Commissioners are declared as a violation of the principle of fiduciary duty so that directors are held personally and jointly responsible for losses suffered by the company. This study concludes that it is necessary to strengthen legal regulations regarding fiduciary duty, clarify regulations regarding conflicts of interest due to dual positions, and implement the principles of good corporate governance more comprehensively to increase legal certainty, accountability in company management, and protection for shareholders and other stakeholders.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Al-Faryan, M. A. S. (2024). Agency theory: A bibliometric review. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 17(2). https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm17020065

Bishop, C. C., Hermanson, D. R., Marks, J. T., & Riley, R. A. (2019). Unique characteristics of management override fraud cases. Journal of Forensic and Investigative Accounting, 11(3), 362–383.

Flannigan, R. (1989). The fiduciary obligation. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 9(3), 285–322. https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/9.3.285 .

Isfardiyana, S. H. (2015). Tanggung jawab direksi perseroan terbatas dalam pelanggaran fiduciary duty. Padjadjaran Jurnal Ilmu Hukum (Journal of Law), 2(1), 168–191. https://doi.org/10.22304/pjih.v2n1.a9.

Irianto, S. (2022). Fiduciary Duty of the Board of Directors in the Management of Limited Liability Companies in Indonesia. LEGAL BRIEF, 11(5), 3518–3524. https://legal.isha.or.id/index.php/legal/article/view/747.

De Valerie, A., & Putra, M. R. S. (2023). Penerapan asas fiduciary duty dalam tanggung jawab direksi pada perseroan terbatas. Journal of Law, Education and Business, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.57235/jleb.v2i1.1670 .

Hasbulloh, H., Fauzi, A., & Mulyono, L. E. H. (2022). Pengaruh TPP dan motivasi terhadap kinerja aparatur sipil negara pada Sekretariat Daerah Kabupaten Sumbawa dengan motivasi sebagai variabel intervening. JMM UNRAM - Master of Management Journal, 11(4), 255–266. https://doi.org/10.29303/jmm.v11i4.739 .

Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(76)90026-X

Koh, P. S. (2003). On the relationship between institutional ownership and aggressive corporate earnings management in Australia. The British Accounting Review, 35(2), 105–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0890-8389(03)00014-3

Manalu, P. J. H. (2021). Syarat mendirikan perseroan terbatas dan rapat umum pemegang saham (RUPS) berdasarkan Undang-Undang Nomor 40 Tahun 2007 tentang Perseroan Terbatas. Lex Privatum, 9(2). https://ejournal.unsrat.ac.id/index.php/lexprivatum/article/view/33151.

Marpaung, L. A., & Ningsih, F. N. (2023). Analisis tentang pemecatan (A) selaku dewan komisaris perseroan (Studi Putusan Nomor: 173/Pdt.G/2021/PN.Tjk). Journal Presumption of Law, 5(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.31949/jpl.v5i1.3900 .

Mulyana Hadi, A., Iftitah, A., & Alamsyah, S. (2023). Restorative Justice Through Strengthening Community Legal Culture in Indonesia: Challenges and Opportunity. Mulawarman Law Review, 8(1), 32–44. https://doi.org/10.30872/mulrev.v8i1.1140 .

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2023). G20/OECD Principles of Corporate Governance. https://www.oecd.org/corporate/principles-corporate-governance/

Otoritas Jasa Keuangan. (2023). Peraturan Otoritas Jasa Keuangan tentang Tata Kelola Perusahaan. https://www.ojk.go.id

Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Pusat. (2019). Putusan Nomor 1005 K/Pdt/2016. https://putusan3.mahkamahagung.go.id

Republik Indonesia. (2007). Undang-Undang Nomor 40 Tahun 2007 tentang Perseroan Terbatas. https://peraturan.bpk.go.id

Sjahdeini, S. R. (2001). Tanggung jawab pribadi direksi dan komisaris. Jurnal Hukum Bisnis, 14, 96–104.