ANALISIS PENGATURAN HUKUM POSITIF TERHADAP PEMEGANG SAHAM MINORITAS MENGGUGAT DIREKSI PERSEROAN ATAS TINDAKAN YANG MENGAKIBATKAN KERUGIAN PERSEROAN

PASARIBU, SIMON ALEX (2026) ANALISIS PENGATURAN HUKUM POSITIF TERHADAP PEMEGANG SAHAM MINORITAS MENGGUGAT DIREKSI PERSEROAN ATAS TINDAKAN YANG MENGAKIBATKAN KERUGIAN PERSEROAN. S2 thesis, Universitas Kristen Indonesia.

	Text (Hal_Judul_Daftar_Isi_Abstrak) HalJudulDaftarIsiAbstrak.pdf Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike. Download (707kB)
	Text (BAB_I) BABI.pdf Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike. Download (569kB)
	Text (BAB_II) BABII.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike. Download (437kB)
	Text (BAB_III) BABIII.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike. Download (563kB)
	Text (BAB_IV) BABIV.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike. Download (582kB)
	Text (BAB_V) BABV.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike. Download (387kB)
	Text (Daftar_Pustaka) DaftarPustaka.pdf Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike. Download (380kB)

Abstract

Penelitian ini mengkaji kedudukan dan kewenangan pemegang saham minoritas untuk melakukan tindakan hukum terhadap direksi yang menyebabkan kerugian dana perseroan, dalam perspektif hukum perseroan dan hukum pidana korporasi Indonesia, dengan fokus pada mekanisme gugatan derivatif serta penerapan doktrin business judgment rule sebagaimana tercermin dalam Pasal 97 Undang-Undang Nomor 40 Tahun 2007 tentang Perseroan Terbatas. Penelitian hukum normatif ini menggunakan pendekatan perundang-undangan, analitis, dan kasus, dengan menganalisis bahan hukum primer dan sekunder serta putusan pengadilan, disertai studi perbandingan dengan beberapa negara common law seperti Amerika Serikat, Inggris, Australia, dan Singapura untuk menilai kecukupan perlindungan hukum bagi pemegang saham minoritas dan kesesuaian adopsi doktrin common law dalam sistem civil law Indonesia. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa meskipun hukum positif Indonesia telah mengakui mekanisme gugatan derivatif dan mengadopsi substansi business judgment rule untuk menyeimbangkan akuntabilitas direksi dan keleluasaan pengambilan keputusan bisnis, tingginya ambang batas kepemilikan saham untuk memperoleh legal standing, kesenjangan informasi, hambatan pembuktian, serta belum jelas dan konsistennya standar yurisprudensi menyebabkan mekanisme tersebut belum efektif melindungi pemegang saham minoritas, sehingga diperlukan penguatan regulasi, penurunan ambang batas kepemilikan, penegasan standar pembuktian, dan perumusan yang lebih tegas mengenai batas perlindungan business judgment rule agar tidak berubah menjadi instrumen impunitas bagi direksi/This research examines the legal position and authority of minority shareholders to initiate legal actions against directors whose decisions cause losses to the company’s funds, within the framework of Indonesian corporate law and corporate criminal liability, with particular emphasis on the derivative action mechanism and the application of the business judgment rule under Article 97 of the Indonesian Company Law. Using a normative legal research method and employing statutory, analytical, and case approaches, this study analyzes primary and secondary legal materials, including court decisions, and conducts comparative assessments with common law jurisdictions such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Singapore to evaluate the adequacy of minority shareholder protection and the compatibility of common law doctrines with Indonesia’s civil law system. The findings indicate that although Indonesian law formally recognizes derivative actions and incorporates the substance of the business judgment rule to balance directors’ accountability and business discretion, high quantitative thresholds for legal standing, information asymmetry, evidentiary difficulties, and the lack of clear and consistent jurisprudential standards have constrained the effectiveness of these mechanisms, thereby necessitating regulatory refinement, lowering of ownership thresholds, clarification of evidentiary standards, and a more precise delineation of the protective scope of the business judgment rule so that it does not operate as de facto immunity for directors.

Actions (login required)

View Item