Email this article 
MENGENAL DOKTRIN DAN PRINSIP PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL DALAM HUKUM PERUSAHAAN
Sandra Dewi(1*)
(1) Universitas Lancang Kuning
(*) Corresponding Author
Abstract
Business entities in the business world are well-known that are already in the form of companies or those that are not yet companies. Based on its legal form, the company is divided into two, namely companies with legal status and those that are not legal entities. As an independent legal entity pursuant to Article 3 paragraph (1) the Limited Liability Company Law stipulates that the responsibility of PT shareholders is limited to the value of shares held in the company. Economically, the element of limited liability of the company's shareholders is an important factor as a motivating bait for the willingness of prospective investors to invest in the company. The formulation of the problem in this paper is: 1) how the piercing doctrine of the corporate veil in corporate law and 2) how to apply the principle of piercing the corporate veil in Indonesia. The type of writing used in this writing is a type of normative legal research. The doctrine of piercing the corporate veil in corporate law can be seen from: a) piercing the corporrate veil; b) the doctrine of fiduciary duty; c) self dealing transaction doctrine; d) doctrine corporate opportunity; e) doctrine businnes judgment rule; f) ultra vires and intra vires. Application of the Piercing Principles of the Corporate Veil in Indonesia: a) company shareholders; b) company founder; c) company directors; and d) commissioners of limited liability companies.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDF (Indonesian)
References
Ais, C. (2004). Penerobosan Cadar Perseroan dan Soal-Soal Aktual Hukum Perusahaan. Bandung: Citra Aditya Bakti.
Antoni, S. dan V. (2013). Konsistensi Penerapan Doktrin Piercing The Corporate Veil Pad A Perseroan Terbatas Di Indonesia. Jurnal Yustisia, 2(1), 23–24.
Arliman S, L. (2018). Peranan Metodologi Penelitian Hukum di Dalam Perkembangan Ilmu Hukum di Indonesia. Soumatera Law Review, 1(1), 112. https://doi.org/10.22216/soumlaw.v1i1.3346
Budiarto, A. (2002). Kedudukan Hukum & Tanggung Jawab Direksi Pendiri Perseroan Terbatas. Jakarta: Ghalia Indonesia.
Campbell, H. B. (1990). Black’s Law Dictionary. Sixth EditionWest Publishing Co.
Fuady, M. (1999). Hukum Perusahaan Dalam Paradigma Hukum Bisnis. Bandung: Citra Aditya Bakti.
Harahap, M. Y. (2009). Hukum Perseroan Terbatas. Jakarta: Sinar Grafika.
Mulhadi. (2010).Hukum Perusahaan. Bogor: Ghalia Indonesia.
Pramono, N. (2001). Sertifikasi Saham PT Go Public dan Hukum Pasar Modal di Indonesia. Bandung: Citra Aditya Bakti.
Rais, I. (2014). Praktek Kawin Mut ’ Ah Di Indonesia Dalam Tinjauan Hukum Islam Dan Undang-Undang Perkawinan. Ahkam, XIV(1), 97–104.
Ranuhandoko. (2000). Terminologi Hukum. Jakarta: Sinar Grapia.
Regar, M. H. (2002). Pembahasan Kritis Aspek Manajemen dan Akuntansi UU Perseroan Terbatas 1995. Jakarta: Pustaka Quantum.
Rido, A. (2002).Badan Hukum Dan Kedudukan Badan Hukum Perseroan, Perkumpulan, Koperasi, Yayasan, Wakaf. Bandung: PT Alumni.
Usman, R. (2004). Dimensi Hukum Kepailitan di Indonesia. Jakarta: PT. Gramedia Pustaka Umum.
Widiyono, T. (n.d.). Perkembangan Teori.
Widjaja, A. Y. dan G. (2000). Perseroan Terbatas. Jakarta: Rajawali Press.
Widjaya, I. G. R. (2002). Hukum Perusahaan Perseroan Terbatas,. Jakarta: Kesaint Blanc.
Yasin, H. N. (2016). Eksistensi Doktrin Piercing The Corporate Veil Di Dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 40 Tahun 2007 Tentang Perseroan Terbatas Terhadap Tanggung Jawab Direksi Atas Terjadinya Kepailitan Perseroan Terbatas. Jurnal Reportorium, 3(1), 2016.
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2018 Sandra Dewi
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
ISSN: 2620-5904