Liquidator Professional Responsibility in Company Liquidation
Abstract
The dissolution of a Limited Liability Company is basically something that isn’t desired by the shareholders, therefore the implementation of the dissolution of a Limited Liability Company should be avoided as much as possible, because the dissolution of a Limited Liability Company will provide great losses for the shareholders of the company and the parties directly related to the Company Limited. Pursuant to Article 142 paragraph (1) of Law Number 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Companies, the dissolution of a Company may occur due to: First, based on the resolution of the General Meeting of Shareholders; Second, because the period stipulated in the articles of association has ended; Third, based on a court order; Fourth, with the revocation of bankruptcy based on the decision of the commercial court which has permanent legal force, the Company's bankruptcy assets are not sufficient to pay bankruptcy costs; Fifth, because the Company's bankrupt assets that have been declared bankrupt are in a state of insolvency as regulated in the Law on Bankruptcy and Postponement of Debt Payment Obligations; Sixth, due to the revocation of the Company's business license, which requires the Company to conduct liquidation in accordance with the provisions of laws and regulations. Based on the research results, the liquidator must make and submit a report on the liquidation implementation process, the report contains the responsibility for the liquidation he did. Furthermore, the accountability report is given and submitted by the liquidator to the General Meeting of Shareholders, the District Court, the liquidator is obliged to notify the final result of the liquidation to the Minister, the liquidator is also required to announce the final result of the liquidation process in a newspaper, the liquidator is responsible to the General Meeting of Shareholders or the court that appointed it for the liquidation of the Limited Liability Company. There is a criminal sanction, and if it can be proven that the liquidator acted the opposite / cheated arbitrarily in the sense of not clearing all company affairs in the context of liquidation, then the liquidator can be prosecuted by reporting violations of the code of ethics, and the Liquidator has the right to attend a lawsuit in court , Liquidators have the power to maintain and dispose of assets, Liquidators have general administrative power, Liquidators have continuous control rights over the Company's liquidation assets, Liquidators have the right to sell the liquidated assets.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
N. M. L. S. Devi and I. M. D. Priyanto, “Kedudukan Hukum Perseroan Terbatas Yang Belum Berstatus Badan Hukum,” Kertha Semaya J. Ilmu Huk., 2019, doi: 10.24843/km.2019.v07.i05.p02.
V. T. Wahyuni, “Kepemilikan Tunggal Badan Hukum Perseroan Terbatas (PT),” J. Huk. Nov., 2017, doi: 10.26555/novelty.v8i2.a6914.
Republik Indonesia, “Undang - Undang No. 40 Tahun 2007 tentang Perseroan Terbatas,” Lembaran Negara RI Tahun 2007, 2007.
P. I. Hapsari, S. Sihabudin, and B. Santoso, “PERLINDUNGAN HUKUM PARA PEMEGANG SAHAM DALAM PROSES PERMOHONAN PEMBUBARAN PERSEROAN TERBATAS KEPADA PENGADILAN: Studi Putusan Nomor: 534 K/Pdt/2014,” JURISDICTIE, 2020, doi: 10.18860/j.v10i2.7363.
A. Tjandra, “KEKOSONGAN NORMA PENENTUAN BUNGA PINJAMAN FINANCIAL TECHNOLOGY PEER TO PEER LENDING,” J. Huk. Bisnis Bonum Commune, 2020, doi: 10.30996/jhbbc.v3i1.3077.
K. G. Trisnowinoto and R. A. R. Murni, “PERLINDUNGAN HUKUM TERHADAP PEMEGANG SAHAM PERSEROAN TERBATAS AKIBAT PUTUSAN PAILIT,” Kertha Semaya J. Ilmu Huk., 2019, doi: 10.24843/km.2019.v07.i05.p01.
C. Nisa, “Akibat Hukum Pengesahan Perdamaian (Homologasi) Terhadap Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang Dalam Hal Debitornya Perseroan Terbatas,” Jurist-Diction, 2019.
S. Suhartono, “HUKUM POSITIF PROBLEMATIK PENERAPAN DAN SOLUSI TEORITIKNYA,” DiH J. Ilmu Huk., vol. 15, no. 2, p. 206, 2020.
“TINJAUAN HUKUM TENTANG PEMBUBARAN PERSEROAN TERBATAS BERDASARKAN PENETAPAN PENGADILAN,” LEX Soc., 2016.
T. Michael, “PERMASALAHAN HUKUM DALAM PERATURAN WALIKOTA SURABAYA NOMOR 21 TAHUN 2018 TENTANG TATA CARA PENYELENGGARAAN REKLAME,” DiH J. Ilmu Huk. Vol. 15 Nomor 1 Februari 2019 – Juli 2019, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 79–86, 2019.
“Kedudukan Risalah Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham (RUPS) sebagai Akta Otentik dalam Kaitan dengan Tanggung Jawab Notaris sebagai Pejabat Umum,” Kanun J. Ilmu Huk., 2016, doi: 10.24815/kanun.v18i1.5924.
R. Dwinanto, “Prosedur Likuidasi Perseroan Terbatas,” Prosedur Likuidasi Perseroan Terbatas, 2014. .
H. D. L. Toruan, “PERTANGGUNGJAWABAN PIDANA KORUPSI KORPORASI,” J. Rechts Vinding Media Pembin. Huk. Nas., 2014, doi: 10.33331/rechtsvinding.v3i3.33.
E. L. B. BARUS, “PENGARUH AUDIT INTERNAL DAN PENGENDALIAN INTERNAL TERHADAP PENCEGAHAN KECURANGAN PADA PT.INDONESIA ALUMINIUM ASAHAN (PERSERO) KUALA TANJUNG,” Skripsi Univ. MEDAN AREA, 2017.
F. Harris, “PEMISAHAN TANGGUNG JAWAB DIREKSI PERSEROAN TERBATAS,” J. Huk. Pembang., 2017, doi: 10.21143/jhp.vol35.no1.1457.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18415/ijmmu.v8i1.2212
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2020 International Journal of Multicultural and Multireligious Understanding
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
https://ijmmu.com
editor@ijmmu.com
facebook.com/ijmmu
Copyright © 2014-2018 IJMMU. All rights reserved.