Akibat Hukum Kepailitan Perseroan Terbatas yang Diakibatkan Perbuatan Melawan Hukum yang Dilakukan oleh Direksi

Abstract

One of the causes of bankruptcy of a company in the form of a Limited Liability Company is due to unlawful acts committed by the Board of Directors. It is interesting that if the bankruptcy of a Limited Liability Company is proven to be due to the unlawful acts of the Board of Directors, it is necessary to study the legal liability that can be imposed on the Board of Directors. This research focuses on the study of unlawful acts committed by the Board of Directors that resulted in the bankruptcy of a Limited Liability Company; the responsibility of the Board of Directors who committed unlawful acts that resulted in the bankruptcy of a Limited Liability Company; and the analysis of legal considerations in Supreme Court Decision Number 98 PK/Pdt.Sus/2010 on the Bankruptcy of a Limited Liability Company. This research uses a descriptive analytical normative legal research method with a statutory approach, and a case approach. The literature study technique is used to obtain secondary data which includes primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials. The data was then analyzed using qualitative data analysis method. Based on the results of the research, it is concluded that the unlawful acts committed by the Board of Directors that resulted in the bankruptcy of a Limited Liability Company are in the form of all acts that do not perform the obligations of the Board of Directors as the management of PT. The responsibility of the Board of Directors who commit unlawful acts that result in the bankruptcy of a Limited Liability Company can be categorized in the form of compensation. The legal considerations in Supreme Court Decision Number 98 PK/Pdt.Sus/2010 on Limited Liability Company Insolvency contained errors in terms of not including consideration of the main cause of the insolvency of PT Rasico Industry was the unlawful act of the Board of Directors, so that finally the company could not pay debts to creditors. The judge neglected to consider Article 97 paragraph (3) jo Article 104 paragraph (2) of the Company Law, to include the responsibility of the Board of Directors in it.