Abstract
This article discusses about provisions and application of the Piercing The Corporate Veil (PVC) doctrine in the United Kingdom, Australia and Indonesia. The main issue is when and how the courts apply the PVC doctrine, also whether the doctrine can be applied outside the courts or not. In some states such as the United Kingdom and Australia which exercise common law tradition, the courts may apply the PVC doctrine on share holders and directors when there is an exceptional circumstance which requires to apply the doctrine. Similar to both states, Indonesia, through the Indonesian Supreme Court, has already applied the doctrine long before the law on Limited Liability Company was enacted. In 1998, a unique legal case about the Liquidity Aid of Bank Indonesia shows a phenomenon that was beyond the normal understanding of the Law. In that time, the Indonesian Bank Restructuring Agency applied an out-of-court settlement model to hold shareholders' liability. Finally, this article recommends that a legal and economic study should be considered to examine the effectiveness of this approach.
Highlights
This article discusses about provisions and application of the Piercing The Corporate Veil (PVC) doctrine in the United Kingdom, Australia and Indonesia
The main issue is when and how the courts apply the PVC doctrine, whether the doctrine can be applied outside the courts or not
In 1998, a unique legal case about the Liquidity Aid of Bank Indonesia shows a phenomenon that was beyond the normal understanding of the Law
Summary
Sementara itu terkait tanggung jawab hukum dan pribadi direktur, di Inggris, direktur dalam menjalankan tugasnya baik tugas common law yakni duty of care: tugas bertindak dengan kepedulian, hati-hati dan keahlian dan tugas fidusia yakni tugas bertindak dengan itikad baik (good faith) dan untuk kepentingan terbaik perusahaan (in the best interest of the company), tidak dapat dimintai pertanggungjawaban hukum, kecuali jika terbukti terdapat kelalaian, kegagalan atau pelanggaran terhadap tugas direktur. Dengan kata lain, doktrin PVC yang melindungi direktur dapat diangkat pengadilan jika. Sementara itu terkait tanggung jawab hukum dan pribadi direktur, di Inggris, direktur dalam menjalankan tugasnya baik tugas common law yakni duty of care: tugas bertindak dengan kepedulian, hati-hati dan keahlian dan tugas fidusia yakni tugas bertindak dengan itikad baik (good faith) dan untuk kepentingan terbaik perusahaan (in the best interest of the company), tidak dapat dimintai pertanggungjawaban hukum, kecuali jika terbukti terdapat kelalaian, kegagalan atau pelanggaran terhadap tugas direktur.. Doktrin PVC yang melindungi direktur dapat diangkat pengadilan jika. Direktur bertindak dengan itikad jahat, sembrono, tidak disertai informasi yang cukup, tidak jujur, dan melayani kepentingan dirinya sendiri
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
