| Summary: | Assessment about an action whether it included into an act that against the law,
not enough if only based on violation of the principle of law, but that action must
be assessed from the point of view of propriety. A fact that someone has been
done an action that against the principle of law could be a factor to judge whether
that action which can cause a loss appropriate or not with propriety that should be
owned by someone in the society of fellow citizens. Main idea of this thesis is
about Legal Protection Effort Towards Minority Shareholders In Legal Life with
intention for obtain a clearer picture concerning Directors position as a
representative of the corporation and protection effort toward minority
shareholders. The purpose of this study is: To find out how the authority of the
courts in providing protection to minority shareholders in this case a Directors. To
find out if an incumbent director may be dismissed without a General Meeting of
Shareholders. To determine whether the act was contrary to Article 1365 Book of
the Civil Code Act. This study used normative research method, this method are
using research and data collection through literature study and has deductive
properties.
The conclusion is the dismissal of a director is essentially to do with the
provisions as set forth in the Limited Liability Company by the General Meeting
of Shareholders. In addition to a Director who will be laid off should be given an
opportunity for him to defend himself to the General Meeting of Shareholders,
why should he be dismissed? In respect of the General Meeting of Shareholders,
the provisions of the Limited Liability Company Law gives authority to the district
court to consider the applicant's request, which consists of one or more
shareholders who together represent 1/10 (one tenth) of the total shares with legal
voting rights (after obtaining permission from the Court), can make calls and hold
a General Meeting of Shareholders). Determination of the District Court which
give permission is the determination of the agency's first and last. This means that
the determination is not appealable to the High Court or an appeal to the Supreme
Court.
|
|---|