Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2020 - 2025
0.562
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal Reformasi Hukum Trisakti Amicus Curiae
Heru Pringgodani Sanusi
Unknown Affiliation
Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice

Published : 3 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 3 Documents
Search

 1 
DOKTRIN ULTRA VIRES KEPADA DIREKTUR UTAMA TERHADAP PENYELEWENGAN RANTAI PASOKAN PEMBIAYAAN (STUDI PT. WASKITA KARYA PERSERO TBK): The Ultra Vires Doctrine on The President Director Regarding Supply Chain Financing Conduct (Study PT. Waskita Karya Persero) Mush’ab Abdul Jabbar; Heru Pringgodani Sanusi
AMICUS CURIAE Vol. 2 No. 2 (2025): Amicus Curiae
Publisher : Faculty of Law, Universitas Trisakti

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.25105/amicus.v2i2.22863

Abstract

The Board of Directors is the main organ responsible for managing the Company, tasked with acting in its best interest according to Article 92 of Law Number 40 of 2007. This discussion focuses on the application of the Ultra Vires Doctrine in the case of supply chain financing misconduct at PT Waskita Karya and the Board’s responsibility under Law Number 19 of 2003 on State-Owned Enterprises and Law Number 40 of 2007 on Limited Liability Companies. The research employs a normative juridical approach, descriptive in nature, using secondary data analyzed qualitatively and concluded deductively. The Ultra Vires Doctrine applies here because the Board’s actions exceeded its authority as outlined in Article 3 of the Company’s Articles of Association and violated Article 5, paragraph (3) of Law Number 19 of 2003. Regarding the Board's responsibility, Article 97, paragraph (2) of Law Number 40 of 2007 holds each director personally liable for company losses caused by negligence or error. Additionally, shareholders can file a civil lawsuit under Article 61 of Law Number 40 of 2007, referencing Article 1365 of the Civil Code, if harmed by the decisions of the General Meeting of Shareholders (GMS), Board of Directors, or Board of Commissioners.
ANALISIS YURIDIS TERHADAP TANGGUNG JAWAB DIREKSI(STUDI KASUS PT. X DI JAKARTA): Juridical Analysis Of The Responsibilities Of Board Of Directors  (Case Study Of Pt. X In Jakarta) Andian Fadella Rahmadani; Heru Pringgodani Sanusi
AMICUS CURIAE Vol. 2 No. 2 (2025): Amicus Curiae
Publisher : Faculty of Law, Universitas Trisakti

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.25105/amicus.v2i2.22866

Abstract

This study examines the legal liability of a Director in a Limited Liability Company (PT) who continued to perform legal acts after the expiration of their term of office, with a case study of PT. X in Jakarta. The issue identified in this research is the legal consequences and responsibilities that arise when a Director acts on behalf of the company beyond their official term. This research employs a normative legal method with a qualitative-descriptive approach using secondary data in the form of legislation and relevant documents. Based on the results of the research and conclusion, it is found that the Director's actions are deemed invalid due to the absence of legal capacity requirements under Article 98 of Law Number 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Companies and Article 1320 of the Indonesian Civil Code, as well as a breach of the principles of Good Corporate Governance and Fiduciary Duty. The lack of ratification from the company confirms the invalidity of the legal act and gives rise to the Director's personal liability for any resulting loss.
UPAYA HUKUM TERHADAP PENOLAKAN PERMOHONAN PKPU DEVELOPER (STUDI KASUS PUTUSAN NOMOR 71/Pdt.Sus-PKPU/2024/PN Niaga Jkt.Pst): Legal Remedias Againts Court Rejection of Developer PKPU Petition (Case Study of Decision Number 71/Pdt.Sus-PKPU/2024/PN Niaga Jkt.Pst) Erlinawati; Heru Pringgodani Sanusi
Reformasi Hukum Trisakti Vol 7 No 4 (2025): Reformasi Hukum Trisakti
Publisher : Faculty of Law, Universitas Trisakti

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.25105/refor.v7i4.23207

Abstract

The rejection of the PKPU (Postponement of Debt Payment Obligations) petition against PT Karya Cipta Agung Persada, as decided in Case Number 71/Pdt.Sus-PKPU/2024/PN Niaga Jakarta Pusat, was based on the considerations of Supreme Court Circular Letter (SEMA) No. 3 of 2023. This rejection is deemed inconsistent with the formal requirements stipulated in Article 222 of Law No. 37 of 2004 concerning Bankruptcy and PKPU, particularly regarding the existence of due and collectible debt and the element of simple proof. The rejection raises legal concerns for creditors in obtaining certainty over the fulfillment of their rights. This research aims to examine: the legal basis for the court’s rejection of the PKPU petition in the aforementioned decision, and the legal remedies available to creditors following such rejection. The research employs a normative juridical method, relying on secondary data through literature review. Based on the analysis, it is concluded that the petition fulfilled the substantive requirements of PKPU, the court rejected it solely based on SEMA No. 3 of 2023, thereby limiting access to PKPU and bankruptcy proceedings for developers. Creditors, in response, may pursue legal remedies through a cassation appeal to the Supreme Court or by filing a breach of contract lawsuit before the District Court.
Co-Authors Andian Fadella Rahmadani Erlinawati Mush’ab Abdul Jabbar