DOI: https://doi.org/10.14710/mmh.49.2.2020.160-171

KETENTUAN DAN PELAKSANAAN BUSINESS JUDGEMENT RULE DI AMERIKA, AUSTRALIA DAN INDONESIA

*Yafet Yosafet Wilben Rissy  -  Fakultas Hukum, Universitas Kristen Satya Wacana, Indonesia
Open Access Copyright (c) 2020 Masalah-Masalah Hukum under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0.

Citation Format:
Abstract
Tujuan studi ini ialah membahas ketentuan dan penerapan business judgment rule (BJR) di Amerika Serikat (AS), Australia dan Indonesia dimana secara khusus menganalisis bagaimana dan kapan pengadilan memeriksa BJR dan bagaimana BJR diatur dalam hukum perusahaan. Studi ini menunjukan bahwa di AS dan Australia elemen BJR telah menjadi sebuah statutory obligation. Keputusan bisnis direktur telah diadili pengadilan dalam tradisi common law dan kini diatur secara tegas bahwa keputusan bisnis bisa diadili jika terdapat pelanggaran duty of care dan tugas fidusia direktur. Indonesia juga mengadopsi BJR dalam Undang-Undang Perseroan Terbatas 2007 namun pengadilan jarang menguji BJR. Terkait adopsi BJR, studi ini mengindikasikan bahwa adopsi tersebut masih menyisakan sejumlah persoalan mendasar. Oleh karena itu, direkomendasikan agar pengaturan BJR perlu dilakukan secara lebih sistematis.
Fulltext View|Download
Keywords: Aturan Penilaian Bisnis; Direktur; Keputusan Bisnis; Tugas Direktur; Pengadilan

Article Metrics:

Article Info
Section: Articles
Language : ID
Recent articles
PENERAPAN DOKTRIN PENYALAHGUNAAN KEADAAN (UNDUE INFLUENCE) SEBAGAI ALASAN PEMBATALAN PERJANJIAN KERJA DI PENGADILAN HUBUNGAN INDUSTRIAL KEWENANGAN DISKRESI MENGENAI PELUANG SIKAP TINDAK ADMINISTRASI NEGARA DALAM PERBERDAYAAN HUKUM PROGRESIF KETENTUAN DAN PELAKSANAAN BUSINESS JUDGEMENT RULE DI AMERIKA, AUSTRALIA DAN INDONESIA INDEKS More recent articles
Most cited articles
REHABILITASI DALAM UPAYA DERADIKALISASI NARAPIDANA TERORISME DESAIN DAERAH KHUSUS/ ISTIMEWA DALAM SISTEM NEGARA KESATUAN REPUBLIK INDONESIA MENURUT KONSTITUSI PEMBERANTASAN TERORISME BERORIENTASI HAM MARRIAGE LAW AND DIVORCE BASED ON ADAT LAW IN BALI PERLINDUNGAN EKSPRESI BUDAYA TRADISIONAL DALAM SISTEM HUKUM KEKAYAAN INTELEKTUAL More cited articles
  1. The Australia Corporations Act 2011, (2011)
  2. Berger, D. J. (1990). Exporting the Twin Towers: The Development Of Transnational Business Judgment Rule. Saint Louis University Public Law Review, 9(1), 169–189
  3. Block, D.J.; Barton, N.E. ; Radin, S. E. (1987). The Business Judgment Rule - Fiduciary Duties of Corporate Directors and Officers. Prentice Hall
  4. Branson, D. M. (2002). The Rule at Isn’t a Rule - e Business Judgment Rule. Alparaiso University Law Review, 36(34), 631–654
  5. Detik. (2020). MA Lepaskan Eks Dirut Pertamina Karen di Kasus Korupsi Rp 568 M. https://news.detik.com/berita/d-4931904/ma-lepaskan-eks-dirut-pertamina-karen-di-kasus-korupsi-rp-568-m?_ga=2.21407481.332223227.1583567161-84216239.1549435714
  6. Farrar, J. H. (1989). Business Judgment And Defensive Tactics In Hostile Takeover Bids. Canadian Business Law Journal, 15(1), 15–42
  7. Farrar, J. H. (2001). Corporate Governance Theories, Principles, and Practices (2nd (ed.)). Oxford University Press
  8. Greenhow, A. (1999). The Statutory Business Judgment Rule: Putting The Wind Into Directors’ Sails. Bond Law Review, 11(1), 33–38. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/BondLawRw/1999/3.html
  9. High Court Of Australia. (1968). Harlowe’s Nominees Pty Ltd V Woodside (Lakes Entrance) Oil Co NL,[1968] HCA 37; 121 CLR 483. Decided 21 June 1968. Jade.io. https://jade.io/article/66053
  10. Hinsey IV, J. (1984). Business Judgment and the American Law Institute’s Corporate Governance Project: The Rule, The Doctrine and the Reality. George Washington Law Review, 15(4–5), 609–623
  11. Keay, A. ; Loughrey, J. (2019). The Concept of Business Judgment. Legal Studies, 39(1), 36–55
  12. McMillan, L. (2013). The Business Judgment Rule As An Immunity Doctrine. William and Mary Business Law Review, 4(2), 521–574
  13. Supreme Court of Delaware. (1927). Supreme Court of Delaware, Bodell v. General Gas Electric Corporation140 A. 264 (Del. 1927) 159 A. 376 Decided Feb 22, 1927, Cesetext, 6
  14. Supreme Court of Delaware. (1984). Supreme Court of Delaware Aronson v. Lewis, 473 A.2d 805, 812 (Del. 1984) Decided: March 1, 1984, IV. https://law.justia.com/cases/delaware/supreme-court/1984/473-a-2d-805-4.html
  15. Supreme Court of Delaware. (1985). Supreme Court of Delaware Smith v. Van Gorkom488 A.2d 858 (Del. 1985) Decided Jan 29, 1985. https://law.justia.com/cases/delaware/supreme-court/1985/488-a-2d-858-4.html.
  16. Supreme Court of Delaware. (1993). Supreme Court of Delaware, Cede & Co. v. Technicolor, Inc. 634 A.2d 345 (1993) Decided: October 22, 1993. https://law.justia.com/cases/delaware/supreme-court/1994/634-a-2d-345-1.html
  17. The American Law Institute. (1994). Principles Of Corporate Governance: Analysis And Recommendations. The ALI
  18. The Model Business Corporation Act 2016, (2016)
  19. Weinberger, L. . (2010). The Business Judgment Rule And Sphere Sovereignty. Cooley Law Review, 27(2), 279–319

Last update:

  1. The Business Judgment Rule in a Progressive Legal Perspective: Essence and Implications in Indonesia

    Wilda Shafira, Ananda Elena Nurul Izzah, Primanadya Dian Pamella, Nabila Ghina Dzakirah. Rechtsidee, 10 (2), 2022. doi: 10.21070/jihr.v11i0.790

  2. The Call to Shift from the Narrow Legalistic to the Broader Moral and Legal Stakeholder Model in Indonesian State-Owned Enterprises: Its Implications and Challenges

    Yafet Yosafet Wilben Rissy. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 18 (2), 2025. doi: 10.3390/jrfm18020059

Last update: 2025-07-04 09:35:24

No citation recorded.