Hukum perusahaan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Dari Wikipedia Indonesia, ensiklopedia bebas berbahasa Indonesia

(Redirected from Company law ) (Dialihkan dari Perusahaan hukum)

Jump to: navigation , search Langsung ke: navigasi, cari

In the town of Wilmington (pop. 72,664), resides the Delaware Supreme Court , which through the Delaware General Corporation Law regulates 60% of American corporations: the world's largest, wealthiest and most powerful. Di kota Wilmington (pop. 72664), yang berada Delaware Supreme Court, yang melalui Delaware Umum Corporation Hukum mengatur 60% dari perusahaan Amerika: terbesar di dunia, wealthiest dan paling kuat.

Corporate law (also "company" or "corporations" law) is the law of the most dominant kind of business enterprise in the modern world. Perusahaan hukum (juga "perusahaan" atau "perusahaan" hukum) adalah hukum yang paling dominan jenis usaha perusahaan yang modern di dunia. Corporate law is the study of how shareholders , directors , employees , creditors , and other stakeholders such as consumers , the community and the environment interact with one another under the internal rules of the firm. Perusahaan hukum adalah ilmu bagaimana pemegang saham, direktur, karyawan, kreditur dan pemangku kepentingan lainnya seperti konsumen, masyarakat dan lingkungan berinteraksi dengan satu sama lain di bawah peraturan dari internal perusahaan.

Corporate law is a part of a broader companies law (or law of business associations). Perusahaan hukum merupakan bagian dari luas perusahaan hukum (atau hukum asosiasi). Other types of business associations can include partnerships (like most law firms ), or trusts (like a pension fund) or companies limited by guarantee (like some universities or charities). Jenis lainnya dapat termasuk asosiasi kemitraan (seperti kebanyakan undang-undang perusahaan), atau percaya (seperti dana pensiun) atau perusahaan terbatas oleh menjamin (seperti beberapa universitas atau amal). Corporate law is about big business, which has separate legal personality , with limited liability for its shareholders, who buy and sell their stocks depending on the performance of the board of directors . Perusahaan besar adalah tentang hukum bisnis, yang memiliki kepribadian terpisah hukum, dengan tanggung jawab terbatas bagi para pemegang saham, yang membeli dan menjual saham tergantung pada kinerja dewan direksi. It deals with the firms that finish their titles with "plc" (UK), "Inc" (US) or "AG and GmbH" (Germany). Ia berkaitan dengan perusahaan-perusahaan yang mereka selesaikan dengan judul "plc" (Inggris), "Inc" (US) atau "AG dan GmbH (Jerman). According to the American Professors Hansmann (of Yale University ) and Kraakman (of Harvard University ), the five defining characteristics of the modern corporation are: ^{[ 1 ]} Menurut Hansmann Amerika Professors (dari Yale University) dan Kraakman (Harvard University), yang menentukan lima karakteristik yang modern korporasi adalah: ^[1]

• separate legal personality of the corporation (the right to sue and be sued in its own name) hukum terpisah kepribadian korporasi (hak untuk menuntut dan akan digugat dalam nama sendiri)
• limited liability of the shareholders (so that when the company is insolvent, they only owe the money that they subscribed for in shares) tanggung jawab terbatas dari para pemegang saham (sehingga ketika perusahaan tersebut bangkrut, mereka hanya menerima uang yang mereka untuk berlangganan saham)
• transferrable shares (usually on a listed exchange, such as the London Stock Exchange , New York Stock Exchange or Euronext in Paris ) transferrable saham (biasanya tercantum pada pertukaran, seperti London Stock Exchange, New York Stock Exchange atau Euronext di Paris)
• delegated management , in other words, control of the company placed in the hands of a board of directors manajemen didelegasikan, dengan kata lain, kontrol dari perusahaan yang diletakkan di tangan dewan direksi
• investor ownership , which Hansmann and Kraakman take to mean, ownership by shareholders. investor kepemilikan yang Hansmann dan Kraakman berarti waktu yang diperlukan untuk, kepemilikan oleh pemegang saham.

The last of these defining features is contested. Terakhir ini adalah fitur mendefinisikan contested. For a start, it is pointed out that shareholders do not own corporations, they own their shares. ^{[ 2 ]} Ownership of a corporation is complicated by increasing social and economic interdependence, as different stakeholders compete to have a say in corporate affairs. Untuk memulai, ia menyatakan bahwa tidak memiliki saham perusahaan, mereka sendiri mereka saham. ^[2] Kepemilikan korporasi yang rumit adalah dengan meningkatkan sosial dan ekonomi saling tergantung, karena berbagai pihak yang berkepentingan untuk bersaing berpengaruh dalam urusan korporat. In most developed countries excluding the English speaking world, company boards have representatives of both shareholders and employees to " codetermine " company strategy. Di sebagian besar negara-negara maju kecuali di dunia berbahasa Inggris, perusahaan papan ada perwakilan dari kedua pemegang saham dan karyawan untuk "codetermine" strategi perusahaan. Corporate law is often divided into corporate governance (which concerns the various power relations within a corporation) and corporate finance (which concerns the rules on how capital is used). Perusahaan hukum sering dibagi menjadi corporate governance (yang keprihatinan berbagai hubungan kekuasaan dalam perusahaan) dan perusahaan pembiayaan (yang kekhawatiran peraturan tentang bagaimana modal yang digunakan).

Contents Isi [hide] 1 Definition 1 Definisi 2 History 2 Sejarah 3 Corporate governance 3 Corporate governance 3.1 Corporate constitution Perusahaan 3,1 konstitusi 3.2 Balance of power 3,2 Saldo kekuasaan 3.3 Corporate personality Perusahaan 3,3 kepribadian 3.4 Capacity and powers Kapasitas 3,4 dan kekuasaan 3.5 Director's duties 3,5 dari tugas-tugas Direktur 3.6 Corporate litigation Perusahaan 3,6 litigasi 4 Corporate finance 4 Perusahaan keuangan 4.1 Shares and share capital 4,1 Saham dan berbagi modal 4.2 Liquidations 4,2 Liquidations 4.3 Insider dealing 4,3 Insider menangani 5 Corporate life and death 5 Perusahaan kehidupan dan kematian 5.1 Corporate crime Perusahaan 5,1 kejahatan 5.2 Mergers and acquisitions 5,2 Mergers dan akuisisi 5.3 Corporate insolvency Perusahaan 5,3 insolvenci 6 See also 6 Lihat juga 7 Notes and references 7 Catatan dan rujukan 8 Further reading 8 Further reading 9 External links 9 Pranala luar

[ edit ] Definition [Sunting] Definisi

Companies law Hukum perusahaan

Company · Business Perusahaan Bisnis Sole proprietorship Satu-satunya milik Partnership Kemitraan ( General · Limited · LLP ) (Umum Limited LLP) Corporation Korporasi Cooperative Koperasi

United States Amerika Serikat

S corporation · C corporation S korporasi korporasi C LLC · LLLP · Series LLC LLC LLLP Seri LLC Delaware corporation Delaware korporasi Nevada corporation Nevada korporasi Massachusetts business trust Massachusetts bisnis kepercayaan

UK / Ireland / Commonwealth Inggris / Irlandia / Commonwealth

Limited company Perseroan terbatas ( by shares · by guarantee (Oleh saham oleh menjamin Public · Proprietary ) Publik MILIK) Community interest company Minat masyarakat perusahaan

European Union / EEA Uni Eropa / EEA

SE · SCE · SPE · EEIG SE SCE SPE EEIG

Elsewhere Di tempat lain

AB · AG · ANS · A/S · AS · GmbH AB AG ANS A / S SEBAGAIMANA GmbH KK · NV · OY · SA · more KK NV Oy SA lebih

Doctrines Doktrin

Corporate governance Corporate governance Limited liability · Ultra vires Tanggung jawab terbatas Ultra vires Business judgment rule Usaha penghakiman aturan Internal affairs doctrine Urusan internal doktrin De facto corporation and De facto dan korporasi corporation by estoppel korporasi oleh estoppel Piercing the corporate veil Piercing perusahaan cadarnya Rochdale Principles Prinsip Rochdale

Related areas Daerah terkait

Contract · Civil procedure Kontrak Sipil prosedur

v • d • e v • d • e

Main articles: Company and Types of business entity Artikel utama: Perusahaan dan Jenis entitas bisnis

The word "corporation" is generally synonymous with large publicly owned companies. Kata "korporasi" biasanya identik dengan besar milik perusahaan publik. In the United States, a company may or may not be a separate legal entity, and is often used synonymously with "firm" or "business." Di Amerika Serikat, sebuah perusahaan mungkin atau mungkin tidak badan hukum yang terpisah, dan sering digunakan synonymously dengan "perusahaan" atau "bisnis." A corporation may accurately be called a company; however, a company should not necessarily be called a corporation, which has distinct characteristics. J korporasi Mei akurat dipanggil sebuah perusahaan, namun perusahaan yang seharusnya tidak perlu dipanggil sebuah perusahaan yang memiliki karakteristik yang berbeda. According to Black's Law Dictionary , in the US a company means "a corporation — or, less commonly, an association, partnership or union — that carries on industrial enterprise." ^{[ 3 ]} Menurut Black's Law Dictionary, di AS perusahaan berarti "sebuah perusahaan - atau kurang umum, sebuah asosiasi, kemitraan atau serikat - yang melakukan usaha di industri." ^[3]

The defining feature of a corporation is its legal independence from the people who create it. Yang mendefinisikan fitur dari korporasi adalah hukum kemerdekaan dari orang-orang yang membuatnya. If a corporation fails, shareholders will lose their money, and employees will lose their jobs, but neither will be liable for debts that remain owing to the corporation's creditors. Jika gagal korporasi, pemegang saham akan kehilangan uang, dan karyawan akan kehilangan pekerjaan, namun tidak akan bertanggung jawab atas hutang yang tetap karena korporasi dari kreditor. This rule is called limited liability , and it is why corporations end with " Ltd. " Peraturan ini disebut tanggung jawab terbatas, dan mengapa perusahaan itu diakhiri dengan "Ltd" (or some variant like " Inc. " and " plc "). (atau beberapa varian seperti "Inc" dan "plc"). In the words of British judge, Walton J, a company is... Dalam perkataan hakim Inggris, J Walton, perusahaan yang ...

"...only a juristic figment of the imagination , lacking both a body to be kicked and a soul to be damned." ^{[ 4 ]} "... hanya khayalan hukum dari imajinasi, kurang baik tubuh akan kicked dan jiwa untuk dikutuk." ^[4]

But despite this, corporations are recognised by the law to have rights and responsibilities like actual people. Tapi meskipun ini, perusahaan-perusahaan yang diakui oleh hukum memiliki hak dan kewajiban seperti orang-orang yang sebenarnya. Corporations can exercise human rights against real individuals and the state, ^{[ 5 ]} and they may be responsible for human rights violations. ^{[ 6 ]} Just as they are "born" into existence through its members obtaining a certificate of incorporation , they can "die" when they lose money into insolvency . Perusahaan dapat melaksanakan hak asasi manusia nyata terhadap individu dan negara, ^[5] dan mereka mungkin tidak bertanggung jawab atas pelanggaran hak asasi manusia. ^[6] Seperti mereka "lahir" ke dalam keberadaan melalui anggota mendapatkan sertifikat inkorporasi, mereka dapat "mati "ketika mereka kehilangan uang dalam keadaan bangkrut. Corporations can even be convicted of criminal offences, such as fraud and manslaughter . ^{[ 7 ]} Bahkan bisa menjadi perusahaan yang divonis pelanggaran kriminal, seperti penipuan dan pembunuhan orang. ^[7]

[ edit ] History [Sunting] Sejarah

Main article: History of corporate law Artikel utama: Sejarah hukum korporat

Hogarthian image of the South Sea Bubble , by Edward Matthew Ward , Tate Gallery Hogarthian gambar South Sea Bubble, oleh Edward Matthew Ward, Tate Gallery

Although some forms of companies are thought to have existed during Ancient Rome and Ancient Greece , the closest recognizable ancestors of the modern company did not appear until the second millennium. Meskipun beberapa bentuk perusahaan yang sudah ada pemikiran selama Roma Kuno dan Yunani Kuno, yang dikenal dekat leluhur dari perusahaan modern tidak muncul sampai milenium kedua. The first recognizable commercial associations were medieval guilds, where guild members agreed to abide by guild rules, but did not participate in ventures for common profit. Pertama dikenali komersial asosiasi yang Guilds abad, di mana anggota serikat buruh sepakat untuk mematuhi aturan serikat buruh, tetapi tidak berpartisipasi dalam Ventures keuntungan untuk umum. The earliest forms of joint commercial enterprise under the lex mercatoria were in fact partnerships. Paling awal bentuk kerjasama usaha komersial di bawah undang-undang mercatoria kemitraan yang sebenarnya.

But with the expansion of international trade, Royal charters were increasingly granted in Europe (notably in England and Holland ) to merchant adventurers. Tetapi dengan perluasan dari perdagangan internasional, Royal Charters yang semakin diberikan di Eropa (terutama di Inggris dan Belanda) ke pedagang petualang. The Royal charters usually conferred special privileges on the trading company (including, usually, some form of monopoly ). Royal Charters biasanya conferred hak khusus pada perusahaan perdagangan (termasuk, biasanya, beberapa bentuk monopoli). Originally, traders in these entities traded stock on their own account, but later the members came to operate on joint account and with joint stock, and the new Joint stock company was born. ^{[ 8 ]} Awalnya, pedagang di badan perdagangan saham pada mereka sendiri, tetapi kemudian para anggota datang untuk beroperasi pada rekening bersama dan bersama dengan saham, dan yang baru Joint saham perusahaan dilahirkan. ^[8]

Early companies were purely economic ventures; it was only belatedly realized that an incidental benefit of holding joint stock was that the company's stock could not be seized for the debts of any individual member. ^{[ 9 ]} The development of company law in Europe was hampered by two notorious "bubbles" (the South Sea Bubble in England and the Tulip Bulb Bubble in Holland) in the 17th century, which set the development of companies in the two leading jurisdictions back by over a century in popular estimation. Awal perusahaan adalah murni ekonomi Ventures; ia hanya belatedly menyadari bahwa manfaat dari suatu kebetulan memegang saham gabungan adalah perusahaan saham tidak dapat menangkap untuk hutang dari setiap anggota. ^[9] Perkembangan hukum perusahaan di Eropa telah terhambat oleh terkenal jahat dua "gelembung" (South Sea Bubble di Inggris dan Tulip Bulb Bubble di Belanda) pada abad ke-17, yang mengatur pembangunan perusahaan terkemuka di dua wilayah hukum kembali oleh lebih dari satu abad populer di estimasi.

But companies, almost inevitably, returned to the forefront of commerce, although in England to circumvent the Bubble Act 1720 investors had reverted to trading the stock of unincorporated associations, until it was repealed in 1825. Tetapi perusahaan, hampir pasti, kembali ke terdepan commerce, meskipun di Inggris untuk mengalahkan yang Bubble Act 1720 investor telah dikembalikan ke perdagangan yang stok unincorporated asosiasi, sampai ia repealed di 1825. However, the cumbersome process of obtaining Royal charters was simply insufficient to keep up with demand. Namun, proses yang rumit untuk mendapatkan Royal Charters itu hanya cukup untuk bersaing dengan permintaan. In England there was a lively trade in the charters of defunct companies. Di Inggris ada yang hidup di Charters perdagangan dari perusahaan mati. However, prevarication amongst the legislation meant that in England it was not until the Joint Stock Companies Act 1844 that the first equivalent of modern companies, formed by registration, appeared. Namun, di antara prevarication perundang-undangan yang dimaksudkan di Inggris itu tidak sampai Joint Stock Companies Act 1844 yang pertama setara modern perusahaan, dibentuk oleh pendaftaran, muncul. Soon after came the Limited Liability Act 1855 , which in the event of a company's bankruptcy limited the liability of all shareholders to the amount of capital they had invested. Segera setelah datanglah Limited Liability Act 1855, yang dalam hal kepailitan dari sebuah perusahaan terbatas pada tanggung jawab dari semua pemegang saham dengan jumlah modal investasi mereka. The beginning of modern company law came when the two pieces of legislation were codified under the Joint Stock Companies Act 1856 at the behest of the then Vice President of the Board of Trade, Mr Robert Lowe . Awal perusahaan hukum modern datang ketika dua lembar di bawah undang-undang yang dikodifikasikan Joint Stock Companies Act 1856 pada perintah yang kemudian Vice President Dewan Perdagangan, Tuan Robert Lowe. That legislation shortly gave way to the railway boom, and from there the numbers of companies formed soared. Perundang-undangan yang segera memberi jalan ke boom rel kereta api, dan dari sana jumlah perusahaan yang dibentuk soared. In the later nineteenth century depression took hold, and just as company numbers had boomed, many began to implode and fall into insolvency. Pada waktu abad kesembilanbelas depresi mengambil terus, dan hanya sebagai perusahaan nomor telah boomed, banyak mulai meledak dan jatuh ke dalam keadaan bangkrut. Much strong academic, legislative and judicial opinion was opposed to the notion that businessmen could escape accountability for their role in the failing businesses. Lebih kuat akademik, legislatif, dan yudikatif yang bertentangan dengan pendapat bahwa pengusaha dapat melepaskan diri untuk akuntabilitas peran mereka gagal dalam usaha. The last significant development in the history of companies was the decision of the House of Lords in Salomon v. Salomon & Co. where the House of Lords confirmed the separate legal personality of the company, and that the liabilities of the company were separate and distinct from those of its owners. Perkembangan terakhir signifikan dalam sejarah perusahaan adalah keputusan House of Lords dalam ayat Salomon Salomon & Co dimana rumah tuhan yang dikonfirmasi terpisah kepribadian hukum perusahaan, dan bahwa kewajiban perusahaan yang terpisah dan berbeda dari orang-orang dari pemilik.

In a December 2006 article, The Economist identified the development of the joint stock company as one of the key reasons why Western commerce moved ahead of its rivals in the Middle East in post- renaissance era. ^{[ 10 ]} Of course one should not underestimate the effects of early industrialisation either. ^{[ citation needed ]} Desember 2006 dalam sebuah artikel, The Economist mengidentifikasi perkembangan bersama saham perusahaan sebagai salah satu alasan utama mengapa Barat commerce bergerak maju dari saingan di Timur Tengah dalam pos-kebangunan era. ^[10] Tentu saja satu seharusnya tidak meremehkan efek dari awal industrialisation baik. ^{[kutipan diperlukan]}

[ edit ] Corporate governance [Sunting] Perusahaan pemerintahan

Main article: Corporate governance Artikel utama: Corporate governance

Corporate governance is primarily the study of the power relations between the board of directors and those who elect them ( shareholders in the " general meeting " and employees ). Corporate governance adalah terutama ilmu hubungan kuasa antara dewan direksi dan mereka yang memilih mereka (pemegang saham dalam "rapat umum" dan karyawan). It also concerns other stakeholders, such as creditors , consumers , the environment and the community at large. Ada juga kekhawatiran para pemangku kepentingan lainnya, seperti kreditur, konsumen, lingkungan dan masyarakat luas. One of the main differences between different countries in the internal form of companies is between a two-tier and a one tier board. Salah satu perbedaan antara negara yang berbeda dalam bentuk internal perusahaan adalah antara dua tingkat dan satu tingkat papan. The United Kingdom, the United States, and most Commonwealth countries have single unified boards of directors. Inggris, Amerika Serikat, dan sebagian besar negara-negara Commonwealth memiliki satu unified papan direksi. In Germany, companies have two tiers, so that shareholders (and employees) elect a "supervisory board", and then the supervisory board chooses the "management board". Di Jerman, perusahaan memiliki dua tingkatan, sehingga pemegang saham (dan karyawan) yang terpilih "pengawasan papan", maka pengawasan dan papan yang memilih "manajemen papan". There is the option to use two tiers in France, and in the new European Companies ( Societas Europea ). Ada pilihan untuk menggunakan dua tingkatan di Perancis, dan di Eropa baru Perusahaan (Societas Europea).

Recent literature, especially from the United States, has begun to discuss corporate governance in the terms of management science . Literatur baru, terutama dari Amerika Serikat, telah mulai membahas corporate governance dalam hal pengelolaan ilmu. While post-war discourse centred on how to achieve effective "corporate democracy" for shareholders or other stakeholders, many scholars have shifted to discussing the law in terms of principal-agent problems . Sementara pasca perang wacana pada cara efektif untuk mencapai "korporat demokrasi" bagi pemegang saham atau pihak lain, banyak cendekiawan telah dialihkan untuk membahas hukum dalam hal pokok-agen masalah. On this view, the basic issue of corporate law is that when a "principal" party delegates his property (usually the shareholder's capital, but also the employee's labour) into the control of an "agent" (ie the director of the company) there is the possibility that the agent will act in his own interests, be "opportunistic", rather than fulfill the wishes of the principle. Pada pandangan ini, persoalan dasar hukum perusahaan adalah bahwa ketika sebuah "sekolah" nya milik pihak tamu (biasanya modal dari pemegang saham, tetapi juga karyawan dari tenaga kerja) ke dalam kontrol yang "agen" (misalnya direktur perusahaan) ada adalah kemungkinan bahwa agen akan bertindak dalam kepentingan sendiri, jangan "oportunistik", daripada memenuhi keinginan dari prinsip. Reducing the risks of this opportunism, or the "agency cost", is said to be central to the goal of corporate law. Mengurangi risiko ini paham oportunis, atau "biaya agen", yang dikatakan menjadi pusat untuk tujuan perusahaan hukum.

[ edit ] Corporate constitution [Sunting] Perusahaan konstitusi

Main article: Corporate constitution Artikel utama: Perusahaan konstitusi

A bond issued by the Dutch East India Company, dating from 7 November 1623 , for the amount of 2,400 florins J obligasi yang diterbitkan oleh Dutch East India Company, dating dari 7 November 1623, untuk jumlah 2400 florins

The rules for corporations derive from two sources. Peraturan-peraturan untuk perusahaan berasal dari dua sumber. These are the country's statutes (in the US, usually the Delaware General Corporation Law ( DGCL ); in the UK, the Companies Act 2006 ( CA 2006 ); in Germany, the Aktiengesetz (AktG) and the Gesetz betreffend die Gesellschaften mit beschränkter Haftung (GmbH-Gesetz, GmbHG). The law will set out which rules are mandatory, and which rules can be derogated from. Examples of important rules which cannot be derogated from would usually include how to fire the board of directors , what duties directors owe to the company or when a company must be dissolved as it approaches bankruptcy. Examples of rules that members of a company would be allowed to change and choose could include, what kind of procedure general meetings should follow, when dividends get paid out, or how many members (beyond a minimum set out in the law) can amend the constitution. Usually, the statute will set out model articles , which the corporation's constitution will be assumed to have if it is silent on a bit of particular procedure. Ini adalah negara statutes (di Amerika Serikat, biasanya Delaware Corporation Hukum Umum (DGCL); di Inggris, Perusahaan Act 2006 (CA 2006); di Jerman, Aktiengesetz (AktG) dan Gesetz betreffend mati Gesellschaften mit beschränkter Haftung (GmbH-Gesetz, GmbHG). Undang-undang yang akan ditetapkan aturan yang wajib, dan aturan-aturan yang dapat dari derogated. Contoh penting aturan yang tidak dapat derogated dari biasanya termasuk bagaimana api dewan direksi, apa tugas-tugas direksi berhutang kepada perusahaan atau jika perusahaan harus dibubarkan karena pendekatan kepailitan. Contoh aturan bahwa anggota dari sebuah perusahaan akan diizinkan untuk mengubah dan memilih dapat meliputi, jenis prosedur rapat umum harus diikuti, bila dividen dibayar keluar, atau bagaimana banyak anggota (melebihi minimum ditetapkan dalam undang-undang) dapat merubah konstitusi. Biasanya, undang-undang yang akan ditetapkan model artikel, yang korporasi konstitusi akan dianggap jika sudah ada pada diam sedikit prosedur tertentu.

The United States, and a few other common law countries, split the corporate constitution into two separate documents (the UK got rid of this in 2006). Amerika Serikat, dan beberapa negara lainnya hukum umum, perusahaan konstitusi terbelah menjadi dua dokumen (Inggris got a ini pada tahun 2006). The memorandum of Association (or articles of incorporation ) is the primary document, and will generally regulate the company's activities with the outside world. The memorandum of Association (atau artikel-artikel inkorporasi) adalah dokumen utama, dan biasanya akan mengatur kegiatan perusahaan dengan dunia luar. It states which objects the company is meant to follow (eg "this company makes automobiles") and specifies the authorised share capital of the company. Ada yang menyatakan benda perusahaan tersebut dimaksudkan untuk mengikuti (misalnya "perusahaan ini membuat mobil") dan menentukan diizinkan berbagi modal perusahaan. The articles of association (or by-laws ) is the secondary document, and will generally regulate the company's internal affairs and management, such as procedures for board meetings, dividend entitlements etc. In the event of any inconsistency, the memorandum prevails ^{[ 11 ]} and in the United States only the memorandum is publicised. Artikel berserikat (atau oleh-undang-undang) adalah dokumen sekunder, dan umumnya akan mengatur urusan internal perusahaan dan manajemen, seperti prosedur untuk papan rapat, hak dividen dan lain-lain jika ada ketidaksesuaian, maka memorandum prevails ^[11] dan di Amerika Serikat hanya memorandum adalah publicised. In civil law jurisdictions, the company's constitution is normally consolidated into a single document, often called the charter . Dalam hukum perdata jurisdiksi, perusahaan konstitusi biasanya konsolidasian dalam satu dokumen, yang sering disebut carter.

It is quite common for members of a company to supplement the corporate constitution with additional arrangements, such as shareholders' agreements , whereby they agree to exercise their membership rights in a certain way. Hal ini sangat umum untuk anggota dari sebuah perusahaan untuk melengkapi perusahaan konstitusi dengan aturan tambahan, seperti pemegang saham 'kesepakatan, dimana mereka setuju untuk melaksanakan hak keanggotaan mereka dengan cara tertentu. Conceptually a shareholders' agreement fulfills many of the same functions as the corporate constitution, but because it is a contract, it will not normally bind new members of the company unless they accede to it somehow. ^{[ 12 ]} One benefit of shareholders' agreement is that they will usually be confidential, as most jurisdictions do not require shareholders' agreements to be publicly filed. Pemegang saham yang konseptual 'memenuhi perjanjian banyak dari yang sama berfungsi sebagai perusahaan konstitusi, tetapi karena merupakan kontrak, biasanya tidak akan mengikat anggota baru dari perusahaan, kecuali jika mereka accede ke entah. ^[12] Satu keuntungan dari pemegang saham' adalah perjanjian mereka yang biasanya akan rahasia, karena kebanyakan jurisdiksi tidak memerlukan saham 'kesepakatan untuk publik filed. Another common method of supplementing the corporate constitution is by means of voting trusts , although these are relatively uncommon outside of the United States and certain offshore jurisdictions . Lain umum metode supplementing perusahaan konstitusi adalah dengan cara voting percaya, walaupun ini relatif jarang di luar Amerika Serikat dan beberapa yurisdiksi lepas pantai. Some jurisdictions consider the company seal to be a party of the "constitution" (in the loose sense of the word) of the company, but the requirement for a seal has been abrogated by legislation in most countries. Beberapa yurisdiksi mempertimbangkan cap perusahaan untuk menjadi partai yang "konstitusi" (dalam arti longgar kata) dari perusahaan, tapi syarat untuk mati telah abrogated oleh undang-undang di banyak negara.

[ edit ] Balance of power [Sunting] Saldo kekuasaan

Adolf Berle in The Modern Corporation and Private Property argued that the separation of control of companies from the investors who were meant to own them endangered the American economy and led to a mal- distribution of wealth . Adolf Berle The Modern Corporation dan Swasta Properti berpendapat bahwa pemisahan kontrol perusahaan dari investor yang dimaksudkan untuk mereka sendiri yang terancam punah ekonomi Amerika dan dipimpin ke mal-distribusi kekayaan.

The most important rules for corporate governance are those concerning the balance of power between the board of directors and the members of the company. Aturan yang paling penting untuk corporate governance mereka tentang keseimbangan kekuasaan antara dewan direksi dan anggota perusahaan. Authority is given or "delegated" to the board to manage the company for the success of the investors. Kewenangan yang diberikan atau "didelegasikan" pada papan untuk mengelola perusahaan untuk keberhasilan investor. Certain specific decision rights are often reserved for shareholders, where their interests could be fundamentally affected. Tertentu spesifik keputusan hak sering untuk pemegang saham, di mana mereka dapat fundamental terpengaruh. There are necessarily rules on when directors can be removed from office and replaced. Tentu ada aturan bila direksi bisa dihapus dari kantor dan diganti. To do that, meetings need to be called in order to vote on the issues. Untuk melakukan itu, rapat harus dipanggil untuk memberikan suara pada masalah. How easily the constitution can be amended and by who necessarily affects the relations of power. Cara mudah konstitusi dapat diubah dan yang tentu akan mempengaruhi hubungan kekuasaan.

It is a principle of corporate law that the directors of a company have the right to manage. Ini adalah prinsip hukum perusahaan yang direktur sebuah perusahaan mempunyai hak untuk mengelola. This is expressed in statute in the DGCL , where §141(a) ^{[ 13 ]} states, Hal ini dinyatakan dalam undang-undang di DGCL, dimana § 141 (a) ^[13] menyatakan,

(a) The business and affairs of every corporation organized under this chapter shall be managed by or under the direction of a board of directors, except as may be otherwise provided in this chapter or in its certificate of incorporation. (a) urusan bisnis dan dari setiap perusahaan yang disusun dalam bab ini akan dikelola oleh atau dibawah arahan dari dewan direksi, kecuali mungkin jika diberikan dalam bab ini atau dalam penggabungan sertifikat.

In Germany, §76 AktG says the same for the management board, while under §111 AktG the supervisory board's role is stated to be to "supervise" ( überwachen ). Di Jerman, § 76 AktG kata yang sama untuk pengelolaan papan, sementara di bawah § 111 AktG di papan peran pengawasan yang dinyatakan to "mengawasi" (überwachen). In the UK, the right to manage is not laid down in law, but is found in Art.2 of the Model Articles . Di Inggris, hak untuk mengelola tidak diletakkan di bawah undang-undang, tetapi ditemukan di Art.2 dari Model Artikel. This means it is a default rule, which companies can opt out of (s.20 CA 2006 ) by reserving powers to members, although companies rarely do. Ini berarti ia adalah standar aturan, perusahaan yang dapat keluar dari (s.20 CA 2006) oleh reserving kekuasaan kepada anggota, walaupun perusahaan jarang dilakukan. UK law specifically reserves shareholders right and duty to approve "substantial non cash asset transactions" (s.190 CA 2006), which means those over 10% of company value, with a minimum of £5,000 and a maximum of £100,000. ^{[ 14 ]} Similar rules, though much less stringent, exist in §271 DGCL ^{[ 15 ]} and through case law in Germany under the so called Holzmüller doctrine. ^{[ 16 ]} Inggris hukum khusus cadangan kanan dan kewajiban pemegang saham menyetujui "substansial aset transaksi non tunai" (s.190 CA 2006), yang berarti mereka lebih dari 10% dari nilai perusahaan, dengan minimum sebesar £ 5000 dan tidak lebih dari £ 100,000. ^{[14 ]} peraturan serupa, namun jauh lebih sedikit ketat, ada dalam § 271 DGCL ^[15] dan melalui kasus hukum di Jerman di bawah disebut Holzmüller doktrin. ^[16]

Probably the must fundamental guarantee that directors will act in the members' interests is that they can easily be sacked. Mungkin yang mendasar harus menjamin bahwa direksi akan bertindak dalam anggota minat adalah bahwa mereka mudah sacked. During the Great Depression, two Harvard scholars, Adolf Berle and Gardiner Means wrote The Modern Corporation and Private Property , an attack on American law which failed to hold directors to account, and linked the growing power and autonomy of directors to the economic crisis. Selama Great Depression, dua cendekiawan Harvard, Adolf Berle dan Gardiner Means wrote The Modern Corporation dan Private Property, yang menyerang di Amerika hukum yang gagal terus direksi ke rekening, dan dihubungkan dengan pertumbuhan kuasa dan otonomi direksi ke krisis ekonomi. In the UK, the right of members to remove directors by a simple majority is assured under s.168 CA 2006 ^{[ 17 ]} Moreover, Art.20 of the Model Articles requires a third of the board to put themselves up for re-election every year (in effect creating maximum three year terms). Di Inggris, hak untuk menghapus anggota direksi oleh mayoritas sederhana adalah terjamin di bawah s.168 CA 2006 ^[17] Selain itu, dari Model Art.20 Artikel memerlukan sepertiga dari papan untuk menempatkan diri untuk pemilihan kembali setiap tahun (dalam membuat efek maksimum tiga tahun terms). 10% of shareholders can demand a meeting any time, and 5% can if it has been a year since the last one (s.303 CA 2006). 10% dari pemegang saham dapat menuntut pertemuan saja, dan 5% dapat jika sudah setahun sejak terakhir (s.303 CA 2006). In Germany, where employee participation creates the need for greater boardroom stability, §84(3) AktG states that management board directors can only be removed by the supervisory board for an important reason ( ein wichtiger Grund ) though this can include a vote of no-confidence by the shareholders. Di Jerman, dimana partisipasi karyawan perlu untuk menciptakan stabilitas lebih besar boardroom, § 84 (3) AktG menyatakan bahwa manajemen dewan direksi hanya dapat dihapus oleh dewan pengawas yang penting untuk alasan (ein wichtiger Grund) walaupun ini dapat termasuk suara yang tidak -keyakinan oleh para pemegang saham. Terms last for five years, unless 75% of shareholders vote otherwise. Persyaratan untuk lima tahun terakhir, kecuali 75% dari pemegang saham suara lain. §122 AktG lets 10% of shareholders demand a meeting. § 122 AktG memungkinkan 10% dari permintaan pemegang saham rapat. In the US, Delaware lets directors enjoy considerable autonomy. Di AS, Delaware memungkinkan direksi menikmati banyak otonomi. §141(k) DGCL states that directors can be removed without any cause, unless the board is "classified", meaning that directors only come up for re-appointment on different years. § 141 (k) DGCL menyatakan bahwa direksi dapat dihilangkan tanpa alasan, kecuali papan "digolongkan", berarti direksi hanya datang kembali untuk janji pada tahun berbeda. If the board is classifed, which every board in Delaware is, then directors cannot be removed unless there is gross misconduct. Jika papan classifed, yang setiap papan di Delaware adalah, maka direksi tersebut tidak dapat dihilangkan kecuali ada kotor jahat. Director's autonomy from shareholders is seen further in §216 DGCL, which allows for plurality voting and §211(d) which states shareholder meetings can only be called if the constitution allows for it. ^{[ 18 ]} The problem is that in America, directors usually choose where a company is incorporated and §242(b)(1) DGCL says any constitutional amendment requires a resolution by the directors. Direktur dari otonomi dari pemegang saham terlihat lebih lanjut dalam § 216 DGCL, yang memungkinkan untuk voting dan kemajemukan § 211 (d) yang menyatakan pertemuan pemegang saham hanya dapat dipanggil jika konstitusi memungkinkan untuk itu. ^[18] Masalahnya adalah bahwa di Amerika, biasanya direksi memilih mana perusahaan yang berbadan hukum dan § 242 (b) (1) DGCL mengatakan apapun konstitusional amandemen memerlukan resolusi oleh direksi. By contrast, constitutional amendments can be made at any time by 75% of shareholders in Germany (§179 AktG) and the UK (s.21 CA 2006 ^{[ 19 ]} ). Dengan kontras, perubahan konstitusi dapat dilakukan setiap saat dengan 75% dari pemegang saham di Jerman (AktG § 179) dan Inggris (s.21 CA 2006 ^[19]).

[ edit ] Corporate personality [Sunting] Perusahaan kepribadian

Main article: Piercing the corporate veil Artikel utama: Piercing perusahaan cadarnya

One of the key legal features of corporations are their separate legal personality, also known as "personhood" or being "artificial persons". Salah satu fitur utama hukum perusahaan yang terpisah hukum kepribadian mereka, yang juga dikenal sebagai "personhood" atau sedang "buatan orang". However, the separate legal personality was not confirmed under English law until 1895 by the House of Lords in Salomon v. Salomon & Co. ^{[ 20 ]} Separate legal personality often has unintended consequences , particularly in relation to smaller, family companies . Namun, hukum terpisah kepribadian tidak dikonfirmasi di bawah hukum Inggris sampai 1895 oleh House of Lords dalam ayat Salomon Salomon & Co ^[20] Pisahkan hukum sering memiliki kepribadian unintended konsekuensi, terutama dalam kaitannya dengan lebih kecil, perusahaan keluarga. In B v. B [1978] Fam 181 it was held that a discovery order obtained by a wife against her husband was not effective against the husband's company as it was not named in the order and was separate and distinct from him. ^{[ 21 ]} And in Macaura v. Northern Assurance Co Ltd ^{[ 22 ]} a claim under an insurance policy failed where the insured had transferred timber from his name into the name of a company wholly owned by him, and it was subsequently destroyed in a fire; as the property now belonged to the company and not to him, he no longer had an "insurable interest" in it and his claim failed. Dalam ayat B B [1978] 181 Fam ia menyatakan bahwa sebuah penemuan rangka diperoleh oleh seorang isteri terhadap suaminya tidak efektif terhadap suami sebagai perusahaan yang tidak bernama dalam susunan dan terpisah dan berbeda dari dia. ^[21] Dan dalam ayat Macaura Northern Assurance Co Ltd ^[22] klaim asuransi di bawah kebijakan gagal dimana telah diasuransikan ditransfer dari kayu namanya menjadi nama sebuah perusahaan yang dimiliki oleh-Nya, dan kemudian musnah dalam api; sebagai sekarang harta milik perusahaan dan tidak, ia tidak lagi memiliki "dpt diasuransikan bunga" di dalamnya dan klaim gagal.

However, separate legal personality does allow corporate groups a great deal of flexibility in relation to tax planning, and also enables multinational companies to manage the liability of their overseas operations. Namun, hukum terpisah kepribadian tidak membolehkan perusahaan kelompok yang banyak fleksibilitas dalam kaitannya dengan perencanaan pajak, dan juga memungkinkan perusahaan-perusahaan multinasional untuk mengatur kewajiban mereka operasi di luar negeri. For instance in Adams v. Cape Industries plc ^{[ 23 ]} it was held that victims of asbestos poisoning at the hands of an American subsidiary could not sue the English parent in tort. Misalnya dalam ayat Adams Cape plc Industri ^[23] ia menyatakan bahwa korban keracunan asbes di tangan perusahaan Amerika tidak bisa menuntut orang tua dalam bahasa Inggris tort. There are certain specific situations where courts are generally prepared to " pierce the corporate veil ", to look directly at, and impose liability directly on the individuals behind the company. Ada beberapa situasi di mana pengadilan khusus biasanya bersedia "pierce perusahaan cadarnya", untuk melihat secara langsung pada, dan menentukan tanggung jawab secara langsung pada individu di belakang perusahaan. The most commonly cited examples are: Yang paling sering dikutip contoh adalah:

• where the company is a mere façade dimana perusahaan tersebut hanya façade
• where the company is effectively just the agent of its members or controllers dimana perusahaan tersebut secara efektif hanya dari agen atau anggota pengendali
• where a representative of the company has taken some personal responsibility for a statement or action ^{[ 24 ]} dimana seorang perwakilan dari beberapa perusahaan telah mengambil tanggung jawab pribadi untuk suatu pernyataan atau tindakan ^[24]
• where the company is engaged in fraud or other criminal wrongdoing tempat perusahaan tersebut terlibat dalam tindak pidana penipuan atau kesalahan
• where the natural interpretation of a contract or statute is as a reference to the corporate group and not the individual company alam di mana interpretasi dari kontrak atau undang-undang tersebut sebagai acuan bagi perusahaan dan kelompok bukan individu perusahaan
• where permitted by statute (for example, many jurisdictions provide for shareholder liability where a company breaches environmental protection laws ) di mana diperbolehkan oleh undang-undang (misalnya, untuk menyediakan berbagai jurisdiksi kewajiban pemegang saham di mana sebuah perusahaan melanggar undang-undang perlindungan lingkungan hidup)
• in many jurisdictions, where a company continues to trade despite inevitable bankruptcy , the directors can be forced to account for trading losses personally di berbagai jurisdiksi, di mana sebuah perusahaan perdagangan terus meskipun pasti terjadi kepailitan, direktur yang dapat dipaksa untuk memperhitungkan kerugian perdagangan pribadi

[ edit ] Capacity and powers [Sunting] Kapasitas dan kekuasaan

See also: Corporate benefit Lihat juga: Corporate manfaat

Historically, because companies are artificial persons created by operation of law, the law prescribed what the company could and could not do. Secara historis, karena perusahaan yang dibuat oleh orang buatan operasi hukum, undang-undang resep apa yang dapat perusahaan dan tidak dapat dilakukan. Usually this was an expression of the commercial purpose which the company was formed for, and came to referred to as the company's objects , and the extent of the objects are referred to as the company's capacity . Biasanya ini adalah ekspresi dari tujuan komersial perusahaan yang dibentuk, dan datang untuk disebut sebagai perusahaan benda, dan luasnya obyek yang disebut sebagai perusahaan kapasitas. If an activity fell outside of the company's capacity it was said to be ultra vires and void . Jika suatu kegiatan jatuh di luar kemampuan perusahaan dikatakan menjadi ultra vires dan tidak berlaku.

By way of distinction, the organs of the company were expressed to have various corporate powers . Dengan cara perbezaan, organ-organ perusahaan yang telah dinyatakan ke berbagai perusahaan kekuasaan. If the objects were the things that the company was able to do, then the powers were the means by which it could do them. Jika objek adalah perusahaan yang mampu melakukannya, maka kekuasaan adalah sarana yang bisa mereka lakukan. Usually expressions of powers were limited to methods of raising capital, although from earlier times distinctions between objects and powers have caused lawyers difficulty. ^{[ 25 ]} Most jurisdictions have now modified the position by statute, and companies generally have capacity to do all the things that a natural person could do, and power to do it in any way that a natural person could do it. Biasanya ekspresi dari kekuasaan yang terbatas untuk meningkatkan metode modal, meskipun dari awal kali distinctions antara objek dan kekuasaan telah menyebabkan kesulitan pengacara. ^[25] Sebagian besar jurisdiksi telah diubah posisi oleh undang-undang, dan perusahaan-perusahaan umumnya memiliki kapasitas untuk melakukan semua hal-hal yang alam yang dapat dilakukan, dan kuasa untuk melakukannya dengan cara apapun yang wajar dapat melakukannya.

However, references to corporate capacity and powers have not quite been consigned to the dustbin of legal history. Namun, kemampuan perusahaan untuk referensi dan kekuasaan tidak pernah cukup consigned ke dustbin hukum sejarah. In many jurisdictions, directors can still be liable to their shareholders if they cause the company to engage in businesses outside of its objects, even if the transactions are still valid as between the company and the third party. Di berbagai jurisdiksi, direksi masih dapat bertanggung jawab kepada pemegang saham mereka jika mereka menyebabkan perusahaan untuk ikut serta dalam usaha di luar dari objek, meskipun transaksi masih berlaku sebagai antara perusahaan dan pihak ketiga. And many jurisdictions also still permit transactions to be challenged for lack of " corporate benefit ", where the relevant transaction has no prospect of being for the commercial benefit of the company or its shareholders. Dan masih banyak jurisdiksi juga mengizinkan transaksi menjadi cacat karena kekurangan "keuntungan perusahaan", dimana transaksi yang tidak memiliki prospek untuk menjadi manfaat komersial dari perusahaan atau para pemegang saham.

As artificial persons, companies can only act through human agents. Sebagai buatan orang, perusahaan hanya dapat bertindak melalui agen manusia. The main agent who deals with the company's management and business is the board of directors , but in many jurisdictions other officers can be appointed too. Agen utama yang berkaitan dengan perusahaan manajemen dan bisnis adalah dewan direksi, tetapi dalam banyak yurisdiksi petugas lainnya dapat juga ditunjuk. The board of directors is normally elected by the members, and the other officers are normally appointed by the board. Dewan direksi biasanya dipilih oleh anggota, dan petugas lainnya yang biasanya diangkat oleh dewan. These agents enter into contracts on behalf of the company with third parties. Agen ini masuk ke dalam kontrak atas nama perusahaan dengan pihak ketiga.

Although the company's agents owe duties to the company (and, indirectly, to the shareholders) to exercise those powers for a proper purpose, generally speaking third parties' rights are not impugned if it transpires that the officers were acting improperly. Walaupun perusahaan agen berhutang kewajiban terhadap perusahaan (dan, secara tidak langsung, kepada pemegang saham) untuk melaksanakan kekuasaan mereka untuk tujuan yang baik, umumnya pihak ketiga hak-hak tersebut tidak impugned jika transpires bahwa petugas yang bertindak kesalahan. Third parties are entitled to rely on the ostensible authority of agents held out by the company to act on its behalf. Pihak ketiga yang berhak bergantung pada nyata kewenangan agen yang diselenggarakan oleh perusahaan untuk bertindak atas nama. A line of common law cases reaching back to Royal British Bank v Turquand established in common law that third parties were entitled to assume that the internal management of the company was being conducted properly, and the rule has now been codified into statute in most countries. J baris umum hukum kasus mencapai kembali ke Inggris Royal Bank v Turquand didirikan di hukum umum bahwa pihak ketiga yang berhak untuk menganggap bahwa manajemen internal perusahaan telah dilakukan dengan benar, dan aturan yang telah dikodifikasikan ke dalam undang-undang di banyak negara.

Accordingly, companies will normally be liable for all the act and omissions of their officers and agents. Dengan demikian, perusahaan biasanya akan bertanggung jawab untuk semua perbuatan mereka dan kelalaian petugas dan agen. This will include almost all torts , but the law relating to crimes committed by companies is complex, and varies significantly between countries. Ini akan meliputi hampir semua torts, namun undang-undang yang berkaitan dengan kejahatan yang dilakukan oleh perusahaan-perusahaan yang kompleks, dan sangat bervariasi antara negara.

[ edit ] Director's duties [Sunting] Direktur dari tugas

Main articles: Board of directors and Directors' duties Artikel utama: Dewan direksi dan Direksi 'tugas

In most jurisdictions, directors owe strict duties of good faith , as well as duties of care and skill, to safeguard the interests of the company and the members. Di sebagian besar wilayah hukum, direksi berhutang ketat tugas yang baik, serta tugas-tugas perawatan dan keahlian, untuk menjaga kepentingan perusahaan dan anggota.

The standard of skill and care that a director owes is usually described as acquiring and maintaining sufficient knowledge and understanding of the company's business to enable him to properly discharge his duties. Standar ketrampilan dan perawatan yang direksi owes biasanya digambarkan sebagai mendapatkan dan mempertahankan cukup pengetahuan dan pemahaman tentang bisnis perusahaan untuk mengaktifkan dia untuk tugas-tugas yang benar keluarnya.

Directors are also strictly charged to exercise their powers only for a proper purpose. Direksi juga sangat dituntut untuk melaksanakan kekuasaan mereka hanya untuk tujuan yang baik. For instance, were a director to issue a large number of new shares, not for the purposes of raising capital but in order to defeat a potential takeover bid, that would be an improper purpose. ^{[ 26 ]} Sebagai contoh, adalah direktur untuk mengeluarkan sejumlah saham baru, bukan untuk kepentingan meningkatkan modal tapi untuk mengalahkan tawaran takeover yang potensial, yang akan menjadi salah satu tujuan. ^[26]

Directors also owe strict duties not to permit any conflict of interest or conflict with their duty to act in the best interests of the company. Direksi juga wajib tugas ketat untuk tidak mengizinkan setiap konflik kepentingan atau konflik dengan tugas mereka untuk bertindak dalam kepentingan terbaik perusahaan. This rule is so strictly enforced that, even where the conflict of interest or conflict of duty is purely hypothetical, the directors can be forced to disgorge all personal gains arising from it. Aturan ini sangat ketat itu, bahkan di mana konflik kepentingan atau konflik tugas adalah murni hipotesis, direktur yang dapat dipaksa untuk mengembalikan semua keuntungan pribadi yang timbul dari situ. In Aberdeen Ry v. Blaikie (1854) 1 Macq HL 461 Lord Cranworth stated in his judgment that, Dalam Aberdeen Ry ayat Blaikie (1854) 1 Macq HL 461 Tuhan Cranworth dinyatakan dalam keputusan itu,

"A corporate body can only act by agents, and it is, of course, the duty of those agents so to act as best to promote the interests of the corporation whose affairs they are conducting. Such agents have duties to discharge of a fiduciary nature towards their principal. And it is a rule of universal application that no one, having such duties to discharge, shall be allowed to enter into engagements in which he has, or can have , a personal interest conflicting or which possibly may conflict , with the interests of those whom he is bound to protect... So strictly is this principle adhered to that no question is allowed to be raised as to the fairness or unfairness of the contract entered into..." "Sebuah perusahaan hanya dapat bertindak tubuh oleh agen, dan ini, tentu saja, tugas mereka jadi agen untuk bertindak sebagai terbaik untuk memajukan kepentingan korporasi yang melakukan urusan mereka. Seperti agen memiliki tugas untuk pembuangan yang gadai alam sekolah terhadap mereka. Dan itu merupakan aturan universal bahwa tidak ada satu aplikasi, seperti yang memiliki tugas untuk pembebasan, maka ia akan diizinkan untuk memasuki Pertunangan di mana dia, atau dapat, konflik kepentingan pribadi atau konflik yang mungkin Mei, dengan kepentingan orang-orang yang dia terikat untuk melindungi ... Jadi ini adalah sangat prinsip adhered ke pertanyaan yang tidak diperbolehkan untuk dibangkitkan kepada keadilan atau unfairness dari kontrak dimasukkan ke dalam ... "

However, in many jurisdictions the members of the company are permitted to ratify transactions which would otherwise fall foul of this principle. Namun, di banyak jurisdiksi anggota perusahaan diijinkan untuk mengesahkan transaksi yang akan jatuh curang lain dari prinsip ini. It is also largely accepted in most jurisdictions that this principle should be capable of being abrogated in the company's constitution. Ia juga diterima di sebagian besar wilayah hukum yang paling prinsip ini harus mampu menjadi perusahaan abrogated dalam konstitusi.

• Smith v. Van Gorkom Smith v. Van Gorkom

[ edit ] Corporate litigation [Sunting] Perusahaan litigasi

Main articles: Derivative suit and Unfair prejudice Artikel utama: Derivative sesuai dan Unfair prasangka

Members of a company generally have rights against each other and against the company, as framed under the company's constitution. Anggota dari sebuah perusahaan biasanya memiliki hak terhadap satu sama lain dan terhadap perusahaan, sebagai bingkai di bawah perusahaan konstitusi. In relation to the exercise of their rights, minority shareholders usually have to accept that, because of the limits of their voting rights, they cannot direct the overall control of the company and must accept the will of the majority (often expressed as majority rule ). Sehubungan dengan pelaksanaan hak-hak mereka, pemegang saham minoritas biasanya harus menerima itu, karena batas voting hak mereka, mereka tidak dapat langsung keseluruhan kontrol dari perusahaan dan harus menerima akan mayoritas (sering dinyatakan sebagai aturan mayoritas) . However, majority rule can be iniquitous, particularly where there is one controlling shareholder. Namun, mayoritas aturan dapat bengis, terutama di mana ada satu pengendalian pemegang saham.

Accordingly, a number of exceptions have developed in law in relation to the general principle of majority rule. Dengan demikian, jumlah yang ada pengecualian dalam hukum dikembangkan dalam kaitannya dengan prinsip umum dari kebanyakan aturan.

• Where the majority shareholder(s) are exercising their votes to perpetrate a fraud on the minority, the courts may permit the minority to sue ^{[ 27 ]} Dimana pemegang saham mayoritas (s) adalah melaksanakan suara untuk melakukan penipuan pada minoritas, pengadilan mengizinkan Mei minoritas ke sue ^[27]
• members always retain the right to sue if the majority acts to invade their personal rights, eg where the company's affairs are not conducted in accordance with the company's constitution (this position has been debated because the extent of a personal right is not set in law). Macdougall v Gardiner and Pender v Lushington present irreconcilable differences in this area. anggota selalu mempertahankan hak untuk menuntut jika mayoritas bertindak untuk menakluk mereka hak pribadi, misalnya, di mana perusahaan urusan tidak dilakukan sesuai dengan konstitusi perusahaan (posisi ini telah diperdebatkan karena luasnya adalah hak pribadi yang tidak diatur dalam undang-undang) . Macdougall v Gardiner dan Pender v Lushington perbedaan yg tdk dpt didamaikan kembali hadir di daerah ini.
• in many jurisdictions it is possible for minority shareholders to take a representative or derivative action in the name of the company, where the company is controlled by the alleged wrongdoers

[ edit ] Corporate finance

Main article: Corporate finance

[ edit ] Shares and share capital

Main article: Stock

Companies generally raise capital for their business ventures either by debt or equity. Capital raised by way of equity is usually raised by issued shares (sometimes called "stock" (not to be confused with stock-in-trade)) or warrants .

A share is an item of property, and can be sold or transferred. Holding a share makes the holder a member of the company, and entitles them to enforce the provisions of the company's constitution against the company and against other members. Shares also normally have a nominal or par value, which is the limit of the shareholder's liability to contribute to the debts of the company on an insolvent liquidation.

Shares usually confer a number of rights on the holder. These will normally include:

• voting rights
• rights to dividends declared by the company
• rights to any return of capital either upon redemption of the share, or upon the liquidation of the company
• in some countries, shareholders have preemption rights, whereby they have a preferential right to participate in future share issues by the company

Many companies have different classes of shares, offering different rights to the shareholders. For example, a company might issue both ordinary shares and preference shares, with the two types having different voting and/or economic rights. For example, a company might provide that preference shareholders shall each receive a cumulative preferred dividend of a certain amount per annum, but the ordinary shareholders shall receive everything else.

The total number of issued shares in a company is said to represent its capital . Many jurisdictions regulate the minimum amount of capital which a company may have, although some countries only prescribe minimum amounts of capital for companies engaging in certain types of business (eg banking , insurance etc.).

Similarly, most jurisdictions regulate the maintenance of capital, and prevent companies returning funds to shareholders by way of distribution when this might leave the company financially exposed. In some jurisdictions this extends to prohibiting a company from providing financial assistance for the purchase of its own shares.

[ edit ] Liquidations

Main article: Liquidation

Liquidation is the normal means by which a company's existence is brought to an end. It is also referred to (either alternatively or concurrently) in some jurisdictions as winding up and/or dissolution .

Liquidations generally come in two forms, either compulsory liquidations (sometimes called creditors' liquidations ) and voluntary liquidations (sometimes called members' liquidations , although a voluntary liquidation where the company is insolvent will also be controlled by the creditors, and is properly referred to as a creditors' voluntary liquidation ).

As its names imply, applications for compulsory liquidation are normally made by creditors of the company when the company is unable to pay its debts. However, in some jurisdictions, regulators have the power to apply for the liquidation of the company on the grounds of public good, ie where the company is believed to have engaged in unlawful conduct, or conduct which is otherwise harmful to the public at large.

Voluntary liquidations occur when the company's members decide voluntarily to wind up the affairs of the company. This may be because they believe that the company will soon become insolvent , or it may be on economic grounds if they believe that the purpose for which the company was formed is now at an end, or that the company is not providing an adequate return on assets and should be broken up and sold off.

Some jurisdictions also permit companies to be wound up on "just and equitable" grounds. ^{[ 28 ]} Generally, applications for just and equitable winding-up are brought by a member of the company who alleges that the affairs of the company are being conducted in a prejudicial manner, and asking the court to bring an end to the company's existence. For obvious reasons, in most countries, the courts have been reluctant to wind up a company solely on the basis of the disappointment of one member, regardless of how well-founded that member's complaints are. Accordingly, most jurisdictions which permit just and equitable winding up also permit the court to impose other remedies, such as requiring the majority shareholder(s) to buy out the disappointed minority shareholder at a fair value.

Where a company goes into liquidation, normally a liquidator is appointed to gather in all the company's assets and settle all claims against the company. If there is any surplus after paying off all the creditors of the company, this surplus is then distributed to the members.

[ edit ] Insider dealing

Main article: Insider dealing

[ edit ] Corporate life and death

[ edit ] Corporate crime

Main articles: Corporate liability and Corporate crime

• Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007

[ edit ] Mergers and acquisitions

Main article: Mergers and acquisitions

• Reconstruction (law)

[ edit ] Corporate insolvency

Main article: Insolvency law

• Corporate Rescue and Insolvency Journal

[ edit ] See also [Sunting] Lihat juga

Corporate laws

• United Kingdom company law and the Companies Act 2006
• United States corporate law , the Delaware General Corporation Law and the Model Business Corporation Act
• German corporate law , the Aktiengesetz (AktG) and the Gesetz betreffend die Gesellschaften mit beschränkter Haftung (GmbH-Gesetz, GmbHG)
• European Company Statute and the Societas Europa

General pages

• List of company name etymologies
• List of companies named after people
• Types of companies
• Quasi corporation
• Securities regulation in the United States
• Race to the bottom

[ edit ] Notes and references

1. ^ Hansmann and Kraakman, 'The End of History for Corporate Law?' (2001) 89 Georgetown Law Journal 439, 443; see also, Anatomy of Corporate Law (2004) Ch.1
2. ^ Paul Davies, Introduction to Company Law (2003) Ch.9
3. ^ 8th edition (2004), ISBN 0 314 15199 0
4. ^ Northern Counties Securities Ltd. v. Jackson & Steeple Ltd. [1974] 1 WLR 1133; Walton J actually attributes the term to his counsel, Mr Price, quoting Lord Haldane. But Lord Haldane never used such figurative words. They may trace back to Lord Chancellor Thurlow (1731–1806), who is said to have asked rhetorically, "did you ever expect a corporation to have a conscience, when it has no soul to be damned and no body to be kicked?" Though it seems his exact phrase was, "Corporations have neither bodies to be punished, nor souls to be condemned; they therefore do as they like." John Poynder Literary Extracts (1844) vol. 1, p. 2 or 268
5. ^ eg South African Constitution Art.8, especially Art.(4)
6. ^ Phillip I. Blumberg, The Multinational Challenge to Corporation Law: The Search for a New Corporate Personality, (1993) has a very good discussion of the controversial nature of additional rights being granted to corporations.
7. ^ eg Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007
8. ^ In England the first joint stock company was the East India Company , which received its charter in 1600. The Dutch East India Company received its charter in 1602, but is generally recognized as the first company in the world to issue joint stock. Not coincidentally, the two companies were competitors.
9. ^ In England, see Edmunds v Brown Tillard (1668) 1 Lev 237 and Salmon v The Hamborough Co (1671) 1 Ch Cas 204
10. ^ "Long ago, the region's failure to develop joint-stock companies was one reason why it fell behind the West." [1] The Economist
11. ^ see Ashbury v. Watson (1885) 30 Ch D 376
12. ^ Shalfoon v Cheddar Valley [1924] NZLR 561
13. ^ §141(a) , Delaware General Corporation Law
14. ^ See also, Listing Rule 10 for public companies, setting out a scale of transactions requiring shareholder approval and disclosure.
15. ^ Shareholders must approve sale of "all or substantially all assets", held in Gimbel (1974) to be those "qualitatively vital to the existence and purprose" of the corporation; which in Katz v. Bregman (1981) was held to include assets under 50% of the company's value
16. ^ The Bundesgerichtshof held that shareholders must approve a sale of assets amounting to 80% of the company's value
17. ^ cf Bushell v. Faith , and query whether the decision would still be decided the same way.
18. ^ See also, SEC 13d-5, dating from times when groups of investors were considered potential cartels , saying any 5% shareholder voting block must register with the Federal financial authority, the Securities and Exchange Commission .
19. ^ Though the Constitution may allow particular provisions to be further "entrenched", s.22; Furthermore, Art.3 of the Model Articles allows 75% of members in general meeting to give the directors specific instructions.
20. ^ Salomon v. Salomon & Co. [1897] AC 22.
21. ^ Although it did attach to documents within the husband's custody or control.
22. ^ Macaura v. Northern Assurance Co Ltd [1925] AC 619
23. ^ Adams v. Cape Industries plc [1990] Ch 433
24. ^ Williams v Natural Life [1998] 1 WLR 830
25. ^ See the frustration expressed by the House of Lords in Cotman v. Brougham [1918] AC 514
26. ^ Harlowe's Nominees Pty v. Woodside (1968) 121 CLR 483 (Aust HC)
27. ^ Foss v Harbottle (1843) 2 Hare 461
28. ^ In England, see Ebrahimi v Westbourne Galleries [1973] AC 360

[ edit ] Further reading [Sunting] Lebih lanjut membaca

• Reiner Kraakman, Henry Hansmann, Paul L. Davies , Klaus Hopt, Gerard Hertig, Hideki Kanda, The Anatomy of Corporate Law (2004) Oxford University Press

[ edit ] External links [Sunting] Pranala luar

• A Comparative Bibliography: Regulatory Competition on Corporate Law