Update Artikelilmiah: 48177

CINDY LUDFIYYA

NIM

Judul Artikel

Abstrak (Bhs. Indonesia)

Penerapan Business Judgement Rule (BJR) memberikan perlindungan hukum bagi Direksi Perseroan dalam pengambilan keputusan bisnis dari tanggung jawab secara pribadi meskipun keputusan tersebut mengakibatkan kerugian,
sepanjang tindakan didasarkan pada itikad baik dan hati-hati (fiduciary duty). Kerugian dari pengambilan keputusan bisnis atas resiko bisnis banyak menjerat Direksi dituding menciptakan kerugian negara, termasuk kasus Ir. Kusmahadi Setya Jaya Direksi PT. Nusantara Terminal Services (Anak Perusahaan BUMN).

Penelitian bertujuan untuk menganalisis penerapan BJR oleh Direksi PT. NTS dalam Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 3614 K/Pid.Sus/2024 dan kaitannya status hukum Anak Perusahaan BUMN apabila terjadi kerugian tidak selalu dianggap kerugian keuangan negara. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode
pendekatan penelitian yuridis normatif dengan pendekatan perundang-undangan, kasus, dan konseptual, spesifikasi penelitian preskriptif, analisis dengan data sekunder, dan metode analisis normatif kualitatif.

Hasil penelitian dan pembahasan menunjukan bahwa penerapan BJR tidak dapat diterapkan karena bertentangan dengan kewajiban hukumnya dan tidak memenuhi unsur BJR Pasal 97 ayat (5) UU PT. Konsekuensinya, Majelis Hakim
tidak menganalisis dan mempertimbangkan BJR dalam Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 3614 K/Pid.Sus/2024 dan kerugian PT. NTS dapat dikategorikan kerugian keuangan negara. Kerugian Anak Perusahaan BUMN dan kaitannya dengan status hukumnya seharusnya dilihat berdasarkan modal didalamnya sehingga apabila terjadi kerugian tidak selalu dapat dikategorikan kerugian keuangan negara.

Abtrak (Bhs. Inggris)

The application of the Business Judgement Rule (BJR) provides legal protection for the Company's Directors in making business decisions from personal  even though the decision results in losses, as long as the action is based on good faith and caution (fiduciary duty). Losses from making business
decisions on business risks have often ensnared Directors accused of creating state losses, including the case of Ir. Kusmahadi Setya Jaya, Director of PT. Nusantara Terminal Services (a BUMN Subsidiary).
The study aims to analyze the application of BJR by the Directors of PT. NTS in the Supreme Court Decision Number 3614 K/Pid.Sus/2024 and its relationship to the legal status of BUMN Subsidiaries if losses occur, they are not always considered state financial losses. This study uses a normative legal research approach method with a statutory, case, and conceptual approach, prescriptive research specifications, analysis with secondary data, and qualitative normative
analysis methods.
The results of the research and discussion show that the application of BJR cannot be applied because it is contrary to its legal obligations and does not fulfill the elements of BJR Article 97 paragraph (5) of the PT Law. Consequently, the
Panel of Judges did not analyze and consider BJR in the Supreme Court Decision Number 3614 K/Pid.Sus/2024 and PT. NTS's losses can be categorized as state finnancial losses. The losses of BUMN Subsidiaries and their relation to their legal
status should be seen based on the capital in them so that if a loss occurs, it cannot always be categorized as a state financial loss.

Kata kunci

Pembimbing 1

Pembimbing 2

Pembimbing 3

Tahun

Jumlah Halaman