Mari kita bersama-sama membuat keajaiban dengan menabur benih karma baik. Ada akibat, karena didahului oleh adanya suatu sebab (Hukum Sebab-Akibat). Sudahkah kita menanam benih-benih kebajikan pada hari ini?

Keajaiban bersumber dari Perbuatan Bajik, dan Perbuatan Bajik adalah sumber keajaiban. [SANG BUDDHA]

Hak Gugat Derivatif bagi Pemegang Saham

Konsep hukum masih dan sedang terus berkembang. Bukan saatnya kita berpikir bahwa hukum telah sempurna—faktanya ialah masih jauh dari sempurna. Konsepsi hukum negara-negara maju kini telah melangkah lebih modern dengan memperkenalkan konsep hukum korporasi “shareholder’s derivative suit”, dikenal juga dengan istilah “derivative action” atau “derivative claim”.
Konsep tersebut dapat dikatakan sama sekali “baru” di Indonesia yang hanya memberi peluang bagi pemegang saham minoritas untuk sebatas melakukan permohonan audit investigasi kepada Pengadilan Negeri setempat terhadap aksi korproasi yang diduga melakukan fraud karena merugikan kekayaan perseroan demi keuntungan afiliasi dari pemegang saham mayoritas ataupun penyalahgunaan wewenang pihak Direksi, dimana tampaknya hakim di pengadilan masih “malu-malu” untuk menerapkan konsep “hak gugat derivatif bagi pemegang saham” ini.
Pertama-tama kita membahas konsepsi mengenai “Shareholder Derivative Suit”, dimana Wikipedia memaknainya secara sangat ‘berani’, sebagai: ( :
“A shareholder derivative suit is a lawsuit brought by a shareholder on behalf of a corporation against a third party. Often, the third party is an insider of the corporation, such as an executive officer or director. Shareholder derivative suits are unique because under traditional corporate law, management is responsible for bringing and defending the corporation against suit.
Shareholder derivative suits permit a shareholder to initiate a suit when management has failed to do so. Because derivative suits vary the traditional roles of management and shareholders, many jurisdictions have implemented various procedural requirements to derivative suits.
“Under traditional corporate business law, shareholders are the owners of a corporation. However, they are not empowered to control the day-to-day operations of the corporation. Instead, shareholders appoint directors, and the directors in turn appoint officers or executives to manage day-to-day operations.
Derivative suits permit a shareholder to bring an action in the name of the corporation against parties allegedly causing harm to the corporation. If the directors, officers, or employees of the corporation are not willing to file an action, a shareholder may first petition them to proceed. If such petition fails, the shareholder may take it upon himself to bring an action on behalf of the corporation. Any proceeds of a successful action are awarded to the corporation and not to the individual shareholders that initiate the action.
“In most jurisdictions, a shareholder must satisfy various requirements to prove that he has a valid standing before being allowed to proceed. The law may require the shareholder to meet qualifications such as the minimum value of the shares and the duration of the holding by the shareholder; to first make a demand on the corporate board to take action; or to post bond, or other fees in the event that he does not prevail.
“The famous case of Shaffer v. Heitner, which ultimately reached the United States Supreme Court, originated with a shareholder derivative suit against Greyhound Lines.
“In the United Kingdom, an action brought by a minority shareholder may not be upheld under the doctrine set out in Foss v Harbottle in 1843. Exceptions to the doctrine involve ultra vires and the ‘fraud on minority’. According to Blair and Stout's ‘Team Production Theory of Corporate Law’, the purpose of the suit is not to protect the shareholders, but to protect the corporation itself. Creditors, rather than shareholders, may bring an action, if a corporation faces insolvency.
“Derivative shareholder suits are extremely rare in continental Europe. The reasons probably lie within laws that prevent small shareholders from bringing lawsuits in the first place. Many European countries have company acts that legally require a minimum share in order to bring a derivative suit. Larger shareholders could bring lawsuits, however, their incentives are rather to settle the claims with the management, sometimes to the detriment of the small shareholders. [Kristoffel Grechenig & Michael Sekyra, ‘No derivative shareholder suits in Europe: A model of percentage limits and collusion’, International Review of Law and Economics (IRLE) 2011, vol. 31 (1), p. 16-20 ; dan ‘Why do Shareholder Derivative Suits Remain Rare in Continental Europe?’, 37 BROOKLYN J. INT'L L. 843-892 (2012).]
“In India, derivative suits are brought under the clauses of oppression and mismanagement.”
Senada dengan itu, Cornell University Law School memaknainya sebagai: (
“A shareholder derivative suit is a lawsuit brought by a shareholder on behalf of a corporation. Generally, a shareholder can only sue on behalf of a corporation when the corporation has a valid cause of action, but has refused to use it. This often happens when the defendant in the suit is someone close to the company, like a director or a corporate officer. If the suit is successful, the proceeds go to the corporation, not to the shareholder who brought the suit.”
Sementara itu Legal Dictionary secara lebih luas melingkupi pula kemungkinan penyalahgunaan kekuasaan pemegang saham mayoritas dan secara komprehensif memberinya pengertian sebagai: (
“A derivative action, more popularly known as a Stockholder's Derivative Suit, is derived from the primary right of the corporation to seek redress of legal grievances through the courts. The procedure to be followed in such an action is governed by the rules of federal Civil Procedure and state provisions, where applicable. (West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.)
“A lawsuit brought by a corporation shareholder against the directors, management and/or other shareholders of the corporation, for a failure by management. In effect, the suing shareholder claims to be acting on behalf of the corporation, because the directors and management are failing to exercise their authority for the benefit of the company and all of its shareholders. This type of suit often arises when there is fraud, mismanagement, self-dealing and/or dishonesty which are being ignored by officers and the Board of Directors of a corporation. (Copyright © 1981-2005 by Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill. All Right reserved.)
USLEGAL memiliki definisi yang satu warna, yakni: (
“A derivative action/suit, more popularly known as a Stockholder's Derivative Suit, is a lawsuit brought by a shareholder of a Corporation on behalf of the Corporation to enforce or defend a legal right or claim.
“Such a suit is brought against insiders i.e., the directors, management and/or other shareholders of the corporation and the suit often involves fraud, mismanagement, self-dealing or dishonesty that are either perpetrated or ignored by officers and Board of Directors of a Corporation.
“In effect, the suing shareholder claims to be acting on behalf of the corporation, because the directors and management are failing to exercise their authority for the benefit of the company and all of its shareholders.
“Derivative suits permit a shareholder to bring an action in the name of the corporation against the parties allegedly causing harm to the corporation. If the directors, officers, or employees of the corporation are not willing to file an action, a shareholder may first petition them to proceed.
“If such petition fails, the shareholder may take it upon himself to bring an action on behalf of the corporation. Any proceeds of a successful action are awarded to the corporation and not to the individual shareholders that initiate the action. In most jurisdictions, a shareholder must satisfy various requirements to prove that he has a valid standing before being allowed to proceed. The law may require the shareholder to meet qualifications such as the minimum value of the shares and the duration of holding such shares by the shareholder.
National Paralegal College memberi gambaran secara holistik serta lebih konkret dengan rincian sebagai berikut: ( )
“Enter the derivative action. At its essence, a derivative suit is used as a means for a shareholder or group of shareholders, acting on behalf of the corporation, to reclaim value lost to the corporation by its management. Essentially, the form of a derivative action is the same as the form of any other lawsuit.
On the plaintiff's side are two parties – the complaining shareholder and the corporation itself. On the defendant's side are management and the corporation again – this time as a “nominal” defendant (a defendant as a formality only). In the suit, the plaintiff shareholder will state a claim based on an argument that the corporation, via management, either took or failed to take some action that cost the corporation value. For their part, the defendant management will attempt to show how its actions were either necessary or protected under the Business Judgment Rule. See Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23.1.
“EXAMPLE: Nicole is a shareholder in XYZ Co. She has discovered that the company has been consistently losing money because the firm keeps allowing managers to use the corporate jet and various corporate cars and houses without including it in their compensation packages. Because of managements’ excesses, the company is accumulating annual bills in amounts of hundreds of thousands of dollars. As such, Nicole requests that those managers cease and desist from their abusive practices. If the board refuses to do so, Nicole can file a shareholder action to reclaim the lost value.
“Prior to commencing a shareholder derivative suit, the plaintiff shareholder must first formally demand of the company’s board that it act in the manner that the shareholder requires. Thus, if the shareholder’s goal is to stop the board from engaging in some action, she must first request that the board refrain from doing the act. Conversely, if the shareholder is requesting that the board perform some certain act, that request must likewise be made prior to commencing the suit. This “demand” requirement can be waived if the suing shareholder can show that such a demand would have been futile. See Aronson v. Lewis, 473 A.2d 805 (Del. Sup. Ct. 1984).
“After the shareholder has made the necessary request or demand to the board, the board is given an appropriate amount of time to determine the proper course of action. At this juncture, the board will often seek outside counsel and/or create a committee of disinterested directors who were not involved in the transaction about which the shareholder is complaining. This group of managers will then be tasked with making a determination, on behalf of the corporation, as to whether or not the action suggested by the shareholder should be pursued. It is important to realize that this committee, often termed a special investigation or special litigation committee needs to be as removed as possible from the conflict in order for its opinion to be of any value. See Rales v. Blasband, 634 A.2d 927 (Del. Sup. Ct. 1993).
“After the committee has had sufficient opportunity to meet and discuss the issue of the suit, the committee will then make a recommendation to the board as to whether or not it should support the derivative action. If the committee’s suggestion is to support the action, then the board will likely enter the suit and take up the action against the directors who have pursued or are pursuing the illegal or improper course of conduct.
If, however, the committee makes the recommendation that the board should not pursue the action and that the potential cost of the action will outweigh its benefits, then the individual shareholder reenters the picture. If the shareholder so chooses, she may continue the action on her own. However, if she chooses to do so, she will be responsible for the full cost of the litigation, though she will probably be entitled to indemnification for her costs if she wins. If the shareholder loses the action, she may be required to pay the legal expenses of the corporation.
“EXAMPLE: The board of HighTop Co. has recently been requested, by a shareholder threatening a derivative suit, to discontinue the issuance of favorable credit terms to a number of companies, some owned by board members, that have failed to pay their bills in a timely fashion in the past. Upon announcement of the suit, the board convened a special litigation committee to investigate the merits of the claim. The committee consisted of several board members, none of whom were implicated in the suit, and the company’s general counsel. After hearing evidence on the suit, the committee ultimately determined that the claim lacked merit. However, the shareholder persisted in the action and was ultimately successful in court. As a result, the directors who had received the unfair terms were held liable for their actions, and the company was forced to pay for the shareholder’s legal expenses.
“In form, the derivative action takes on the characteristics of a class action suit. After the board makes a determination, the complaining shareholder files the suit as an individual and on behalf of the corporation. From there, he is then required to provide notice, either on his own or (if so ordered by the court) at the expense of the corporation, to all other shareholders that the action has been commenced, and must provide them the option to join the suit.
“At this point, the suit is commenced, and it follows the normal path of any similar civil action. The shareholder will present the corporation’s case, making the relevant arguments to show that the members of the board have been acting in a manner that is inconsistent with their fiduciary duties. The management will respond by trying to show either the propriety of their actions or the fact that their actions are protected by the business judgment rule.
A shareholder suit results in one of two possible outcomes. The corporation and its board may win; in which case all returns to normal for the firm. If, on the other hand, the shareholder wins, then one of several results may ensue. First, it is assumed that the shareholders request will be fulfilled. Additionally, it is typical that the shareholder will receive his or her legal expenses from the corporation. See Ramey v. Cincinnati Enquirer, Inc., 508 F.2d 1188 (6th Cir. 1974).
“EXAMPLE: After filing and winning a derivative action suit, the court awarded a personal liability judgment against several of the firm’s directors in an amount approximating their ill-gotten gains. Ultimately, these funds were paid over to the corporation, minus litigation expense paid to the shareholders who had brought the suit. [©2003 - 2017 National Paralegal College / National Juris University.]”
Sementara itu UK Civil Procedure Rules 1998 sebagaimana dikutip dari menyebutkan:
“Derivative Claims.
“19.9 (1) This rule applies where a company,  other incorporated body or trade union is alleged to be entitled to claim a remedy and a claim is made by one or more  members of the company, body or trade union for it to be given that remedy (a ‘derivative claim’).”
Apakah hukum perseroan/korporasi di indonesia memungkinkan untuk mengakomodasi konsep “derivative suit” ini? Secara normatif undang-undang, UU tentang Perseroan Terbatas Indonesia masih memberi definisi Organ Perseroan berupa fungsi Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham dan Tugas Direksi yang saling berbeda dan terspesialisasi secara ter-cluster.
Dalam tataran praktik sebagaimana kerap dijumpai para berbagai korporasi di Indonesia (pada khususnya), pemegang saham mayoritas yang memiliki kekuasaan mengadakan RUPS (karena memegang jumlah saham minimum kuorum penyelenggaraaan RUPS), dapat seketika mencopot direksi yang dinilai tidak dapat di-“setir”—praktis Direksi berbagai perseroan di Indonesia hanya berlaku sebagai “boneka” belaka (dan hal ini terjadi secara masif dalam usaha berbentuk Grub Company).
Direktur yang menjabat pun tidak lain adalah direktur “sponsor” yang diangkat dan ditunjuk oleh sang pemegang saham mayoritas, sehingga yang mengendalikan perseroan ialah pemegang saham mayoritas yang menjadi “otak” dibalik layar—sehingga konsep “shareholder derivative suit” tidak banyak berkontribusi di Indonesia, kecuali urgensi penerapannya bagi perlindungan hukum bagi pemegang saham minoritas.
UU PT Indonesia belum menganut konsep sejauh “derivative suit” sebagaimana telah menjadi praktik yang lazim di sejumlah negara maju. UU PT indonesia menganut konsep RUPS, bukan pribadi pemegang saham untuk bertindak keluar mengatas-namakan perseroan, dan hanya Direksi yang berwenang untuk menggugat untuk dan atas nama perseroan—suatu garis demarkasi yang tegas dan agak konservatif sebagaimana dianut UU PT.
Kecuali, praktik peradilan di Indonesia lewat yurisprudensinya berani menerobos kekakuan tersebut, dan melahirkan landmark decision, untuk dijadikan preseden sebagai sumber formil hukum guna menjadi ‘inspirasi’ serta pedoman agar dapat diikuti oleh para hakim dalam kasus serupa berikutnya dikemudian hari.
Budayakan hidup JUJUR dengan menghargai Jirih Payah, Hak Cipta, Hak Moril, dan Hak Ekonomi Hery Shietra selaku Penulis.

Apa jadinya bila tenaga medis akhirnya “angkat tangan menyerah”, kehabisan tenaga, “lempar handuk” sembari berkata : “Silahkan Anda ‘cuci piring’ Anda sendiri! Anda enak-enakan hidup arogan, bersikap ‘masak bodoh’, lalu kami yang harus mencuri piring kotor Anda? Silahkan Anda bersihkan diri Anda sendiri, dokter bukan babysitter Anda. Dunia ini sudah cukup banyak penyakit dan pasien, Anda pikir selama ini kami kurang kerjaan? Anda sendiri yang kurang kerjaan, merasa hebat sehingga menantang penyakit dan bermain dengan maut.


Redaksi dengan simpatik mewakili para almarhum korban jiwa COVID-19, yang tidak lagi dapat bersuara memberikan testimoni, izinkan kami untuk mewakili pendapat para korban jiwa COVID-19, apakah para warga yang meremehkan ancaman wabah menular COVID-19, seakan hendak berkata seolah para korban jiwa COVID-19 selama ini KURANG CUKUP BERIMAN, KURANG CUKUP BERIBADAH, dan KURANG CUKUP MENDEKATKAN DIRI PADA TUHAN? Apakah dengan dekat pada Tuhan, maka tiada lagi gunung meletus atau gempa bumi di dunia ini? Sekalipun Anda 100% yakin pada Tuhan, cobalah untuk menyentuh api, mengapa tetap sakit dan melukai?

Bagi masyarakat yang menyombongkan kesehatan mereka dikala wabah merebak, tanyakan ini : “Anda masih bekerja dan keluar rumah saat wabah?”

“Tentu, kerja untuk mencari nafkah. Saya tetap sehat meski berjumpa banyak orang, serta tanpa mengenakan masker. Tidak pernah saya jatuh sakit.”

“Untuk apa nafkah itu?”

“Untuk membeli makanan.”

“Jika tidak makan, apa yang akan terjadi?”

“Perut saya bisa sakit karena lapar dan hidup bisa mati karena kelaparan, atau menderita karena rasa bosan dan mati bosan bila hanya di dalam rumah.”

“Berarti Anda BELUM PUNYA IMAN dan TIDAK BENAR-BENAR KEBAL SAKIT, karena Anda masih bisa menderita karena sakit lapar dan bahkan tewas kelaparan, atau bahkan menderita karena merasa bosan dan mati bosan. Lantas, apa yang membuat Anda berasumsi kebal terhadap virus mematikan?”

Sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas. “Gunakan tubuh dan mulut kita, tetapi jangan sampai merugikan orang lain.” (“Use our own body in such a manner as not to injure that of another”)

Sebelum melontarkan komentar yang SPEKULATIF, hendaknya memperhatikan perasaan para korban jiwa yang bertumbangan akibat rantai penularan yang tidak terputus berkat “jasa-jasa” para warga masyarakat yang meremehkan wabah menular (menjadi carrier). Apakah data belum menunjukkan cukup banyak korban jiwa akibat COVID-19?

Anda mungkin “kebal” (atau “bebal”), namun bagaimana dengan keluarga Anda? Kesadaran dan mawas diri, adalah bentuk kepedulian bagi sesama. Semua orang memang pasti akan “mati”, namun itu sama artinya tidak menghargai nyawa sendiri dan tidak menghormati hak atas hidup orang lain. Bila Anda tidak sayang nyawa Anda, maka silahkan menantang COVID-19, namun jangan menularkan wabah kepada orang lain yang masih ingin hidup dan berhak untuk hidup.

Berdamai dengan Virus MEMATIKAN (mesin pembunuh pencabut nyawa)? Seolah COVID-19 belum cukup berbahaya. Berdamai, hanya mungkin terjadi ketika kedua belah pihak saling sepakat berdamai. Sejak kapan, sang Virus MEMATIKAN hendak berdamai dengan manusia? Sang virus TIDAK PERNAH KENAL KOMPROMI bahkan terhadap anak-anak dan lansia. Pemimpin yang baik, tidak MEMBODOHI rakyatnya sendiri. Jika kita mampu berdamai dengan Virus, sudah sejak lama rumah sakit kita sepi pasien. Mencari-cari penyakit, dengan taruhan nyawa sendiri dan nyawa orang lain yang tertular oleh yang merasa “kebal”. COVID-19 adalah real, nyata, mematikan, bukan sebuah mitos.

1 orang meninggal, adalah tragedi. Jangan katakan 1.000 orang tewas, adalah statistik. Berkat para “peremeh” demikian, rantai penularan wabah tidak kunjung usai di Republik ini, mungkin tidak lama lagi anak Anda atau keluarga Anda menjadi sasaran korban selanjutnya. Menunggu itu untuk benar-benar terjadi, sekalipun “menyesal selalu datang terlambat”? Satu orang kepala keluarga pencari nafkah menjadi korban jiwa COVID-19, artinya satu keluarga almarhum turut menjadi korban.

Pesan sosial “tidak populis” ini dipersembahkan oleh SHETRA & PARTNERS, sebagai bentuk belasungkawa sedalam-dalamnya bagi para korban jiwa wabah COVID-19, serta apresiasi atas kerja keras para tenaga medis, dimana kontribusi penularannya sedikit-banyak diakibatkan warga masyarakat yang meremehkan pandemik menular mematikan serta merasa “kebal” berkat pelindung “iman” (asumsi spekulatif).

FAKTA SELALU PAHIT, tidaklah perlu kita membohongi diri ataupun warga masyarakat dengan iming-iming “aman dengan cara meremehkan”, “perisai iman”, “menutup mata artinya tiada ancaman di depan mata”, “virus yang tidak berbahaya karena banyak yang sembuh”, ataupun “kesombongan diri yang masih sehat dikala wabah”. Cepat atau lambat, setiap orang pasti akan menua, sakit, dan mati. Kesombongan atas kesehatan Anda yang “masih sehat” dikala wabah merebak, pasti akan “jatuh sakit dan meninggal” pada akhirnya, dimana kesombongan Anda tidak akan kekal. Namun tidak dapat dibenarkan ketika diri Anda menjadi “agen penular” bagi orang-orang lain yang terancam tertular Virus Mematikan. Orang bijaksana tidak mencari-cari / menantang maut serta membawa resiko bagi orang lain akibat penyakit menular dari “orang (terinfeksi) tanpa gejala” (silent transmission).

Kesombongan dengan meremehkan ancaman wabah penyakit, merupakan bentuk KETIDAKPEDULIAN terhadap sesama, dengan membawa ancaman bagi sesama (carrier). Bila dari air yang kita minum dapat terinfeksi bakteri sehingga menderita diare, terlebih serangan virus menular yang telah terbukti MEMATIKAN.

Berbuat baik artinya, tidak menyakiti diri sendiri dan juga tidak merugikan orang lain.” [Sang Buddha]

[Iklan Resmi Terverifikasi] Butuh Jasa Pencarian Produk MADE IN THAILAND dan Impor ke Indonesia?

Disediakan jasa pencarian serta pengiriman produk dari Thailand & Impor ke Indonesia

[VIDEO] Uang adalah Sumber Kejahatan? Kekurangan Uang Justru Rentan menjadi Korban Kejahatan