Doing the Corporate Business with Piercing the Corporate Veil Doctrine: Indonesia, Us And Uk Perspective

  • Ng Catharina Enggar Kusuma International University of Batam
  • Fl. Yudhi Priyo Amboro International University of Batam
Keywords: Company Law, Corporate, Limited Liability, Piercing The Corporate Veil

Abstract

The absence of piercing the corporate veil doctrine in the Indonesian company law shows that the subsidiaries of such corporate groups are considered a separate legal personality, hence it is probably almost impossible to held the parent company liable for its subsidiaries’ legal actions under any conditions. This research adopted a normative legal research with a comparative law study method. The goal of this research is describe the implementation of piercing the corporate veil doctrine in Indonesia, US and UK, then to make the points of contribution of this doctrine to be regulated properly in Indonesia. In fact, piercing the corporate veil doctrine is implemented in Indonesia, although there was not any normative legal basis of the doctrine itself, whereas in US and UK, the doctrine is implemented and further developed through precedents. Therefore, since there is an evident relationship between a parent company and its subsidiary, whereby in certain cases the parent company can and should be held liable for the acts of its subsidiary, there should be a more explicit regulation regarding both corporate groups and piercing the corporate veil doctrine.

References

Adams v Cape Industries plc [1990] Ch 433.

DHN Food Distributors Ltd v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council [1976] WLR 852.

Gilford Motor Co Ltd v Horne [1993] Ch 935.

Jones v Lipman [1962] 1 W.L.R. 832.

Kinney Shoe Corp. v Polan, 939 F.2d 209 (4th Cir. 1991).

Leander, J. (2017). Penerapan Doktrin Piercing the Corporate Veil dalam Praktek Perseroan Terbatas dalam Putusan Mahkamah Agung Republik Indonesia (MARI) (Studi Putusan Perkara Nomor 1916/K/PDT/1991 dan Nomor 1311/K/PDT/2012) [Implementation of Piercing the Corporate Veil Do. Premise Law Jurnal, 22, 1–16. Retrieved from https://jurnal.usu.ac.id/index.php/premise/article/view/21676

Radaszewski by Radaszewski v Telecom Corp., 981 F.2d 305 (8th Cir. 1992).

Rissy, Y. Y. W. (2019). Doktrin Piercing the Corporate Veil: Ketentuan dan Penerapannya di Inggris, Australia dan Indonesia. Refleksi Hukum: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum, 4(1), 1–20. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.24246/jrh.2019.v4.i1.p1-20

Sulistiowati, & Antoni, V. (2013). Konsistensi Penerapan Doktrin Piercing the Corporate Veil pada Perusahaan Terbatas di Indonesia. Yustisia Jurnal Hukum, 2(3), 23–33. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.20961/yustisia.v2i3.10152

Published
2020-08-07
Section
Articles
Abstract viewed = 823 times
PDF downloaded = 975 times