Analisis Penerapan Doktrin Piercing the Corporate Veil Terhadap Direksi dan Komisaris yang Merangkap Sebagai Pemegang Saham Perseroan Terbatas dalam Gugatan Pihak Ketiga (Studi Kasus Putusan No.47/Pdt.G/2021/PN Mtr)

Abstract

A Limited Liability Company (PT) is a legal entity commonly used in business practices in Indonesia, as it provides protection to shareholders through the principle of limited liability. However, in some cases, this principle can be abused, particularly when actions by the board of directors, commissioners, or shareholders harm third parties. To address this, the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil can be applied to bypass the legal entity protection and hold the directors and shareholders personally liable. This research aims to analyze the application of the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil to directors and commissioners who also serve as shareholders in the context of third-party lawsuits. The research uses a normative legal method with a case study approach, specifically Case No. 47/Pdt.G/2021/PN Mtr. This case involves a third-party lawsuit against a PT that failed to meet its obligations in a construction project. Although there was evidence of abuse of the legal entity, the court only held the PT liable and did not apply the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil to the directors and commissioners. The research results show that, although this doctrine has the potential to provide legal protection to the harmed third parties, its application in Indonesia is still limited and often influenced by the court's caution. The application of this doctrine requires strong evidence of the abuse of the legal entity by the company's management. Additionally, the success of its application is greatly influenced by the judge's interpretation of the doctrine and the policy taken in assessing the legal protection of the company's legal entity. In conclusion, the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil plays an important role in ensuring justice for third parties who are harmed. However, its application in Indonesia still requires strengthening in both regulations and jurisprudence to ensure better protection for those harmed by the actions of irresponsible company management.