Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Putusan pernyataan pailit mengakibatkan harta kekayaan debitor dimasukkan dalam harta pailit sejak putusan tersebut dikeluarkan. Kepailitan meliputi seluruh kekayaan debitor pada saat putusan pernyataan pailit diucapkan serta segala sesuatu yang diperoleh selama kepailitan (Pasal 21 UU Nomor 37 Tahun 2004). Pengurusan harta pailit dilakukan oleh kurator yang ditetapkan dalam putusan pernyataan pailit tersebut. Pelaksanaan pengurusan harta pailit oleh kurator bersifat seketika, berlaku saat itu juga terhitung sejak putusan pailit diucapkan. Salah satu tugas kurator dalam melakukan pengurusan harta pailit adalah penjualan harta tersebut. UUKPKPU dalam Pasal 185 mengintrodusir dua cara penjualan harta pailit (asset-aset debitor), menjual didepan umum dan dibawah tangan dengan izin hakim pengawas. Penjualan dibawah tangan harta pailit merupakan penjualan tanpa terlibatnya pejabat kantor lelang. Sedangkan pada dasarnya penjualan harta pailit harus dilakukan secara penjualan lelang. Salah satu dasar hukumnya lelang adalah Peraturan Menteri Keuangan Nomor 27/PMK.06/2016 tentang Petunjuk Pelaksanaan Lelang. Sedangkan penjualan dibawah tangan tidak diatur jelas dalam UUKPKPU maupun di Undang-Undang lain dalam hal tata cara penjualan dibawah tangan itu sendiri. Kekosongan Hukum ini yang beresiko menimbulkan sengketa dikemudian hari atas kurator yang beritikad buruk. Tesis ini membahas mengenai kekosongan hukum yang terjadi pada UUKPKPU dalam hal penjualan dibawah tangan harta pailit dan upaya hukum yang ideal dalam menyelesaikan sengketa pengurusan harta pailit.

---

Bankruptcy assets since the decision was issued. Bankruptcy covers the entire wealth of the debtor at the time of the declaration of bankruptcy pronounced the decision of as well as everything that is obtained during the bankruptcy (Article 21 of Law No. 37 of 2004 on Bankruptcy and Suspension of Payment). Handling bankruptcy assets made by curators set out in the decision of the bankruptcy declaration. Implementation of the maintenance of bankruptcy assets by the curator is instantaneous, with immediate effect as from the bankruptcy decision is pronounced. One task of the curator in performing the maintenance of bankruptcy assets is the sale of such property. Law on Bankruptcy and Suspension of Payment Article 185 introduces two ways of selling bankruptcy assets (the debtor's assets), sold in public and under the arms with the permission of the supervisory judge. Sales under the hands of bankruptcy assets without the involvement of a sales office official auction. While basically the sale of bankruptcy assets must be made in auction sales. One of the legal basis auctions Minister of Finance Regulation No. 27 / PMK.06 / 2016 on Guidelines for the Implementation of the Auction. While sales are not regulated under the hands clearly in bankruptcy law and suspension of debt payments and in other Laws on the manner of sales under the hand itself. Emptiness This law is likely to cause a dispute later on curators who act in bad faith. This thesis discusses the legal vacuum that occurred on bankruptcy law and the postponement of debt payment obligations in terms of sales under the hands of bankruptcy assets and remedies are ideal in resolving disputes and the maintenance of bankruptcy assets."

"Kurator memiliki peranan yang penting dalam suatu kepailitan untuk melakukan pengurusan dan pemberesan harta pailit. Pasal 1 butir 5 Undangundang nomor 37 tahun 2004 tentang Kepailitan Dan Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang menyatakan bahwa yang dimaksud dengan Kurator adalah Balai Harta Peninggalan atau orang perseorangan yang diangkat oleh pengadilan untuk mengurus dan membereskan harta Debitor pailit di bawah pengawasan Hakim Pengawas. Dalam melaksanakan tugas pemberesan dan pengurusan harta pailit, Kurator harus independent dan tidak berpihak terhadap salah satu pihak. Akan tetapi dalam prakteknya tugas ini tidak mudah dan dapat dijalankan dengan mulus. Sulit sekali menjaga hubungan yang seimbang antara Kurator dengan Kreditor, Kurator dengan Debitor dan Kurator dengan Hakim Pengawas. Kurator dalam melaksanakan tugasnya harus dapat mendata/mengumpulkan harta Debitor, agar dapat membayarkan utang-utang Debitor terhadap para Kreditor. Dalam pelaksanaannya bisa saja Debitor tidak kooperatif, sehingga Kurator kesulitan menjalankan tugasnya. Kurator yang berpihak kepada Debitor dengan cara menutup-nutupi keberadaan harta pailit dapat berakibat tidak terbayarnya utang Debitor terhadap Kreditor. Kurator yang berpihak kepada Kreditor, sehingga dalam penjualan benda-benda harta pailit, tidak melelangnya dengan harta yang patut juga dapat merugikan Debitor.Independensi Kurator sangatlah penting dalam rangka pelaksanaan tugas Kurator dalam pengurusan dan pemberesan harta pailit pada suatu kepailitan, agar tugasnya dapat terlaksana dengan baik. Akibat dari Kurator yang tidak independent adalah tidak tercapainya keadilan dalam suatu pemberesan dan pengurusan harta pailit yang menjadi tugas Kurator. Oleh sebab itu sebelum menerima penunjukannya sebagai Kurator dalam suatu kepailitan, Kurator harus mengukur kemampuannya apakah mampu mengurus dan membereskan harta pailit, memeriksa apakah ada benturan kepentingan dengan salah satu pihak dan yakin dapat bersikap adil terhadap setiap pihak.

---

Receiver plays a significant role in a bankruptcy proceeding for administration and settlement proceedings of the bankrupt estate. Section 5 of Article 1 of Law number 37 of 2004 regarding Bankruptcy and Moratorium stipulates that the Receiver shall mean the Probate Court or an individual appointed by court for the purpose of administration and settlement of the bankrupt-Debtor?s assets under supervision of the Supervisory Judge. In performing the settlement and administration process upon the bankrupt estate, the Receiver must be independent and not in favour of either party. However, in practice, this stand is not easily and not smoothly carried out. It is a very heavy task to keep in balance positions between the Receiver and Creditors, Receiver and Debtor, and Receiver and the Supervisory Judge. The Receiver, in performing its duties, must be able to collect/gather the Debtor?s assets for the purpose of repayment of the Debtor?s debts to Creditors. In practice, it is possible that the Debtor is not cooperative and as a consequence, the Receiver will deal with barriers in performing its duties. The Receiver that stands for the Debtor by way of concealing the existence of the bankrupt estate may cause the Debtor?s debts owed to Creditors being unpaid. Otherwise, the Receiver that stands for Creditors which, in the disposal of the bankrupt estate, does not auction any appropriate assets will also bring about loss towards Debtor. Independence of the Receiver is crucial for the performance of the Receiver?s duties in administering and settling the bankrupt estate in a bankruptcy proceeding, in order that the duties of the Receiver can be performed well. The consequence of the Receiver which is not independent may cause fairness in the settlement and administration proceedings of the bankrupt estate under the Receiver?s duties can not be attained. Therefore, before accepting its appointment as a Receiver under a bankrupt proceeding, the Receiver must be aware of its capabilities in administering and settling the bankrupt estate and to examine whether there will be conflict of interest with either party, and certain that being able to be fair towards parties."

"Tesis ini membahas mengenai prosedur penyelesaian peralihan harta pailit yang dijual di bawah tangan dan kewenangan Notaris dalam membuat akta peralihan harta pailit yang dijual di bawah tangan diiringi analisis terhadap Putusan Mahkamah Agung Republik Indonesia Nomor 158 K/Pdt.Sus/2011. Penelitian ini adalah penelitian kualitatif dengan desain preskiptif. Hasil penelitian menyarankan agar prosedur penyelesaian peralihan harta pailit yang dijual di bawah tangan diatur secara jelas dalam peraturan pelaksana Undang-Undang Nomor 37 tahun 2004 tentang Kepailitan dan Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang; Notaris dalam menjalankan jabatannya harus teliti dan hati-hati dalam membuat akta terhadap kliennya khususnya mengenai peralihan harta pailit yang dijual di bawah tangan.

---

The main focus of this thesis is the completion procedure of sale under the hands of bankruptcy assets and notary authority in making the deed concerning the sale under the hands of bankruptcy assets, with study on Indonesian Supreme Court Decision Number 158 K/Pdt.Sus/2011. This research is qualitative with prescriptive design.

The researcher suggests that the completion procedure of sale under the hands of bankruptcy assets should be clearly regulated in implementing regulation of Law No. 37 of 2004 concerning Bankruptcy and Suspension of Payment; Notary in performing position should be thoroughly and carefully in making a Deed against the client especially concerning the sale under the hands of bankruptcy assets."

"ABSTRAKDalam hukum kepailitan, penjualan aset debitur merupakan poin penting karena penjualan aset pailit adalah tujuan dari UU Kepailitan. Masalah muncul jika ada harta pailit milik debitur yang berada di luar wilayah hukum negara Indonesia. Permasalahan tersebut muncul akibat penerapan asas kewilayahan yang dianut oleh negara Indonesia, yang mengakibatkan diterapkannya asas timbal balik. UU Kepailitan yang berlaku tidak menjelaskan secara lengkap eksekusi harta pailit yang berada di luar negeri, tetapi hanya mengatur bahwa seluruh harta kekayaan debitur pailit, baik di dalam negeri maupun di luar negeri. Namun permasalahan tersebut dapat diatasi dengan penerapan hukum perdata internasional yang memungkinkan kurator untuk melakukan eksekusi harta kekayaan pailit di luar negeri, yaitu dengan mengajukan permohonan penegakan putusan pengadilan, yaitu putusan pailit, dan dengan Indonesia mengadakan perjanjian atau perjanjian bilateral. multilateral.ABSTRACTIn bankruptcy law, the sale of debtor's assets is an important point because the sale of bankruptcy assets is the goal of the Bankruptcy Law. Problems arise if there is a debtor's bankruptcy property that is outside the jurisdiction of the Indonesian state. These problems arise as a result of the application of the territorial principle adhered to by the Indonesian state, which results in the application of the principle of reciprocity. The applicable Bankruptcy Law does not fully explain the execution of bankruptcy assets located abroad, but only stipulates that all assets of the bankrupt debtor, both domestically and abroad. However, this problem can be overcome by the application of international civil law which allows curators to carry out the execution of bankruptcy assets abroad, namely by submitting applications for enforcement of court decisions, namely bankruptcy decisions, and with Indonesia entering into bilateral agreements or agreements. multilateral."

"The process of the bankruptcy law is based on two important points. One is haw much assets owned by the Debtor can repay the loan, and two, when the Creditors can have their money returned. This thesis has tried to answer the above questions by examining the scope of boedel pailit (bankruptcy estate) in the Bankruptcy Law Act No.37/2004 and the process of auction which is the method to sell the bankruptcy estate. There is a scope enlargement relating to the bankruptcy estate in the decision of Supreme Court No.0i0/KINi2002 jo.no.016 Pk/N/2002. The Supreme Court has decided to judge the Guarantor's assets can also be considered as bankruptcy estate. The decision and the case have been examined in this thesis to find out the judge's considerations to include Guarantor's assets to the bankruptcy estate. The regulations of the auction have also been analyzed to find out the auction methods used and whether it is effective to sell the bankruptcy estate. The auction used in the study case is the process of auction to sell the Guarantor's assets (decision of the Supreme Court No.OIOIK/N/2002 jo.no.016 PKIN/2002) which surprisingly has taken 5 (five) years to sell it. Based on the above mentioned backgrounds, this thesis has been titled '' Auction as a Method to Sell Bankruptcy Estate: Study Case of the Supreme Court's Decision No.070IKINI2002 jo.no.016 PK4N12002; IBRA (Indonesian Bank Restructuring Agency) against Tafrizal Hasan Gewang, SH (Trustee)" The issues in this thesis are: - The trustee's authority as a legal representative of the bankruptcy debtor's estate to organize and to sell the estate. - The auction regulations in Indonesia. - The problems and solutions to sell bankruptcy estate in Indonesia through auction. The Trustee has a very large authority to organize and sell the bankruptcy estate_ the open process of the trustee's decision to organize and sell the estate often becomes the problems for the Creditors who consider the process to sell the estate has taken a very long time. In the meantime, the role of the trustee's observer, who is also the chairman of Creditors' meeting, must meet the expectations of both the Creditors and the Trustee. The lack of understanding from the Creditors for bankruptcy laws has decreased the role of the Creditors to make bankruptcy laws become efficient for them, because the Creditor's meeting can drive the chairman of the meeting to replace the trustee or to get information in detail about the trustee's process to sell the estate as regulated in the Bankruptcy Law Act No.37 (2004). The methods used in the auction also have created problems. For an example, the announcement of the auction in the media (newspapers) is still old fashioned and it does not attract people who have potential to buy the bankruptcy estate. The implementation of an auction should use up-to-date marketing strategies to target the potential buyers and should also use the current technology to make the auction process cheap, quick, and effective."

"Skripsi ini membahas mengenai kewenangan yang dimiliki oleh Kurator dalam mengambilalih harta dari pihak ketiga yang berada di atas tanah boedel pailit serta kewenangannya dalam mengakhiri perjanjian sewa-menyewa dan hak pengelolaan tanah secara sepihak. Tesis ini menggunakan penelitian yuridis normatif karena menitikberatkan pada penelitian kepustakaan yang intinya meneliti asas-asas hukum, sistematis hukum, dan sinkronisasi hukum dengan cara menganalisanya. Data yang diperoleh dianalisis dengan menggunakan metode deskriptif kualitatif. Pada akhirnya, Peneliti memperoleh kesimpulan bahwa putusan tidak sesuai dengan UUK-PKPU dan harta pihak ketiga tetap termasuk ke dalam boedel pailit sehingga kepengurusannya dapat diambilalih oleh Kurator.

---

This thesis discussed about Curator's authorities in taking over assets of third party which were built above the bankruptcy land owned by a bankrupt debtor and also the authority to make unilateral termination of rent agreement with land management rights in it. Furthermore, this thesis uses normative legal research because it focuses on the research literature that examines the core principles of law, the law systematically, and the synchronization of the law by analyzing them. The data obtained were analyzed using qualitative descriptive methods. Researcher came to conclusions that the decision of Supreme Court is not in accordance with Bankruptcy Act and the assets of third party are included in bankrupt assets, therefore they can be taken over by Curators."

"Skripsi ini membahas mengenai pembuktian sederhana dalam kepailitan, dengan studi kasus permohonan pernyataan pailit terhadap PT. Multi Structure. Dalam Pasal 8 ayat (4) Undang-Undang Nomor 37 Tahun 2004 tentang Kepailitan dan Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang (UUK-PKPU) telah diatur bahwa permohonan pernyataan pailit harus dikabulkan apabila terdapat fakta atau keadaan yang terbukti secara sederhana bahwa persyaratan untuk dinyatakan pailit sebagaimana dimaksud dalam Pasal 2 ayat (1) telah dipenuhi. Penelitian ini berbentuk penelitian yuridis normatif dengan tipologi penelitian deskriptif. Berdasarkan hal tersebut, penulis mengajukan pokok permasalahan, yaitu: 1. Apakah putusan Majelis Hakim Pengadilan Niaga Jakarta Pusat yang menolak permohonan pernyataan pailit PT. Multi Structure karena perbedaan jumlah utang telah sesuai dengan Pasal 8 ayat (4) UUK-PKPU?; 2. Bagaimana penerapan prinsip utang dalam putusan Majelis Hakim Pengadilan Niaga Jakarta Pusat yang menolak permohonan pernyataan pailit PT. Multi Structure ditinjau dari pembuktian sederhana? Berdasarkan kasus yang dianalisis, pada akhirnya penulis memperoleh kesimpulan bahwa putusan Majelis Hakim Pengadilan Niaga Jakarta Pusat yang menolak permohonan pernyataan pailit terhadap PT. Multi Structure tidak sesuai dengan UUK-PKPU.

---

The focus of this thesis is on the summary proof in bankruptcy, with a case study the petition for a declaration of bankruptcy towards of PT. Multi Structure. In Law Number 37 of 2004 regarding Bankruptcy and Suspension of Obligation for Payment of Debts (UUK-PKPU) in article 8 paragraph 4 has been regulated that the petition for declaration of bankruptcy shall be granted if there are facts or circumstances summarily proving that the conditions for a declaration of bankruptcy as reffered in article 2 paragraph 1 have been met. This research is a normative juridical with a descriptive tipology. Based on the problems, the writer proposed the main issues, which are: 1. Are whether the decision of the Judges of the Central Jakarta Commercial Court who refused the petition for a declaration of bankruptcy towards PT. Multi Structure because differences in the amount of debt in accordance with article 8 paragraph 4 UUK-PKPU?; 2. How the application of debt principle in the decision of the Judges of the Central Jakarta Commercial Court who refused the petition for a declaration of bankruptcy towards PT. Multi Structure in terms of summary proof? Eventually, the writer came to the conclusion that the decision of the Judges of the Central Jakarta Commercial Court who refused the petition for a declaration of"

"ABSTRAKSkripsi ini membahas mengenai pembuktian sederhana dalam kepailitan, denganstudi kasus permohonan pernyataan pailit terhadap PT. Multi Structure. DalamPasal 8 ayat (4) Undang-Undang Nomor 37 Tahun 2004 tentang Kepailitan danPenundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang (UUK-PKPU) telah diatur bahwapermohonan pernyataan pailit harus dikabulkan apabila terdapat fakta ataukeadaan yang terbukti secara sederhana bahwa persyaratan untuk dinyatakan pailitsebagaimana dimaksud dalam Pasal 2 ayat (1) telah dipenuhi. Penelitian iniberbentuk penelitian yuridis normatif dengan tipologi penelitian deskriptif.Berdasarkan hal tersebut, penulis mengajukan pokok permasalahan, yaitu: 1.Apakah putusan Majelis Hakim Pengadilan Niaga Jakarta Pusat yang menolakpermohonan pernyataan pailit PT. Multi Structure karena perbedaan jumlah utangtelah sesuai dengan Pasal 8 ayat (4) UUK-PKPU?; 2. Bagaimana penerapanprinsip utang dalam putusan Majelis Hakim Pengadilan Niaga Jakarta Pusat yangmenolak permohonan pernyataan pailit PT. Multi Structure ditinjau daripembuktian sederhana? Berdasarkan kasus yang dianalisis, pada akhirnya penulismemperoleh kesimpulan bahwa putusan Majelis Hakim Pengadilan Niaga JakartaPusat yang menolak permohonan pernyataan pailit terhadap PT. Multi Structuretidak sesuai dengan UUK-PKPU

---

ABSTRACTThe focus of this thesis is on the summary proof in bankruptcy, with a case studythe petition for a declaration of bankruptcy towards of PT. Multi Structure. InLaw Number 37 of 2004 regarding Bankruptcy and Suspension of Obligation forPayment of Debts (UUK-PKPU) in article 8 paragraph 4 has been regulated thatthe petition for declaration of bankruptcy shall be granted if there are facts orcircumstances summarily proving that the conditions for a declaration ofbankruptcy as reffered in article 2 paragraph 1 have been met. This research is anormative juridical with a descriptive tipology. Based on the problems, the writerproposed the main issues, which are: 1. Are whether the decision of the Judges ofthe Central Jakarta Commercial Court who refused the petition for a declaration ofbankruptcy towards PT. Multi Structure because differences in the amount of debtin accordance with article 8 paragraph 4 UUK-PKPU?; 2. How the application ofdebt principle in the decision of the Judges of the Central Jakarta CommercialCourt who refused the petition for a declaration of bankruptcy towards PT. MultiStructure in terms of summary proof? Eventually, the writer came to theconclusion that the decision of the Judges of the Central Jakarta CommercialCourt who refused the petition for a declaration of bankruptcy towards PT. MultiStructure has not in accordance with UUK-PKPU"

"ABSTRAKUU No. 37 Tahun 2004 tentang Kepailitan dan Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang UUK-PKPU merupakan penyempurnaan dari Peraturan Kepailitan yang lama yaitu Faillissementsverordening dan UU No. 4 Tahun 1998 tentang Kepailitan UUK . Penyempurnaan tersebut dilakukan agar dapat memenuhi kebutuhan dan mengatasi masalah yang timbul berkaitan dengan kepailitan. Namun walaupun telah terjadi perubahan dan penyempurnaan terhadap peraturan tersebut masih dijumpai masalah-masalah yang timbul terutama menganai percepatan waktu penagihan utang akselerasi . Dalam UKK dan Faillissementsverordening percepatan waktu penagihan utang akselerasi tidak diatur secara normatif. Sehingga hakim mempunyai diskresi untuk melakukan penemuan hukum secara berbeda-beda dalam setiap kasus. Dalam UUK-PKPU ditemukan ketentuan mengenai percepatan waktu penagihan utang akselerasi yatu pada penjelasan Pasal 2 ayat 1 UUK-PKPU namun ketentuan tersebut dirasakan masih kurang memadai. Hal ini terlihat dari pertimbangan hakim dalam putusan-putusan pada masa berlakunya UUK-PKPU yang melakukan interpretasi secara berbeda-beda dalam hal mengakui adanya percepatan waktu penagihan utang akselerasi . Sehingga tidak tercipta kepastian hukum bagi para kreditor maupun para debitor. Kata kunci: percepatan, penagihan, utang, akselerasi, kepailitan."

---

""ABSTRACT"Law Number 37 of 2004 UUK PKPU is a refinement of the old bankruptcy regulation of Faillissementsverordening Fv and Law Number 4 of 1998 UUK . Completion is done in order to meet the needs and solve problems that arise in connection with bankruptcy. However, despite the changes and improvements to the regulation, there are still problems that arise, especially in accelerating the timing of debt collection acceleration . In the UKK and Fv acceleration is not regulated normatively. So the judge has the discretion to make the discovery of the law differently in each case. In UUK PKPU acceleration found in the explanation of Article 2 paragraph 1 of UUK PKPU, but the provision is felt still inadequate. This can be seen from the judges consideration during the validity period of UUK PKPU which interpret differently about acceleration. Therefore that does not create legal certainty for the creditors and the debtors. Keywords billing, debt, acceleration, bankruptcy."

"ABSTRAKLikuidasi bank di Indonesia yang terjadi pada tahun 1997 dan 1999 telahmengguncang dunia perbankan di Indonesia. yang juga berdampak kepada Iesunyasektor rill di tanah air. Kebijakan pemerintah terhadap likuidasi bank sangat tidakjelas, karena tidak adanya konsistensi oleh pemerintah mengenai penjeIasan tentangfaktor-faktor yang yang mengakibatkan pemerintah melikuidasi bank. Oleh karena itupenulis berusaha dan manganalisa faktor-faktor yang mempengaruhi likuidasi batik diIndonesia. Penelitian-penelitian yang telah dilakukan sebelumnya hanyak dilakukandengan menggunakan variabel-variabel rasio keuangan seperti CAMEL, LDR, ROEdan sebagainya. Dalam penelitian ini penulis mencoba untuk menambah variabel nonkeuangan yaltu campur tangan pemegang saham dalam kepengurusan (CTPS)disamping rasio-rasio keuangan seperti ;(i) Rasio likuiditas (Loan to Deposit Ratio:LDR), (ii) Rasio Permodalan (Modal terhadap aktiva produktif :MA), (iii) RasioProfitabiliias (Return On Equity :ROE), (iv) Rasio Pertumbuhan ( PertumbuhanAktiva :Pr_Ak), (y) Rasio Etsiensi Manajemen (Rasio jumlah kantor terhadapPendapatan Operasional :KPO), (vi) Size (Ln Asset). Penelitian dilakukan dengan menggunakan metoda linear logistic terhadap 80bank di Indonesia secara cross section dan datapooled, berdasarkan laporan keuangandalam Direktori Perbankan Indonesia untuk kurun waktu tahun 1992-1997. Penelitiandilakukan dengan dua model, yaitu tanpa memasukan variabel Size (Model I), dandengan memasukkan variabel Size sebagai controlling variabel (Model 2), Penelitiberasumsi bahwa Size suatu bank sangat berpengaruh terhadap kebijakan Pernerintahuntuk melikuidasi bank. Hasil penelitian yang didapat ternyata, pada model 1 variabel yang signifikansecara berurut-urut adalah CTPS, LDR, dan ROE. Sedangkan pada model 11, ketikaunsur size dimasukkan sebagai variabel, maka variabel yang signifikan secara beruruturuut adalah Size, MA. ROE dan LDR. Size merupakan ukuran penting yangmembuktikan bahwa bank-bank besar cenderung untuk tidak dilikuidasi olehpemerintah dengan alasan nilai strategis bank tersebut yaitu sebagai bank pemerintahataupun memiliki personnel yang besar, sehingga apabila dilikuidasi akan tímbulsocial cost yang tidak diinginkan. Campur tangan pemegang saham terhadapmanajemen ternyata belum mempengaruhi performa bank, yang dapat mempengaruhibank dilikuidasi. Hal ini berarti bahwa Principal Agency relationship problem tidakterjadi di Indonesia. Untuk penelitian secara cross section belum dapat memprediksiIlkuidasi bank di Indonesia karena dari tahun-ke tahun tidak ada vaniabel yang secarakonsisten dan dominan yang mempengaruhi likuidasi bank."