Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"The creditors are considered as unsecured creditors if they are relying only to article 1131 and 1132 of the Civil Code. In order to become a secured creditor, a security agreement must be made. Many financial institutions are now prefer securing its credit by pledge of shares of customer?s enterprise. This article focuses on the legal issues regarding the validity and execution on the pledge share agreement."

"[Perjanjian simulasi merupakan suatu perjanjian dimana peristiwa hukum dalam perjanjian tersebut tidak benar-benar terjadi. Pernjanjian simulasi banyam dibuat oleh pihak-pihak yang menghendaki adanya akibat hukum dari pernjanjian simulasi tersebut meskipun peristiwa hukum yang diperjanjikan adalah suatu hal atau kausa yang palsu karena tidak benar-benar terjadi. Penulisan tesis ini adalah untuk meneliti kekuatan hukum dan kekuatan pembuktian dari pernjanjian simulasi dengan menggunakan metode penelitian library reserach dengan menggunakan studi dokumen dan wawancara narasumber sebagai alat pengumpul data. Dari hasil penelitian tersebut dapat dinyatakan bahwa sesuai Pasal 1335 KUHPerdata, suatu perjanjian tanpa sebab atau yang telah dibuat karena sesuatu sebab yang palsu atau terlarang, tidak mempunyai kekuatan. Kausa yang palsu dapat terjadi jika suatu kausa yang tidak sesuai dengan keadaan sebenarnya atau kausa yang disimulasikan. Dengan demikian pernjanjian simulasi tidak memiliki kekuatan hukum mengikat dan oleh karenanya tidak memiliki kekuatan hukum mengikat.;Simulation agreement is an agreement where the legal events on the agreement is not actually occurring. Many simulations agreement made by the parties who requires the legal consequences of the simulated agreement eventhough the legal event on the agreement is a false causes since it does not really occur. This thesis is to examine the legal force and evidentiary force of the simulation agreement with using libraryresearch method with document study and interview as the method of data collecting. From the result of the examination, in accordance with Article 1335 of Indonesia Civil Code, an agreement without cause or which have been made with a false matter or prohibited reasons, does not have a legal force. A False causes can occur in case that causes is not correspond to the actual circumstances or that is a simulated causes. Therefore the simulation agreement does not have a binding legal force and therefore does not have an evidentiary force, Simulation agreement is an agreement where the legal events on the agreement is notactually occurring. Many simulations agreement made by the parties who requires thelegal consequences of the simulated agreement eventhough the legal event on theagreement is a false causes since it does not really occur. This thesis is to examine thelegal force and evidentiary force of the simulation agreement with using libraryresearch method with document study and interview as the method of data collecting.From the result of the examination, in accordance with Article 1335 of IndonesiaCivil Code, an agreement without cause or which have been made with a false matteror prohibited reasons, does not have a legal force. A False causes can occur in casethat causes is not correspond to the actual circumstances or that is a simulated causes.Therefore the simulation agreement does not have a binding legal force and thereforedoes not have an evidentiary force]"

"Konsep nominee berasal dari Pranata Hukum Trust yang berasal dari Tradisi Hukum Common Law. Dapat masuk konsep nominee-nya di Indonesia yang menggunakan Tradisi Hukum Civil Law, dilatarbelakangi oleh adanya proses perdagangan lintas negara dan proses globalisasi. Dalam praktiknya, konsep nominee dapat digunakan karena adanya sistem hukum terbuka dan asas kebebasan berkontrak pada hukum perjanjian di Indonesia. Namun perlu diingat agar suatu perjanjian sah dan memiliki kekuatan hukum maka perjanjian tersebut harus memenuhi syarat sah perjanjian, salah satunya ‘sebab yang halal’.Di Indonesia, terdapat peraturan yang melarang praktik nominee atas saham, yaitu pasal 33 ayat (1) dan (2) Undang Undang Penanaman Modal. Dengan adanya ketentuan tersebut maka perjanjian yang terdapat ketentuan nominee atas saham adalah perjanjian yang batal demi hukum. Kemudian, sesuai dengan ketentuan pasal 584 KUHPer, Indonesia menerapkan sistem penyerahan kausal dimana sah atau tidaknya perjanjian obligator juga akan mempengaruhi sah atau tidaknya proses penyerahan hak milik. Dengan demikian, penyerahan hak milik atas saham PT KISB yang didasari oleh perjanjian jual beli saham yang terdapat ketentuan nominee saham tidaklah sah.

---

Nominee concept come from Legal Institution Trust which is come from Common Law Legal Tradition. The Inclusion of nominee concept in Indonesia, who use Civil Law Legal Tradition, is caused by the international trading and globalization. In practice, nominee concept can be used because of open system and principle of freedom of contract in Law Agreement in Indonesia. But it must be remembered, that agreement should follows the requisite legal agreement, which one of them is ‘legal cause’.

In Indonesia, there is a regulation that prohibit the practice of nominee share, and that regulation is article 33 paragraph (1) and (2) of Investment Law. So, with that regulation, any agreement contained the nominee share clause will be null and void. Then refer to the article 584 of The Books of Civil Law, Indonesia use the causal system, where in this system the validity of the obligator agreement will be influence the validity of the transfer ownership process. Thus, the transfer ownership of PT KIBS shares, which are based on share purchase agreement that contained nominee share clause, is invalid."

"Tesis ini membahas mengenai instrument pasar modal berupa RepurchaseAgreement saham yang merupakan jual beli saham dengan mekanisme pembeliankembali ketika jatuh tempo dengan harga tertentu. Perusahaan melakukantransaksi repo dengan alasan membutuhkan dana dengan waktu yang cepat danmudah, namun risiko yang terdapat pada transaksi repo ini juga cukup besar salahsatu risiko nya adalah default oleh salah satu pihak dalam perjanjian Repo.Keadaan default dalam Repo dapat dipengaruhi oleh beberapa hal salah satunyadipengaruhi oleh tindakan manipulasi pasar yang dilarang oleh UUPM. Risikodefault ini dapat menyebabkan keadaan wanprestasi. Dalam kurun waktu yanglalu pasar modal Indonesia dilanda krisis yang menyebabkan penurunan hargasaham bagi perusahaan yang melakukan transaksi Repo harus menanggung risikountuk membayar kekurangan dana atau melakukan top up saham karena sahamyang menjadi underlying transaksi mengalami penurunan nilai akibat krisisfinansial tersebut. Penurunan nilai saham tersebut menyebabkan turunnya rasiojaminan saham yang menjadi underlying perjanjian Repo tersebut, mekanisme topup yang terdapat pada Repo digunkan untuk menutupi turunnya rasio jaminansaham. Namun apabila mekanisme top up tidak dapat dilakuan oleh penjual repomaka yang terjadi adalah wanprestasi terhadap perjanjian repo. Pada tesis inidibahas studi kasus pada saham SIAP yang default dalam transaksi Repo dimanadefault nya transaksi Repo SIAP dipengaruhi oleh indikasi transaksi semu yangdilakukan pihak penjual Repo SIAP.

---

This thesis discusses the Share Repurchase Agreement, a capital market

instrument which comprises the buying and selling of shares arranged with a

repurchase mechanism at a specified price by the time the repurchase is due.

Companies enter into repurchase agreements (also known as repo transactions) to

quickly and easily acquire funds. However, the risk of default by one of the

parties of a repo transaction is also quite significant to the transaction. The state of

default within a repo transaction may be influenced by several circumstances, one

of which is the action of market manipulation prohibited by Law Number 8 of

1995 concerning the Capital Market. This risk of default may cause the state of a

breach of the repurchase agreement. During a certain period ago, the Indonesian

capital market was struck by a crisis that led to a decrease in the share prices of

companies that conducted repo transactions. Those companies had to bear the

risks of either paying the shortage of funds or to conduct the top-up of shares, for

the reason that the shares which constituted the underlying assets of the

transactions were devalued as a result of the financial crisis. This decline in share

value caused the decline in the ration of the share collateral as the underlying asset

of the repo transaction. The top-up mechanism contained in the repo transaction is

used to cover the decline in the ration of share collateral. However, if the top-up

mechanism cannot be conducted by the seller of the repo transaction, then a

breach of the repurchase agreement has emerged. This thesis conducts a case

study on the shares of SIAP which defaulted in its repo transaction. Its default is

influenced by an indication of false transactions carried out by the seller of the

SIAP repo."

"ABSTRAKTerkait dengan parate eksekusi didalam ketentuan eksekusi gadai saham, pelaksanaan gadai saham pada praktiknya menimbulkan permasalahan hukum, khususnya dalam pengeksekusiannya. Hal tersebut ditandai dengan adanya penafsiran yang berbeda mengenai eksekusi gadai saham oleh praktisi hukum maupun yang dihasilkan oleh pengadilan, khususnya Mahkamah Agung Republik Indonesia, terkait dengan pengaturan jangka waktu dalam perjanjian gadai itu sendiri. Hal ini menggambarkan belum ada kesamaan penafsiran terhadap eksekusi gadai saham di Indonesia. Tentunya, perbedaan-perbedaan penafsiran inilah yang nantinya dalam praktik menimbulkan ketidakpastian hukum, khususnya yang terjadi dalam sengketa perjanjian gadai saham antara PT. BFI Finance, Tbk (PT. BFI) selaku pemegang gadai dengan PT. Ongko Multicorpora (PT. OM) dan PT. Aryaputra Teguharta (PT. APT) selaku pemberi gadai. PT.APT dan PT. OM mendalilkan jangka waktu Perjanjian Gadai Saham adalah 12 (dua belas) bulan terhitung sejak tanggal perjanjian, karena itu tanggal jatuh tempo Akta Gadai Saham adalah 1 Juni 2000 dan akibat hukum berakhirnya jangka waktu gadai adalah objek gadai, yaitu saham-saham yang digadaikan Pemberi Gadai sudah tidak lagi terikat sebagai jaminan hutang kepada PT.BFI. oleh karena itu pelaksanaan eksekusi gadai saham oleh PT. BFI dengan menjual saham-saham milik Pemberi Gadai pada tanggal 9 Februari 2001 dianggap sebagai perbuatan melawan hukum. Berdasarkan dalil Pemberi Gadai tersebut, Majelis Hakim Agung dalam putusan Mahkamah Agung No. 240 PK/pdt/2006 mengabulkan gugatan Pemberi Gadai (PT. APT) dan menyatakan tidak sah pelaksanaan eksekusi atas gadai saham yang dilakukan PT. BFI. Namun terhadap Putusan Permohonan Peninjauan Kembali No. 240 PK/Pdt/2006 tanggal 20 Februari 2007 ternyata terdapat perbedaan baik didalam pertimbangan dan hasil putusan yang kemudian diajukan oleh PT. OM dalam Putusan Peninjauan Kembali Mahkamah Agung RI No. 115 PK/Pdt.2007 dimana pelaksanaan eksekusi gadai saham oleh PT.BFI adalah sah menurut hukum. Untuk menjawab permasalahan perbedaan penafsiran tersebut, dilakukan penelitian secara normative terhadap putusan Mahkamah Agung dan peraturan perundang-undangan yang mendasarinya. Pengolahan data secara kualitatif, sedangkan pengambilan kesimpulan dilakukan dengan menggunakan logika deduktif. Dengan metode ini diharapkan kesimpulan yang disampaikan dalam tesis ini dapat menjawab permasalahan kepastian hukum mengenai pelaksanaan eksekusi atas gadai saham, dalam hal jangka waktu perjanjian gadai telah berakhir tetapi hutang debitor belum dilunasi seluruhnya.

---

ABSTRACTThe implementation of pledge on shares raises legal issues, particularly in the enforcement of the execution in the provision of pledge on shares. It is characterized by the existence of different interpretations regarding to legal opinion of the execution on pledge of shares, related to period time in pledge of shares agreement, by legal practitioners nor the Court, especially the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia. This illustrates that the execution of pledge of shares in Indonesia has not yet had similar interpretation in legal framework of pledge. The differences of this interpretation is what will create legal uncertainty, especially those that occur in pledge of shares agreement disputes between PT. BFI Finance Tbk (PT BFI) as "pledgee" with PT. Ongko Multicorpora (PT OM) and PT. Aryaputra Teguharta (PT APT) as "pledgor". PT.APT and PT. OM postulated that Pledge of Shares Agreement term is during 12 (twelve) months from the date of the agreement, hence the agreement is ended in June 1, 2000. The expiry of period time in pledge of shares agreement is that pledge property, the shares which is guaranteed by pledgor is no longer bound as collateral to PT.BFI as pledgee. Therefore the execution of pledge of shares by PT. BFI which selling the pledgor shares on February 9, 2001 is considered as a tort. Based on the pledgor arguments, the Supreme Council of Judges in judicial review of the Supreme Court decision No. 240 PK/pdt/2006 fulfill pledgor (PT APT) petition and outlawed the execution of the pledged shares selling by PT. BFI. However, the Petition for Judicial Review Decision of supreme court No. 240 PK/Pdt/2006 dated February 20, 2007 turned out there is a controversial. It is because of difference both in judgment and the verdict which was then filed by PT. OM in judicial review of the Supreme Court decision No. 115 PK/Pdt.2007. Its judge that the enforcement of execution of pledged shares by PT. BFI was lawful. This Thesis is using a normative research towards the supreme court verdict and legislation underlying to answer the legal issues which has proposed above. In addition, it uses Qualitative data processing, while the conclusions made with deductive logic. With these method are expected conclusions presented in its can answer the problem of legal certainty regarding the execution of the pledge on shares, especially in which case the contract period has ended but debtor has not fulfill the debt."

"[Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui mengenai kekuatan hukumklausula mengenai gadai saham yang akan ada dikemudian hari dalam suatu akta gadai saham, dan bagaimana implikasi menjadikan saham yang akan ada dikemudian hari tersebut sebagai agunan atas suatu perjanjian pokok. Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian hukum yuridis normatif dengan menggunakan data sekunder, diantaranya peraturan perundang-undangan dan buku. Dari hasil penelitian diperoleh kesimpulan bahwa saham yang akan ada dikemudian hari belum dapat dijadikan benda jaminan, namun saham tersebut baru dapat dijadikansebagai benda gadai setelah saham tersebut lahir dan ada. Hal ini dikarenakan pengaturan gadai dalam Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Perdata mensyaratkan suatu penyerahan atau inbezitstelling dari pemberi gadai kepada penerima gadai sebagai syarat agar sahnya suatu gadai yang mana baru dapat dilakukan apabila benda jaminan tersebut telah lahir dan ada.;This research aims to find out the legal force of a clause in a Pledge of Shares Agreement that portend to pledge a shares that would exist in the future as a collateral, and to find out the enforcement of it. The methode of this research is normative juridical law by using secondary data, such as legislation, and books. From this research, it is concluded, that shares that have not existed is unable and not eligible to be an object of pledge, but it will be eligible to be a collateral as an object of pledge when the shares are born and exist. It is as regulated on Indonesian Civil Code that assign inbezitstelling as mandatory provision to pledge an object. Inbezitstelling or handover will be able to held when the object of inbezitstelling is born and exist.;This research aims to find out the legal force of a clause in a Pledge of Shares Agreement that portend to pledge a shares that would exist in the future as a collateral, and to find out the enforcement of it. The methode of this research is normative juridical law by using secondary data, such as legislation, and books. From this research, it is concluded, that shares that have not existed is unable and not eligible to be an object of pledge, but it will be eligible to be a collateral as anobject of pledge when the shares are born and exist. It is as regulated on Indonesian Civil Code that assign inbezitstelling as mandatory provision to pledge an object. Inbezitstelling or handover will be able to held when the object of inbezitstelling is born and exist., This research aims to find out the legal force of a clause in a Pledge ofShares Agreement that portend to pledge a shares that would exist in the future asa collateral, and to find out the enforcement of it. The methode of this research isnormative juridical law by using secondary data, such as legislation, and books.From this research, it is concluded, that shares that have not existed is unable andnot eligible to be an object of pledge, but it will be eligible to be a collateral as anobject of pledge when the shares are born and exist. It is as regulated onIndonesian Civil Code that assign inbezitstelling as mandatory provision to pledgean object. Inbezitstelling or handover will be able to held when the object ofinbezitstelling is born and exist.]"