Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Kepailitan merupakan salah satu jalan yang dapat ditempuh untuk menyelesaikan permasalahan utang piutang antara debitor dan para kreditor, upaya kepailitan yang demikian sering juga ditempuh oleh para kreditor terhadap perusahaan-perusahaan pertambangan batubara yang ada di Indonesia. Hal demikian wajar adanya, namun di antara pailitnya perusahaan-perusahaan tambang tersebut, ada kurator yang mengupayakan agar perusahaan pertambangan batubara yang telah dinyatakan pailit oleh Pengadilan Niaga Indonesia tersebut tetap dilanjutkan olehnya (going concern) demi meningkatkan nilai harta pailit guna melunasi utang-utang yang dimiliki oleh debitor pailit tersebut. Akan tetapi, upaya going concern tersebut ialah bertentangan dengan hukum, karena berdasarkan Pasal 33 ayat (3) UUD 1945, serta asas dan ketentuan yang terkandung di dalam UU Pertambangan Mineral dan Batubara, dan juga teori tentang barang yang mengandung makna kepentingan publik (public interest) berupa public ownership, diketahui bahwa batubara merupakan sumber daya alam tak terbarukan milik bangsa Indonesia atau dalam hal ini ialah milik seluruh rakyat Indonesia, yang penggunaan dan pemanfaatannya tidaklah boleh berorientasi kepada kepentingan individu atau golongan semata, namun harus berorientasi kepada kepentingan bangsa untuk sebesar-besarnya kemakmuran rakyat. Maka dari itu, batubara yang masih ada di dalam perut bumi Indonesia ataupun yang iuran produksi atau royaltinya belum dibayarkan lunas sebelum perusahaan pertambangan batubara tersebut dinyatakan pailit tidaklah dapat dianggap sebagai kekayaan dari debitor pailit dalam konteks kekayaan yang sudah ada maupun dalam konteks kekayaan yang baru akan ada di kemudian hari selama berlangsungnya kepailitan.

---

Bankruptcy is one of the options for resolving debt problems between debtors and creditors. In Indonesia, creditors occasionally file for bankruptcy against coal mining companies. This is understandable, but among the bankruptcies of these mining companies, there is a curator who strives for the coal mining company that has been declared bankrupt by the Indonesian Commercial Court to be continued by him (going concern) that one may increase the value of the bankrupt assets in order to pay off the bankrupt debtor's debts. On the other hand, this type of going concern exercise is against the law, because it is based on Article 33 paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution, as well as the principles and provisions of the Mineral and Coal Mining Law, along with the theory about goods that contain the meaning of public interest, in the form of public ownership, it is well known that coal is a non-renewable natural resource that belongs to the Indonesian people, or in this case, to the entire Indonesian people, and that its use and utilization should not be oriented solely to the interests of individuals or groups, but must be oriented to the interests of the nation for the maximum benefit and prosperity of the people. As a result, coal that is still in Indonesia's bowels or whose production fees or royalties have not been paid in full before the coal mining company is declared bankrupt cannot be considered the bankrupt debtor's wealth in the context of existing assets or new assets to be acquired at a later date during the course of the bankruptcy."

"ABSTRACTAsas kelangsungan usaha merupakan salah satu asas dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 37 Tahun 2004 tentang Kepailitan dan Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang UUK- PKPU. Di dalam Penjelasan Umum UUK-PKPU, pengertian asas kelangsungan usaha adalah memungkinkan perusahaan debitor yang prospektif tetap dilangsungkan. Berdasarkan pengertian tersebut, asas kelangsungan usaha di Indonesia diberikan dalam konteks perusahaan yang telah dinyatakan pailit. Seharusnya penerapan asas kelangsungan usaha dimaknai secara lebih luas yang juga meliputi keseluruhan proses penjatuhan putusan pailit. Hal ini bertujuan agar hukum kepailitan tidak hanya semata- mata melindungi kepentingan kreditor untuk mendapatkan pembayaran atas piutangnya, tapi juga melindungi hak debitor terutama debitor yang masih solven. Oleh karena itu, penelitian ini membahas mengenai penerapan asas kelangsungan usaha di Indonesia berdasarkan Undang-Undang Nomor 37 Tahun 2004 tentang Kepailitan dan Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang melalui perkara kepailitan dalam Putusan Nomor 13/Pdt.Sus-Pailit/2017/Pn.Jkt.Pst dan juga membahas mengenai penerapan asas kelangsungan usaha di Amerika Serikat berdasarkan United States Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978.

---

ABSTRACTThe principle of going concern is one of the principles in Law Number 37 of 2004 on Bankruptcy and Suspension of Obligation for Payment of Debts UUK PKPU. In the General of UUK PKPU, the definition of going concern principle is that enable a prospective company of the debtor to survive. Based on this definition, going concern principle in Indonesia is given in the context of companies that have been declared bankrupt. Supposedly the implementation of going concern principle is interpreted more broadly which also covers the whole process of bankruptcy ruling. It is intended that the law of bankruptcy is not merely to protect the interests of creditors to get payment of their receivables, but also to protect the right of debtor, especially the debtor who is still solvent. Therefore, this study discusses the implementation of the going concern principle in Indonesia based on Law Number 37 of 2004 on Bankruptcy and Suspension of Obligation for Payment of Debts through bankruptcy case Verdict Number 13 Pdt.Sus Pailit 2017 Pn.Jkt.Pst and also discuss about the implementation of going concern principle in United States based on United States Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978. "

"Asas kelangsungan usaha (Going Concern) merupakan salah satu asas yang diatur dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 37 Tahun 2004 tentang Kepailitan dan PKPU. Perusahaan yang telah diputus pailit dengan segala akibat hukumnya tidak selalu berakhir dengan pemberesan, dimana peluang supaya usaha kembali dilanjutkan masih dimungkinkan dan tentu dengan tujuan untuk meningkatkan boedel pailit. Namun menurut peraturan perundang-undangan dalam hukum pertambangan, asas kelangsungan usaha bisa terhenti apabila ijin dicabut oleh Kementerian Energi dan Sumber Daya Mineral (ESDM) apabila suatu perusahaan dijatuhi pailit, meskipun berstatus going concern. Oleh karena itu, dalam tesis ini akan dibahas lebih lanjut berkaitan dengan Tindakan Kementerian Energi dan Sumber Daya Mineral (ESDM) yang mencabutijin perusahaan pailit walaupun telah dinyatakan going concern oleh pengadilan.

---

The principle of business continuity is one of the principles regulated in Law Number 37 of 2004 concerning Bankruptcy and Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations. Companies that have been declared bankrupt with all the legal consequences do not always end with settlements, where the opportunity for business to be resumed is still possible and of course with the aim of increasing the bankrupt account. However, according to the laws and regulations in mining law, the principle of business continuity can be stopped if the permit is revoked by the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources (ESDM) if a company is declared bankrupt, even though it has a going concern status. Therefore, in this thesis, we will discuss further regarding the action of the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources (ESDM) which revoked the bankrupt company's license even though it had been declared a going concern by the court."

"[ABSTRAKPenelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui pengaruh pergantian kantor akuntan publik, ukuran kantor akuntan publik, dan penerapan good corporate governance (yang terdiri dari ukuran dewan komisaris, proporsi komisaris independen, jumlah rapat dewan komisaris, ukuran komite audit, kompetensi komite audit, dan jumlah rapat komite audit) terhadap audit report lag. Penelitian ini juga menggunakan empat buah variabel kontrol, yaitu: profitabilitas perusahaan, ukuran perusahaan, opini going concern, dan jenis industri.Pengujian hipotesis dilakukan dengan menggunakan uji regresi linier berganda terhadap 331 perusahaan yang tercatat di Bursa Efek Indonesia per 31 Desember 2013. Sampel penelitian diperoleh melalui metode purposive sampling.Penelitian ini memberikan bukti empiris bahwa ukuran dewan komisaris, jumlah rapat dewan komisaris, ukuran komite audit, jumlah rapat komite audit, profitabilitas perusahaan, dan jenis industri berpengaruh negatif terhadap audit report lag. Penelitian ini juga memberikan bukti empiris bahwa ukuran perusahaan dan opini going concern berpengaruh positif terhadap audit report lag. Namun demikian, penelitian ini tidak dapat memberikan bukti yang cukup untuk menjelaskan pengaruh dari pergantian kantor akuntan publik, ukuran kantor akuntan publik, proporsi komisaris independen, dan kompetensi komite audit terhadap audit report lag.

---

ABSTRACTThe objective of this research is to examine the effect of audit firm changes, audit firm size, and good corporate governance implementation (which consists of the board of commissioner size, independent board of commissioner proportion, number of board of commissioner meetings, audit committee size, audit committee?s competence, and number of audit committee meetings) on audit report lag. This research also uses four control variables: the profitability of the company, the size of the company, going concern opinion, and the type of industry.The hypotheses testing is done by using multiple linear regression of 331 listed companies in the Indonesia Stock Exchange of December 31, 2013. The samples are taken by using purposive sampling method.The research provides empirical evidence that board of commissioner size, number of board of commissioner meetings, audit committee size, number of audit committee meetings, the profitability of the company, and the type of industry have a negative effect on audit report lag. This research also provides empirical evidence that the size of the company, and going concern opinion have a positive effect on audit report lag. However, this research can not provide sufficient evidence to explain the effect of audit firm changes, audit firm size, independent board of commissioner proportion, and audit committee?s competence on audit report lag., The objective of this research is to examine the effect of audit firm changes, audit firm size, and good corporate governance implementation (which consists of the board of commissioner size, independent board of commissioner proportion, number of board of commissioner meetings, audit committee size, audit committee’s competence, and number of audit committee meetings) on audit report lag. This research also uses four control variables: the profitability of the company, the size of the company, going concern opinion, and the type of industry.The hypotheses testing is done by using multiple linear regression of 331 listed companies in the Indonesia Stock Exchange of December 31, 2013. The samples are taken by using purposive sampling method.The research provides empirical evidence that board of commissioner size, number of board of commissioner meetings, audit committee size, number of audit committee meetings, the profitability of the company, and the type of industry have a negative effect on audit report lag. This research also provides empirical evidence that the size of the company, and going concern opinion have a positive effect on audit report lag. However, this research can not provide sufficient evidence to explain the effect of audit firm changes, audit firm size, independent board of commissioner proportion, and audit committee’s competence on audit report lag.]"

"Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk meneliti ada tidaknya perbedaan pengaruh abnormal audit fees terhadap kualitas audit, antara KAP Big 4 dengan non-Big 4, yang diukur melalui nilai akrual diskresioner dan kecenderungan pemberian opini going concern bagi perusahaan yang mengalami masalah keuangan. Sampel merupakan 109 perusahaan non-keuangan di Indonesia yang melaporkan biaya audit selama periode 2013-2015, diperoleh menggunakan metode purposive sampling. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa abnormal audit fees signifikan mempengaruhi akrual diskresioner secara negatif, dengan penggunaan auditor Big 4 memperlemah pengaruh tersebut, namun penggunaan auditor non-Big 4 tidak berpengaruh. Hasil lainnya menunjukkan bahwa abnormal audit fees secara signifikan negatif mempengaruhi probabilitas pemberian opini going concern bagi perusahaan yang mengalami masalah keuangan, dengan penggunaan auditor Big 4 memperlemah pengaruh tersebut, namun penggunaan auditor non-Big 4 tidak berpengaruh. Kedua hasil tersebut menunjukkan bahwa ada perbedaan pengaruh dari abnormal audit fees pada KAP Big 4 dengan non-Big 4, terhadap kualitas audit.

---

This study aims to examine whether there is a difference in the effect of abnormal audit fees on audit quality, between Big 4 and non Big 4 audit firms, as measured by discretionary accrual and going concern opinion for companies experiencing financial problems. The sample is 109 non financial companies in Indonesia that report audit fees during 2013 2015, obtained using purposive sampling method.

The results show that abnormal audit fees significantly influence discretionary accruals negatively, with the use of big4 auditors undermine those influences. Other results indicate that abnormal audit fees have negative significant effect on the probability of going concern opinion for firms with financial difficulties, with the use of big4 auditors undermine those influences. Both results indicate that there is a difference in the effect of abnormal audit fees on audit quality between Big 4 and non Big 4 audit firms. "

"Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui pengaruh financing restatement terhadap pertumbuhan dan risiko kebangkrutan pada perusahaan non-keuangan yang terdaftar di Bursa Efek Indonesia (BEI) periode 2008-2017. Pertumbuhan perusahaan diukur menggunakan pendekatan Internally Financed Growth (IFG) dan Externally Financed Growth (EFG), dimana pendekatan tersebut memiliki tiga proxy, serta risiko kebangkrutan diukur dengan Altman Z Score. Total sampel yang digunakan mencakup 256 perusahaan dengan gaps pada tahun 2013-2014. Metode yang digunakan untuk menentukan sampel menggunakan purposive sampling. Penelitian ini menggunakan regresi data panel, dengan data yang bersifat unbalanced panel sehingga jumlah observasi sebesar 2013 firm-year. Hasil yang ditemukan bahwa terdapat pengaruh negatif dan signifikan antara restatement terhadap pertumbuhan perusahaan. Berarti kegiatan restatement dapat menurunkan tingkat pertumbuhan perusahaan non-keuangan di Indonesia yang dibiayai secara eksternal. Namun tidak terdapat pengaruh yang signifikan antara restatement dan risiko kebangkrutan.

---

This study aims to determine the effect of financing restatement on the growth and bankruptcy risk of non-financial companies listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange (IDX) for the period 2008-2017. The company's growth is measured using the Internally Financed Growth (IFG) and Externally Financed Growth EFG approaches, where the approach has three proxies, and the risk of bankruptcy is measured by the Altman Z Score. The total sample used included 256 companies with gaps in 2013-2014. The method used to determine the sample using purposive sampling. This study using panel data regression that is unbalanced panel so that the number of observations is 2013 firm year. The results found that there is a negative and significant relationship between restatement on firm growth. Means that restatement activities can reduce the firm growth rate of non-financial companies in Indonesia which are externally financed. However, there is no significant influence between the restatement and the bankruptcy risk.

"

"Penelitian ini membahas tentang value relevance pada perusahaan yang menerima going-concern audit opinion. Penelitian ini juga menguji value relevence pada komponen laporan posisi keuangan yaitu net cash, piutang, persediaan, property, plant and equipment, utang jangka panjang, intangibles, dan aset lain-lain pada perusahaan yang menerima going-concern audit opinion. Value relevance menggambarkan kemampuan informasi akuntansi dalam menjelaskan nilai perusahaan. Hasil model 1 menunjukkan bahwa perubahan value relevance dari net income menjadi book value of equity pada perusahaan yang menerima goingconcern audit opinion tidak dapat dibuktikan. Selain itu, hasil model 2 menemukan bahwa persediaan, aset lain-lain dan utang jangka panjang dapat mencerminkan value relevance pada perusahaan yang menerima going-concern audit opinion."

"Pelaksanaan kasus kepailitan dapat ditempuh melalui prinsip going concern, melanjutkan kegiatan usaha suatu perseroan yang dinyatakan pailit dengan menunjuk pihak ketiga berdasarkan kesepakatan kreditur pailit. Namun dalam pelaksanaannya sering kali menimbulkan permasalahan, seperti terdapat pihak yang dirugikan akibat kegiatan hukum melanggar ketentuan hukum berlaku. Permasalahan yang diangkat dalam penelitian ini mengenai status hukum Akta Pernyataan Keputusan Sirkuler Para Pemegang Saham yang dibuat notaris dalam harta pailit, dan perlindungan hukum bagi investor going concern yang mengalami kerugian akibat Akta Pernyataan Keputusan Sirkuler Para Pemegang Saham. Untuk menjawab permasalahan tersebut digunakan metode penelitian hukum yuridis normatif dengan tipe penelitian preskriptif analitis. Hasil analisis menyatakan pelaksanaan perubahan anggaran dasar menyangkut harta pailit yang tertuang pada Akta Pernyataan Keputusan Sirkuler Para Pemegang Saham harus didahului dengan persetujuan kurator, tidak dapat bertentangan dengan hukum dan peraturan perundang-undangan, bertentangan dengan keputusan pengadilan, bertentangan dengan penetapan pengadilan, sehingga menyebabkan batal demi hukum isi dari akta tersebut. Pelaksana/investor going concern yang dirugikan dapat melakukan gugatan pembatalan akta berdasarkan Pasal 3 ayat (1) UUK-PKPU, karena secara hukum bertentangan dengan Pasal 20 UUPT, Pasal 1 angka 1 jo. Pasal 69 ayat (1) UUK-PKPU. Adapun saran yang dapat diberikan baik bagi debitur pailit maupun notaris hendaknya memahami ketentuan hukum yang berlaku dalam pelaksanaan perubahan anggaran dasar melalui Keputusan Sirkuler perseroan pailit. Perseroan pailit harus patuh terhadap hukum kepailitan yang berlaku, menghargai dan menyanggupi proses pelaksanaan going concern yang sedang berlangsung.

---

The implementation of bankruptcy cases can be pursued through the going concern principle, continuing the business activities of a company declared bankrupt by appointing a third party based on the agreement of the bankrupt creditor. However, in its implementation, it often creates problems, such as there are parties who are harmed due to legal activities violating applicable legal provisions. The problems raised in this study are regarding the legal status of the Circular Decision Deed of Shareholders made by a notary in bankruptcy assets and legal protection for going concern investors who suffer losses due to the Shareholders' Circular Decision Statement Deed. To answer this problem does not appear to be modifying the subject a normative juridical legal research method with an analytical perspective research type. The results of analysis that implementation of amendments to the articles of association concerning bankruptcy assets as stated in the Deed of Statement of Circular Decisions of the Shareholders must be preceded by curator approval, cannot be contrary to laws and regulations, contrary to court decisions, contrary to court decisions, thus causing null and void the contents of the deed. The Implementers/going concern investors who are disadvantaged can file a lawsuit for deed cancellation based on Article 3 paragraph (1) Law No. 37 of 2004 because legally, it is contrary to Article 20 Law No. 40 of 2007, Article 1 number (1) jo. Article 69 paragraph (1) Law No. 37 of 2004. The advice that can be given to both the bankrupt debtor and the notary is to understand the applicable legal provisions in implementing amendments to the articles of an association through the Circular Decree of the bankrupt company. Bankruptcy companies must comply with applicable bankruptcy laws, respect and undertake the ongoing process of implementing the going concern"

"ABSTRAKNotaris merupakan jabatan kepercayaan yang ditetapkan undang-undang untuk menjalankan sebagian tugas negara khusus di bidang hukum perdata, yaitu terkait dengan kewenangannya untuk membuat alat bukti otentik.Notaris tetaplah manusia biasa yang tidak akan pernah luput dari salah dan khilaf. Salah satunya adalah akibat dari kesalahan yang berkaitan dengan masalah keuangan, dapat mengakibatkan seorang Notaris dinyatakan pailit. Notaris pailit bisa disebabkan karena dua hal, yaitu sebagai orang pribadi yang mempunyai jabatan Notaris ataupun sebagai Pejabat Umum dalam rangka pelaksanaan tugas dan jabatannyaUUJN menetapkan sanksi pemberhentian dengan tidak hormat kepada Notaris yang telah dinyatakan pailit berdasarkan putusan pengadilan yang telah mempunyai kekuatan hukum yang tetap. Kepadanya sudah tidak dimungkinkan lagi untuk menjabat sebagai Notaris walaupun masa kepailitannya telah berakhir Sanksi ini dirasakan sebagai suatu ketidakadilan terhadap jabatan Notaris, karena menurut UU Kepailitan yang berlaku di Indonesia akibat pailit hanyalah menyangkut harta kekayaan si pailit, tidak mengenai diri pribadi ataupun jabatan si pailit.Notaris yang telah kehilangan kredibilitasnya akibat keputusan pailit, dapat menyebabkan Notaris tersebut akan kehilangan kepercayaan dari masyarakat dan dianggap telah mencederai keluhuran martabat lembaga Notaris. Oleh karenanya seorang Notaris dituntut untuk selalu berperilaku baik, menjunjung tinggi kehormatan dan martabat jabatannya.

---

ABSTRACTNotary Public or Notary is a position established by law to carry out tasks and authority in civil law such as to issue deeds and authentic evidence. As a human, Notary sometimes made mistakes or negligence action which some of them can cause financial problem and lead into bankcruptcy. The bankruptcy can be caused by case related to Notary official job or caused by Notary individual action not related to his/her position.Dismissal sanction is given to the notary who has been declared bankrupt by court which has been in force according to Notary Public Act N.30 Year 2004. He/She will no longer able to be reinstated despite bankruptcy has been ended. This sanction is perceived as injustice, because if refer to the Bankruptcy Act, the bankruptcy is related only to assets, not to the person or their position.A Notary who has lost his/her credibility due to the bankruptcy, may also lose trust from the community and consider injured the dignity of Notary Public institution. Therefore a Notary is required to always well behave, uphold the honor and dignity of his/her position."