Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Amerika Serikat mengenal equitable subordination dan debt recharacterization sebagai doktrin yang bertujuan memastikan perlindungan bagi para kreditur dari tindakan tidak adil yang dilakukan oleh kreditur (terutama pemegang saham kreditur) lainnya. Di sisi lain, Indonesia tidak mengenal doktrin-doktrin ini. Namun, Mahkamah Agung dalam Putusan No. 1038 K/Pdt.Sus/2010 telah menerapkan doktrin debt recharacterization terhadap pinjaman pemegang saham dengan mengacu pada UU KPKPU dan, khususnya, Pasal 3 ayat (2) UU PT. Walaupun demikian, kedua instrumen hukum tersebut tidak mengatur secara eksplisit mengenai penerapan doktrin debt recharacterization. Oleh karena itu, penelitian ini akan menganalisis (1) pengaturan dan penerapan doktrin debt recharacterization di Indonesia; (2) pengaturan dan penerapan doktrin equitable subordination dan debt recharacterization di Amerika Serikat; serta (3) perbandingan pengaturan dan penerapan kedua doktrin tersebut di Indonesia dan Amerika Serikat. Melalui penelitian dengan metode yuridis normatif dan pendekatan kualitatif, dapat disimpulkan sebagai berikut. Pertama, hukum kepailitan di Indonesia memberikan perlindungan bagi para kreditur dalam memperoleh hak mereka dan pencegahan tindakan debitur yang merugikan kreditur. Dalam hal ini, penerapan doktrin debt recharacterization memberikan dimensi perlindungan tambahan, yakni pencegahan tindakan pemegang saham kreditur yang merugikan kreditur lainnya. Kedua, hukum kepailitan Indonesia tidak mengatur secara eksplisit mengenai doktrin debt recharacterization, tetapi Mahkamah Agung telah memastikan keberadaan doktrin tersebut dalam Putusan No. 1038 K/Pdt.Sus/2010. Adapun hukum kepailitan Amerika Serikat hanya mengandung pengaturan yang eksplisit mengenai doktrin equitable subordination, tetapi tidak mengenai doktrin debt recharacterization. Walaupun demikian, kedua doktrin tersebut telah dikembangkan oleh berbagai pengadilan di Amerika Serikat. Ketiga, pengaturan dan penerapan doktrin equitable subordination dan debt recharacterization di Amerika Serikat telah jauh lebih berkembang dibandingkan dengan di Indonesia. Walaupun demikian, terdapat beberapa kemiripan antara doktrin debt recharacterization yang terdapat di Indonesia dengan masing-masing doktrin equitable subordination dan debt recharacterization yang terdapat di Amerika Serikat.

---

The United States recognizes equitable subordination and debt recharacterization as doctrines aimed at ensuring protection for creditors from inequitable conduct by other creditors (especially shareholder-creditors). On the other hand, Indonesia does not recognize these doctrines. However, Mahkamah Agung in Putusan No. 1038 K/Pdt.Sus/2010 has applied the debt recharacterization doctrine to shareholder loans by referring to UU KPKPU and, in particular, Article 3 paragraph (2) of UU PT. Nevertheless, these legal instruments do not explicitly regulate the application of the debt recharacterization doctrine. Therefore, this study will analyze (1) the regulation and application of the debt recharacterization doctrine in Indonesia; (2) the regulation and application of the equitable subordination and debt recharacterization doctrines in the United States; and (3) the comparison of the regulation and application of these two doctrines in Indonesia and the United States. Through research using normative juridical method and qualitative approach, the following conclusions can be drawn. Firs, the bankruptcy law in Indonesia provides protection for creditors in obtaining their rights and preventing debtor actions that harm creditors. In this regard, the application of the debt recharacterization doctrine adds an additional dimension to that protection, namely preventing shareholder-creditors actions that harm other creditors. Second, Indonesian bankruptcy law does not explicitly regulate the debt recharacterization doctrine, but Mahkamah Agung has ensured the existence of this doctrine in Putusan No. 1038 K/Pdt.Sus/2010. As for the United States bankruptcy law, it only contains explicit regulations regarding the equitable subordination doctrine, but not regarding the debt recharacterization doctrine. Nevertheless, both doctrines have been developed by various United States courts. Third, the regulation and application of the equitable subordination and debt recharacterization doctrines in the United States have developed much more than in Indonesia. However, there are some similarities between the debt recharacterization doctrine in Indonesia and, respectively, the equitable subordination and debt recharacterization doctrines in the United States."

"Pailit merupakan upaya akhir bagi debitor yang berada dalam keadaan insolven dimana ia tidak lagi mampu melakukan kewajiban kepada para kreditornya. Undang-Undang Kepailitan Nomor 37 Tahun 2004 merupakan peraturan terakhir yang diamandemen Indonesia namun masih memiliki beberapa perbedaan mendasar dengan Jepang, Malaysia, dan Singapura tentang insolvency test yang dijadikan tolak ukur pengajuan pailit. Hukum yang seyogyanya dijadikan sandaran demi memenuhi nilai keadilan bagi debitor dan kreditor secara proporsional, dalam hal ini akan dibahas dengan membandingkan hukum kepailitan dan insolvency test. Dengan melihat Undang-Undang Kepailitan Jepang, Malaysia, dan Singapura, tulisan ini dibuat untuk mengambil kelebihan yang ada pada hukum Negara lain serta melihat kekurangannya untuk dijadikan pegangan dalam memperbaiki Hukum Kepailitan Indonesia kearah yang lebih baik. Dengan demikian diharapkan hukum dapat memenuhi perannya sebagai pedoman dalam memberikan nilai keadilan, serta utilitas pengadilan dalam memutus perkara dengan waktu yang efisien dapat mendorong pertumbuhan ekonomi.

---

Bankrupt ought to be last resort for debtor who could not pay his debt to his creditors as it became due and payable and he has been stated as insolvent. Bankruptcy Act Number 37 of 2004 is the last amended statute in Indonesia. This Act has fundamental difference with Bankruptcy Law of Japan, Malaysia, and Singapore concerning about insolvency test which is used as legal task for bankruptcy petition. Justice for both of debtors and creditors should rely on Bankruptcy Law in such case as mentioned. In this matter, insolvency test is an important point to be considered in bankruptcy law.

Discussion between Japan, Malaysia, Singapore, and Indonesia Bankruptcy Law is purposed to analyze law and to compare insolvency matters in each laws. Through this analytic discussion, taking excess points and also to prevent short points of law is the priority to improve Indonesia Bankruptcy Law. Thus law can fulfill its duties as reference to produce just norm, show utility of court in deciding case, and also give an efficient proceedings to support economic growth."

"Tulisan ini membahas tentang kepailitan BUMN menurut UU No. 37 Tahun 2004 tentang Kepailitan dan Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang. Untuk memahami cara mengajukan pailit pada BUMN di Indonesia, syarat permohonan pailit, jenis-jenis BUMN, karakteristik BUMN dan pihak-pihak yang dapat mengajukan pailit berdasarkan UU KPKPU juga dibahas. Tulisan ini ditulis dengan menggunakan metode penulisan hukum normatif untuk menghasilkan data deskriptif analitis. Selanjutnya, temuan penelitian ini menyimpulkan bahwa, kreditor selain Menteri Keuangan berdasarkan Pasal 2 ayat (5) UU BUMN, jika BUMN berbentuk perseroan terbatas, dapat langsung mengajukan kepailitan. Penelitian ini diharapkan mampu memberi jawaban mengenai kepailitan pada BUMN berdasarkan UU KPKPU.

---

This thesis discusses the bankruptcy of BUMN according to Law no. 37 of 2004 concerning Bankruptcy and Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations. To understand how to file for bankruptcy with BUMN in Indonesia, the requirements for bankruptcy applications, types of SOEs, characteristics of BUMN and parties who can file for bankruptcy under the KPKPU Law are also discussed. This paper was written using the normative legal writing method to produce analytical descriptive data. Furthermore, the findings of this study conclude that creditors other than the Minister of Finance based on Article 2 paragraph (5) of the BUMN Law, if the BUMN is in the form of a limited liability company, can immediately file for bankruptcy. This research is expected to be able to provide answers regarding the bankruptcy of BUMN based on the KPKPU Law."

"ABSTRAKPelaksanaan Hukum Kepailitan di Indonesia, dalam beberapa perkara, kerap menarik perhatian para pelaku usaha nasional maupun internasional. Perhatian tersebut berkaitan dengan tidak terdapatnya norma yang melindungi perusahaan atau pelaku usaha dengan kondisi finansial yang sehat (solvent) dari kepailitan. Hal tersebut dapat dilihat melalui beberapa perkara kepailitan, seperti perkara PT. AJMI, PT. Prudential Assurance dan yang teranyar adalah perkara kepailitan PT. Telkomsel Seluler serta PT Eastwood Timber Industries. Rezim kepailitan Indonesia pasca terjadinya krisis moneter pada dasarnya membuka diberlakukannya upaya hukum kepailitan terhadap siapa pun sepanjang memenuhi persyaratan mengenai jumlah kreditor dan unsur utang yang bersifat luas. Prinsip utang yang bersifat luas tersebut kerap menjadi loophole penyebab terjadinya kepailitan yang mendera perusahaan atau pelaku usaha solvent. Oleh sebab itu, untuk memberikan perlindungan bagi perusahaan atau pelaku usaha solvent, solvency test seharusnya diadopsi kedalam Hukum Kepailitan nasional kedepan untuk menghindari digunakannya pranata hukum kepailitan secara tidak tepat. Penulisan tesis ini bermaksud untuk melihat bagaimana solvency test diberlakukan dalam hukum kepailitan di Amerika Serikat. Kemudian, melihat sejauhmanakah solvency test tersebut dikenal dalam proses peradilan kepailitan di Indonesia. Berkaitan dengan permasalahan tersebut, dua buah kasus kepailitan di Indonesia, masing-masing PT. Telkomsel Seluler Tbk dan PT. Eastwood Timber Industries, dianalisa untuk melihat pemberlakuan dari solvency test dan melihat sikap pengadilan mengenai hal tersebut.

---

ABSTRACTThe implementation of bankruptcy law in Indonesia has attracted attention among business people, nationally and internationally. The attention and discussion is of concern the absent of protection available for solvent company or business individuals from threats using bankruptcy regime. Since the enactment of bankruptcy law in 1998 several cases involving solvent companies had happened, such as the case of PT AJMI and PT. Prudential Assurance, which had been successfully bankrupted. Those two companies were considered solvent at the time the petition was filed by their creditors. Moreover, since the new bankruptcy regime has been amended with the new law of 37 of 2004, cases involving solvent company remain happened, inter alia: the case of PT. Telkomsel Seluler and PT Eastwood Timber Industries. Both company were solvent at the time the involuntary petition was filed by their creditors. The bankruptcy regime of 2004 clarifying claim (debt) shall be seen within a broad perspective. However, this resulted in complexity in the examination of such claims, as a result it will likely to be contradictive to the requirement stated in article 8 (2) bankruptcy law 2004. The broad perspective of claim is likely to be the loophole, causing solvent company open from the exposure of bankruptcy regime. Therefore, solvency test should be adopted into the Indonesian bankruptcy law. This Thesis comprise of a study on American Bankruptcy Code that set solvency test and also look at 2 (two) bankruptcy cases to see how the implementation of solvency test in America. Moreover, it also making an attempt to see how the commercial court in Indonesia treat argumentation using solvency test in 2 (two) cases, involving PT. Telkomsel Seluler and PT. Eastwood Timber Industries."

"Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menguji pengaruh risiko kebangkrutan terhadap imbal hasil saham, dan mengacu pada penelitian yang dilakukan oleh penelitian Chen dan Hill (2013). Beberapa metode perhitungan risiko kebangkrutan digunakan, yaitu Z-Score Altman (1968), discrete time hazard Campbell et. al. (2008), dan Chava dan Jarrow (2004). Sampel pada penelitian ini berjumlah sebanyak 86 perusahaan untuk Z-Score Altman, 162 perusahaan untuk discrete time hazard Campbell et. al., dan 156 perusahaan untuk discrete time hazard Chava & Jarrow. Hasil yang didapatkan adalah ditemukannya pengaruh yang positif dan tidak linear antara risiko kebangkrutan dengan imbal hasil saham.

---

This research aims to test the effect of bankruptcy risk, proxied by probability of bankruptcy, towards stock returns, and is inspired by the research done by Chen and Hill (2013). Several methods of bankruptcy risk calculation are used; Altman Z-Score (1968), Campbell et. al. Discrete Time Hazard (2008), and Chava and Jarrow Discrete Time Hazard (2004) and are tested on non-financial, public companies Indonesia - of which this kind of research has not widely tested yet. The number of samples used for Altman Z-Score are 86 companies, 156 companies are used in Campbell et. al. Discrete Time Hazard, and 162 in Chava & Jarrow Discrete Time Hazard. The research shows that there are positive, significant, and non-linear effects from probability of bankruptcy, as a proxy of bankruptcy risk, towards stock returns."

"Skripsi ini membahas mengenai permohonan pernyataan pailit terhadap Perusahaan Efek yang diajukan oleh Krediturnya, dengan studi kasus Putusan Nomor 4/PDT.SUSPAILIT/2021/PN.NIAGA JKT.PST. Pasal 2 ayat (4) Undang-Undang Nomor 37 Tahun 2004 tentang Kepailitan dan Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang mengatur bahwa permohonan pernyataan pailit terhadap Perusahaan Efek hanya dapat diajukan oleh Otoritas Jasa Keuangan. Adapun ketentuan tersebut dimaksudkan untuk melindungi kepentingan pihak ketiga untuk berinvestasi melalui pasar modal. Kemudian, Pasal 6 ayat (3) Undang-Undang Nomor 37 Tahun 2004 tentang Kepailitan dan Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang mengatur bahwa panitera harus menolak permohonan pernyataan pailit terhadap Perusahaan Efek yang diajukan oleh pihak selain Otoritas Jasa Keuangan. Namun, pada praktiknya masih terdapat banyak pengajuan permohonan pernyataan pailit terhadap Perusahaan Efek yang tidak diajukan oleh Otoritas Jasa Keuangan. Hal ini dapat dilihat pada Putusan Nomor 4/PDT.SUS-PAILIT/2021/PN.NIAGA JKT.PST, yang mengabulkan permohonan pernyataan pailit Perusahaan Efek (PT Brent Securities) yang diajukan oleh Kreditornya karena izin usahanya telah dicabut oleh Otoritas Jasa Keuangan. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui mekanisme pengajuan permohonan pernyataan pailit terhadap suatu Perusahaan Efek dan kewenangan Otoritas Jasa Keuangan dalam permohonan pernyataan pailit Perusahaan Efek dalam putusan Nomor 4/PDT.SUS-PAILIT/2021/PN.NIAGA JKT.PST ditinjau dari Undang-Undang No. 37 Tahun 2004 tentang Kepailitan dan Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang. Penelitian ini adalah penelitian yuridis normatif dengan tipologi penelitian deskriptif. Hasil dari penelitian menunjukkan bahwa permohonan pernyataan pailit terhadap Perusahaan Efek mutlak merupakan kewenangan khusus Otoritas Jasa Keuangan sebagai lembaga negara yang melakukan pengawasan terhadap Perusahaan Efek, sekalipun izin usahanya telah dicabut oleh Otoritas Jasa Keuangan. Kemudian, putusan Majelis Hakim pada Putusan Nomor 4/PDT.SUS-PAILIT/2021/PN.NIAGA JKT.PST, yang mengabulkan permohonan pernyataan pailit terhadap Perusahaan Efek oleh Krediturnya, tidak sesuai dengan pengaturan dalam Pasal 2 ayat (4) Undang-Undang No. 37 Tahun 2004 tentang Kepailitan dan Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang.

---

This thesis discusses about bankruptcy against Securities Company filed by its Creditors, with a case study of Verdict No. 4/PDT.SUS-PAILIT/2021/PN.NIAGA JKT.PST. Article 2 paragraph (4) of Law No. 37 year 2004 regarding Bankruptcy and Suspension of Payment states that the petition for a declaration of bankruptcy against Securities Company may only be filed by the Financial Services Authority. The existence of these provisions is intended to protect the interests of third parties to invest through the capital market. Then, Article 6 paragraph (3) of Law No. 37 year 2004 regarding Bankruptcy and Suspension of Payment states that the principal registrar is required to reject a petition for a declaration of bankruptcy against Securities Company if it’s filed by any other party besides the Financial Services Authority. However, in practice there are still many petitions for a declaration of bankruptcy against Securities Company that are not be filed by the Financial Services Authority. This can be seen on Verdict No. 4/PDT.SUS-PAILIT/2021/PN.NIAGA JKT.PST, which granted the petition for a declaration of bankruptcy against Securities Company (PT Brent Securities) that filed by its creditors due to its business license revoked by Financial Services Authority. This research aims to identify the mechanism of filing an application for a bankruptcy against Security Company and the authority of Financial Services Authority for the bankruptcy petition of Securities Company in Verdict No. 4/PDT.SUS-PAILIT/2021/PN.NIAGA JKT.PST. based on Law No. 37 year 2004 regarding Bankruptcy and Suspension of Payment. Type of research applied in this research is normative juridical approach with a descriptive typology. The result shows that the petition for a declaration of bankruptcy against Securities Company is the exclusive power of Financial Services Authority as a state institution that supervises Securities Company, even though their business license has been revoked by Financial Services Authority. Then, the decision of The Judges on Verdict No. 4/PDT.SUS-PAILIT/2021/PN.NIAGA JKT.PST which granted the application for bankruptcy declaration against the Securities Company by its Creditors, was not in accordance with the regulations in Article 2 paragraph (4) of Law No. 37 of 2004 regarding Bankruptcy and Suspension of Payment."