Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

Abstrak :
Berbagai persoalan yang berkembang dalam berbagai perkara-perkara kepailitan yang terjadi di Indonesia masih memiliki banyak kelemahan, terutama apabila menyangkut kepailitan terhadap perusahaan asing dalam bentuk holding company. Perusahaan grup semakin mendominasi kegiatan usaha dan memiliki peran penting dalam pembangunan. Konstruksi perusahaan grup terpisah secara hukum namun berada dalam satu kesatuan ekonomi. Permohonan PKPU oleh anak perusahaan terhadap holding company yang berakhir pailit dalam satu perusahaan grup merupakan hal yang tidak biasa. Permohonan PKPU tersebut terjadi pada kasus kepailitan AcrossAsia Limited sebagai holding company yang berkedudukan di Hong Kong dan dipailitkan oleh anak perusahaannya yaitu PT. First Media Tbk. Apakah permohonan PKPU tersebut sesuai dengan kaidah-kaidah hukum kepailitan, bagaimana tanggung jawab holding company yang pailit terhadap anak perusahaan dalam satu perusahaan grup, dan apa saja hambatan dalam penerapan cross-border insolvency dalam hukum kepailitan terkait adanya putusan pengadilan asing. Metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah penelitian hukum yuridis normatif, dengan pendekatan perundang-undangan, kasus, sejarah, dan pendekatan analisis. Kepailitan terhadap holding company oleh anak perusahaan merupakan penyalahgunaan kekuasaan holding company dan trik bisnis yang memanfaatkan instrumen hukum kepailitan untuk menghindari kewajiban terhadap pihak ketiga. Hukum kepailitan di Indonesia perlu merumuskan insolvensi tes terhadap permohonan pailit debitor, hal tersebut diperlukan agar tidak terjadi kepailitan terhadap perusahaan yang masih solven. Dalam pengaturan cross-border insolvency, UU Kepailitan Indonesia belum mengakomodasi aturan mengenai cross-border insolvency dalam UNCITRAL Model Law. Hal tersebut menyulitkan proses eksekusi harta debitor pailit di luar negeri dan pemerintah Indonesia juga perlu melakukan perjanjian bilateral maupun multilateral dengan negara lain dalam hal pengakuan putusan pengadilan asing. ......Various problems that develop in various cases of bankruptcy that occurred in Indonesia still has many weaknesses, particularly when it concerns of foreign companies bankruptcy in the form of holding company. The domination of Company group business activity increasingly raising and have an important role in development. The construction of group company is legally separated but it is in one economic entity. The Suspension of Debt Payment Obligation PKPU petition by subsidiaries against its holding company that ends in insolvency in one of the group company is uncommon. The PKPU petition occurred in the bankruptcy case of AcrossAsia Limited as a holding company with legal domiciled in Hong Kong and bankrupted by its subsidiary PT. First Media Tbk. Is the PKPU petition of its case is in accordance with the principle of bankruptcy law, how is the responsibility of the insolvent holding company to its subsidiary in the one of the group company, and what 39 s are the obstacles in implementing of the cross border insolvency in bankruptcy law related to the foreign court resolution. The legal research method that used is legal normative research, with the statute, case, historical and analytical approach. The bankruptcy of a holding company by its subsidiary is an abuse of holding company powers and business tricks that take an advantage of bankruptcy legal instruments to avoid liability to the third parties. Bankruptcy law in Indonesia needs to formulating insolvency test to the debtor bankruptcy petitioner, due it is necessary to avoid bankruptcy against the company that is still solvent. In a cross border insolvency regulations, the Indonesian Bankruptcy Law has not accommodated the rules of UNCITRAL Model Law on cross border insolvency. This matter makes complicating the execution process of the bankrupt debtor assets abroad and Indonesian government also needs to enter into bilateral and multilateral agreements with other countries in the recognitions of foreign courts resolution.

Abstrak :
Kepailitan lintas merupakan konsekuensi dari perkembangan interaksi bisnis multinasional yang begitu pesat. Wilayah yurisdiksi suatu negara tidak lagi menjadi penghalang pelaku bisnis untuk menjalankan kegiatan bisnis nya. Kondisi tersebut membuat resiko bisnis, khusunya permasalahan kepailitan lintas batas. Kepailitan yang melibatkan unsur lintas batas didalamnya tidak bisa diselesaikan dengan mekanisme penyelesaian biasa. Hukum Kepailitan Indonesia memalui UU Nomor 37 Tahun 2007 Tentang Kepailitan dan Kewajiban Pembayran Utang masih sangat jauh dari kata ideal dalam menghadapi fenomena ini. Undang-Undang ini hanya memuat tiga pasal berkaitan dengan ketentuan hukum internasional, namun sama sekali tidak memuat ketentuan terkait penyelesaian kepailitan lintas batas. Hal ini dikarenakan proses penegakan hukum akan berhadapan langsung dengan kedaulatan hukum negara lain. UNCITRAL Model Law On Cross-Border Insolvency With Guide To Enactment adalah suatu model hukum yang dibuat untuk menjadi rujukan bagi negara-negara dalam melakukan harmonisasi dan modernisasi hukum kepailitannya agar mampu memberikan keadilan dan kepastian hukum bagi iklim perdagangan. Hasil dari penelitian ini menunjukan bahwa Indonesia sebagai negara berkembang yang berambisi meningkatkan perekenomiannya harus melakukan perubahan terhadap hukum kepailitan nasional. UNCITRAL Model Law yang bersifat fleksibel, dapat dimodifikasi sesuai nilai-nilai dan kepentingan nasional suatu negara dapat dijadikan rujukan untuk melahirkan hukum kepailitan yang memadai

---

Cross Border Insolvency/Bankcruptcy is a is a consequence of the rapid development of multinational business interactions. he jurisdiction of a country is no longer a barrier for businesses to carry out their business activities. These conditions create business risks, especially cross-border bankruptcy issues. Bankruptcy involving cross-border elements in it cannot be resolved by the usual settlement mechanism. Indonesia's Bankruptcy Law passed Law No. 37 of 2007 on Bankruptcy and Debt Relief Obligations is far from ideal in dealing with this phenomenon. This Law contains only three articles relating to the provisions of international law, but contains absolutely no provisions related to the settlement of cross-border bankruptcy. This is because the law enforcement process will be directly confronted with the legal sovereignty of other countries. UNCITRAL Model Law On Cross-Border Insolvency With Guide To Enactment is a legal model created to be a reference for countries in harmonizing and modernizing their bankruptcy laws in order to provide justice and legal certainty for the trading climate. The results of this study show that Indonesia as a developing country with the ambition to improve its economy must make changes to the national bankruptcy law. UNCITRAL Model Law that is flexible, can be modified according to the values and national interests of a country can be used as a reference to give birth to adequate bankruptcy law.

Abstrak :
ABSTRAK
Dalam 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.
ABSTRACT
In 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.

Abstrak :
Perkembangan dalam teknologi serta ilmu pengetahuan menyebabkan batasan negara-negara di dunia semakin hilang terutama dalam bidang perekonomian internasional. Hal ini akan menjadi sebuah masalah baru apabila berkaitan dengan kepailitan lintas batas, khususnya pengeksekusian harta Debitor pailit yang memiliki aset di luar wilayah berlakunya putusan pailit. Prinsip teritorial dan prinsip kedaulatan negara yang dimiliki sebagian besar negara merupakan salah satu faktor utama tidak dapatnya suatu putusan pailit diakui dan ditegakkan di negara lain. Faktor tersebut menyebabkan putusan pailit di sebuah negara tidak dapat dijadikan dasar untuk mengeksekusi harta Debitor pailit yang berada di yurisdiksi negara lain sehingga menyebabkan berkurangnya harta Debitor yang akan digunakan untuk membayar utang-utangnya kepada Para Kreditornya yang tentunya dalam hal ini hak Kreditor terhadap piutangnya tidak dapat dipenuhi sepenuhnya. Dengan menggunakan metode penelitian yuridis normatif yang diwujudkan dengan melakukan studi kepustakaan, tulisan ini akan menganalisis mengenai bagaimana pengimplementasian kepailitan lintas batas di landasan hukum kepailitan Indonesia, yakni Undang-Undang Nomor 37 Tahun 2004 tentang Kepailitan Dan Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang maupun peraturan berkaitan lainnya dan dibandingkan dengan pengimplementasian kepailitan lintas batas di Malaysia. Selain itu akan dibahas juga mengenai upaya-upaya yang dapat dilakukan agar pengeksekusian harta Debitor pailit yang terletak di negara asing dapat dilaksanakan. Berkaitan dengan itu, Penulis menarik kesimpulan bahwa Indonesia belum memiliki instrumen hukum kepailitan lintas batas sebagai dasar pengeksekusian harta Debitor pailit yang terletak di negara asing. Berbeda dengan Malaysia yang memiliki perjanjian bilateral dengan Singapura dan peraturan mengenai pengakuan putusan asing dengan beberapa negara yang diatur dalam peraturan tersebut. Sehingga hingga saat ini, upaya yang dapat dilakukan oleh Para Kreditor adalah mengajukan permohonan ulang di negara yang bersangkutan. Namun ada baiknya bahwa pemerintah Indonesia melakukan perjanjian bilateral dengan beberapa negara, mengadopsi UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross Border Insolvency, atau membentuk perjanjian regional dengan negara anggota ASEAN. ......Developments in technology have caused the boundaries of countries in the world to disappear, especially in the field of the international economy. This will become a new problem if it relates to cross-border bankruptcy, especially the execution of bankrupt debtors who have assets outside the area where the bankruptcy decision is enforced. Territorial principles and the principle of state sovereignty which are owned by most countries are one of the main factors in which a bankruptcy decision cannot be recognized and enforced in other countries. These factors cause a bankruptcy decision in one country to not be used as a basis for executing the assets of a bankrupt debtor who is in the jurisdiction of another country, causing a reduction in the debtor’s assets that will be used to pay his debts to his creditors. By using normative juridical research methods realized by conducting literature studies, this paper will analyze how cross-border bankruptcy is implemented on the basis of Indonesian bankruptcy law, namely Law Number 37 of 2004 concerning Bankruptcy and Suspension of Obligations for Payment of Debt compared with the implementation of cross-border insolvency in Malaysia. I In this regard, the author draws the conclusion that Indonesia does not yet have cross-border insolvency legal instruments as a basis for executing bankrupt debtors’ assets located in foreign countries. In contrast to Malaysia, which has a bilateral agreement with Singapore and regulations regarding the recognition of foreign judgments with several countries regulated in these regulations. Until today, the efforts that can be made by creditors are re-litigation in the country concerned. However, it is good that the Indonesian government enters into bilateral agreements with several countries, adopts the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross Border Insolvency, or forms regional agreements with ASEAN member countries.

Abstrak :
Dengan semakin meningkatnya transaksi bisnis internasional, maka semakin meningkat pula kemungkinan terjadinya kepailitan lintas batas. Oleh karena itu, dibutuhkan suatu pengaturan kepailitan lintas batas yang memadai. Suatu negara dapat mengadopsi salah satu instrumen hukum internasional, yaitu UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency, ke dalam hukum kepailitannya guna menghadapi kasus kepailitan lintas batas. Skripsi ini membahas mengenai langkah Singapura dan Jepang dalam menghadapi kasus-kasus kepailitan lintas batas dengan mengadopsi UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency dan bagaimana UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency tersebut diterapkan dalam pengaturan kepailitan lintas batas di masing-masing negara. Skripsi ini juga akan membahas mengenai kemungkinan penerapan UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency dalam hukum kepailitan di Indonesia sebagai solusi dalam menghadapi permasalahan kasus kepailitan lintas batas dengan melihat Singapura dan Jepang sebagai acuan. ......With the ever-increasing number of international business transactions, the possibility of cross-border insolvency also increases. Therefore, an adequate cross-border insolvency regulation is needed. A country can adopt one of the international law instruments, namely the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency, into their insolvency law to deal with cross-border insolvency cases. The study will discuss about Singapore and Japan's steps in facing cross-border insolvency cases by adopting the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency and how the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency is applied in cross-border insolvency regulation in each country. This study will also discuss about the possibility of adopting the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency in Indonesia's insolvency law as the solution to facing cross-border insolvency cases by looking at Singapore and Japan as a reference.

Abstrak :
Skripsi ini membahas mengenai mekanisme, akibat hukum diajukannya perlindungan hukum sementara berupa provisional relief, dan dampak dari dikabulkannya permohonan provisional relief di bawah chapter 15 US Bankruptcy Code oleh Pengadilan Niaga New York Selatan terhadap kasus PKPU Duniatex Group yang sedang berlangsung di Indonesia. Penelitian ini berbentuk yuridis-normatif dengan desain deskriptif-analitis, yang bertujuan untuk pemahaman lebih lanjut mengenai pengajuan provisional relief oleh Debitur asing dalam rangka proses pengakuan kepailitan asing yang dikaitkan dengan aturan dalam UNCITRAL Model Law On Cross-Border Insolvency With Guide To Enactment yang diadopsi oleh beberapa negara dan salah satunya adalah Amerika Serikat, khususnya dalam Chapter 15 US Bankruptcy Code yang dikaitkan dengan kasus PKPU Duniatex Group di Indonesia. Berdasarkan analisis yang telah dilakukan mengenai pengajuan provisional relief, terdapat beberapa tahap yang perlu dilakukan oleh perwakilan asing sebelum mengajukan provisional relief di bawah chapter 15 dan dikabulkannya provisional relief kepada Duniatex Group memberikan beberapa dampak hukum yang positif terhadap PKPU yang sedang berlangsung di Pengadilan Niaga Semarang, terutama mengenai eksekusi aset dan pengajuan gugatan kepailitan terhadap Debitur asing. Hasil penelitian menyarankan jika terdapat aset atau kreditur yang berada dalam wilayah yurisdiksi Amerika Serikat dan sedang dilaksanakan proses hukum kepailitan di Indonesia, sebaiknya segera diajukan permohonan pengakuan proses kepailitan dan provisional relief di bawah chapter 15 melalui perwakilan asing. ......This thesis discusses the mechanism, the legal consequences of petition for provisional legal protection in the form of provisional relief, and the impact of the granting of the provisional relief application under chapter 15 of US Bankruptcy Code by the Southern District of New York against the PKPU Duniatex Group case that is currently ongoing in Indonesia. This research is in the form of normative juridicial with descriptive-analytic design, which aims to further understand the petition of provisional relief by foreign debtors in the context of the process recognition of a foreign proceeding, which is linked to the rules in the UNCITRAL Model Law On Cross-Border Insolvency With Guide To Enactment adopted by several countries. One of them is the United States, especially in Chapter 15 of the US Bankruptcy Code associated with the PKPU Duniatex Group case in Indonesia. Based on the analysis that has been carried out regarding the petition of provisional relief, several steps need to be carried out by foreign representatives before applying provisional relief under chapter 15. The granting of provisional relief to Duniatex Group has had several positive legal impacts on PKPU which is taking place at the Semarang Commercial Court, especially regarding the execution against the debtor's assets and commence or continue any legal proceeding against foreign debtors. Through this thesis writer suggest that if some assets or creditors are within the jurisdiction of the United States and the bankruptcy legal proceedings are being carried out in Indonesia, it is best to apply for recognition of the bankruptcy process and provisional relief under chapter 15 through foreign representatives.

Abstrak :
Pengadilan Niaga Jakarta Pusat mencatat, jumlah perkara kepailitan dalam sepuluh tahun terakhir mengalami penurunan yang signifikan. Beberapa perkara diantaranya melibatkan badan hukum asing secara lintas batas (Cross-Border Insolvency) sehingga masuk dalam lingkup Hukum Perdata Internasional (HPI). Aspek-aspek HPI dalam perkara kepailitan tersebut adalah status personal badan hukum, yurisdiksi yang berwenang, hukum yang dipergunakan, pengakuan dan pelaksanaan putusan (Recognition and Enforcement) serta tempat letaknya harta/boedel pailit (Lex Rei Sitae). Skripsi ini membahas tentang perkara kepailitan badan hukum asing berdasarkan teori HPI dengan menganalisis putusan pailit oleh Pengadilan Niaga Jakarta Pusat dan Pengadilan Wilayah Amsterdam, Belanda sebagai bahan perbandingan hukum kepailitan. ......Indonesian Commercial Court in Central Jakarta recorded, the number of insolvency cases for the last ten years experienced the significant decline. Several cases among them involved the foreign legal entity in a cross-border manner (Cross-Border Insolvency) so as to enter the scope of Private International Law. Its aspects were the personal status of the legal entity, authority of the jurisdiction, the governing law, the recognition and enforcement of the court order, and the location of its assets (Lex Rei Sitae). The focus of this study is about the review and implementation of Private International Law theory in cross-border insolvency cases by analysing the insolvency order by Indonesian Commercial Court in Central Jakarta and the District Court of Amsterdam, Netherlands, as the comparative material of the bankruptcy law.

Abstrak :
Skripsi ini membahas tentang cross border insolvency pada pelaksanaan putusan pailit perusahaan asing di Indonesia dan Malaysia. Seiring dengan perkembangan suatu negara, transaksi bisnis mulai merambah melewati batas-batas negara, salah satunya adalah pinjam meminjam uang untuk modal suatu perusahaan. Keadaan ketika debitur tidak mampu membayar utangnya dapat membuat debitur dinyatakan pailit. Kepailitan tersebut disebut cross border insolvency. Salah satu kasus terkait cross border insolvency adalah kasus permohonan pailit Penaga Timur Sdn.Bhd yang diajukan oleh PT. Wijaya Artha Shipping dan PT. Ujung Medini Lestari. Permasalahan yang diangkat dalam kasus tersebut adalah unsurunsur cross border insolvency dan ketentuan UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross- Border Insolvency dapat diterapkan dalam Putusan Nomor 11/Pdt.Sus- PKPU/2018/PN.Niaga.Mdn. Permasalahan lain yang diangkat pada skripsi ini adalah bagaimana pelaksanaan putusan pailit perusahaan asing di Indonesia dan Malaysia. Penelitian dilakukan dengan metode yuridis-normatif. Analisis yang dilakukan adalah untuk menjelaskan unsur-unsur cross border insolvency dan ketentuan UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency dapat diterapkan dalam Putusan Nomor 11/Pdt.Sus-PKPU/2018/PN.Niaga.Mdn, dan pelaksanaan putusan pailit perusahaan asing di Indonesia dan Malaysia.
This paper discussed cross border insolvency in enforcement of bankruptcy judgment of foreign company in Indonesia and Malaysia. As a country developing, business transactions begin to penetrate cross border, one of the business transcations is loan agreement for capital. The condition of debtors can not pay their debts can make the debtors go bankrupt. This is called as cross border insolvency. One of the cases of cross border insolvency is a bankruptcy of Penaga Timur Sdn.Bhd case that was filed by PT. Wijaya Artha Shipping and PT. Ujung Medini Lestari. This paper examines the elements of cross border insolvency and the using of UNCITRAL model Law on Cross Border Insolvency in the case Nomor 11/Pdt.Sus-PKPU/2018/PN.Niaga.Mdn. This paper also examines the enforcement of bankruptcy judgment of foreign company in Indonesia and Malaysia. This study was conducted by using normative legal research method. The analysis presents the elements of cross border insolvency and the using of UNCITRAL model Law on Cross Border Insolvency in the case Nomor 11/Pdt.Sus-PKPU/2018/PN.Niaga.Mdn, and the enforcement of bankruptcy judgment of foreign company in Indonesia and Malaysia.

Abstrak :
Kegiatan ekonomi antar negara membuka pintu bagi para pelaku bisnis untuk dapat memiliki aset atau kekayaan yang tersebar di negara lain. Seiring dengan meningkatnya kegiatan transaksi ekonomi internasional, semakin tumbuh juga potensi dalam hal terjadinya sebuah perkara kebangkrutan lintas batas/cross-border insolvency. Dalam hal untuk menghadapi kemajuan dalam globalisasi perekonomian, maka instrumen hukum kepailitan di sebuah negara harus ditingkatkan. Penelitian ini merupakan kajian hukum terkait penyelesaian perkara Kepailitan Lintas Batas/Crossborder Insolvency dalam kaitannya dengan penerapan UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross Border Insolvency yang menjadi dasar pertimbangan pada pengakuan terhadap kewenangan kurator Indonesia dalam Putusan Pengadilan Tinggi Singapura [2019] SGHC 216 dalam perkara Heince Tombak Simanjuntak v Paulus Tannos. ......Economic activities between countries opens the opportunity for private entities to own assets located in other countries. Align with the activities of such international economics transactions, the potential for cross-border bankruptcy has rapidly grow. In order to face the emerging global economy, the bankruptcy legal instrument in a country shall be improved. Thus, this research is a legal study that resolves the Cross-border Insolvency case in its environment by applying the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross Border Insolvency, which is the basis for consideration in recognizing the authority of the Indonesian receivers in the case of Singapore High Court Decision [2019] SGHC 216 in the case of Heince Tombak Simanjuntak. v Paul Tannos.

Abstrak :
ABSTRAK
The increases in cross-border trade has resulted in more companies with assets, business, and presence in multiple jurisdiction. When any of these companies face debt restructuring or insolvency, it confronts a myriad of complex issues in coordinating rescue proposals or winding up the businesses across jurisdictions. Prior to the 1997 economic crisis, insolvency laws in most state economies were generally out of date and irrelevant to the modern commercial needs, particulary the cross-border insolvency matters that has not been well regulated. ASEAN has initiated an integrated economy regional by launching an ASEAN Economic Community on late 2015. It aimed to establish a deeply integrated and highly cohesive ASEAN economy that would support sustained high economic growth and resilience in the face of global economic shocks and volatilities within ASEAN members. Unfortunately, ASEAN member has not prepared a regulation regarding cross-border insolvency matters which could restrains its aim to establish a fully integrated economy regional. Each state members has its own national insolvency laws and proceedings, but none have the schemes that could surpassed the national borders and simplified the procedures. The aspects of cross-border insolvency from both the International law and domestic law of Indonesia is already prepared to deal with foreign proceedings. Both could be adjusted to establish a cross-border regulation in ASEAN. Hence, there should be an in-depth harmonization of cross-border insolvency should be another priority upon ASEAN Economic Community to achieve a fully-integrated economy in ASEAN.