Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui kewenangan kurator dalam melakukan pemberesan terhadap harta pailit yang ada di bank yang sedang dilikuidasi oleh LPS yang menjadi obyek perkara dalam Putusan Mahkamah Agung No. 671 K/Pdt.sus/2011, serta bagaimana kewajiban LPS terhadap boedel pailit tersebut. Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian hukum yang bersifat yuridis normatif dengan menggunakan data sekunder, diantaranya peraturan perundang-undangan dan buku. Hasil dari penelitian ini diperoleh kesimpulan yang menjawab permasalahan, yaitu bahwa Kurator berwenang untuk mengurus dan mengamankan Boedel Pailit harta kekayaan PT Cideng Makmur Pratama, namun dalam hal obyek perkara ini, kurator tidak dapat menjalankan tugasnya karena boedel pailit tersebut tidak ada (fiktif) dan simpanan PT Cideng Makmur Pratama merupakan simpanan yang tidak layak bayar. Sedangkan tindakan yang dilakukan oleh LPS sesuai kewajibannya adalah menolak pembayaran klaim simpanan tersebut.

---

This study aims to determine the authority of the curator to take care and clear the assets of debtor in bank liquidated by LPS (Lembaga Penjamin Simpanan, Indonesian Bank Customer Insurance) which is the object of the case in the Supreme Court Decision Number 671 K/Pdt.sus/2011, and how LPS should act as its obligations against the assets of debtor mentioned before. This research is a normative juridical law using secondary data, such as legislation and books.

The results of this study is concluded that the Curator is authorized to take care of and secure the assets of bankrupt Boedel PT. Cideng Makmur Pratama (debtor's assets), yet for the subject matter of this case, the curator can not carry out their duties because actually the bankruptcy boedel does not exist (fictitious) and saving PT Cideng Makmur Pratama is categorized as not worth-paying. While the actions taken by LPS as fulfilment of its duty is to reject the claim payment obligations deposits coming from the curator."

"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"

"Skripsi ini membahas mengenai status badan hukum suatu perseroan pada saat proses likuidasi. Selain itu di dalam skripsi ini juga akan di bahas mengenai perbandingan likuidasi di Indonesia, Afrika Selatan dan Filipina. Tujuan penulisan skripsi ini adalah untuk meluruskan pemahaman banyak pihak perihal pengaturan status badan hukum di Undang-Undang Kepailitan dan Undang-Undang Perseroan Terbatas yang dianggap berbeda. Penelitian ini berbentuk yuridis-normatif dengan tipe penelitian deskriptif-analitis.Skripsi ini membahas tentang perbandingan Likuidasi di Indonesia dengan Afrika Selatan dan Filipina yang mencangkup definisi likuidasi, proses pembubaran perusahaan, pihak-pihak yang berhak mengajukan Likuidasi, Syarat Likuidasi, proses dan dampak likuidasi di masing-masing negara tersebut. Hasil dari skripsi ini adalah bahwa selama proses likuidasi belum diselesaikan, korporasi masih berstatus badan hukum.

---

This thesis discussed about legal entity status for corporation on a liquidation process. Other than that, this thesis also discussed about the comparison between the liquidation in Indonesia, South Africa, and Philippines. The purpose of this thesis is to straighten and determine the legal status in the Act of Bankruptcy and Limited Liability Companies are considered different. This thesis uses juridical normative with the type of descriptive analytical research.

This thesis discusses the comparison of Liquidation in Indonesia, South Africa and Philippines which includes the definition of liquidation, the process of dissolution of the company, the parties entitled to liquidate, the terms of liquidation, the process and the impact of liquidation in each of those countries. The result of this thesis is that the liquidation process has not been completed, the law is still a legal entity."

""ABSTRACT"Dalam pemberian kredit, Bank biasanya mensyaratkan adanya suatu jaminan untuk menghindari risiko gagal bayar dari debitur. Salah satu bentuk jaminan tersebut adalah jaminan perorangan, dimana pihak ketiga menjamin pelaksanaan kewajiban debitur kepada kreditur. Tanggung jawab seorang penanggung sangat besar hingga dapat dipailitkan. Meskipun penanggung bukanlah seorang debitur, namun apabila debitur utama wanprestasi maka ia berkedudukan sebagai seorang debitur dan jika memenuhi persyaratan pailit, maka dapat diajukan permohonan pailit terhadap dirinya. Suatu permasalahan timbul ketika seorang penanggung meninggal dunia, sesuai Pasal 1826 KUH Perdata maka perikatan penanggung beralih kepada ahli warisnya. Hal ini menimbulkan akibat ahli waris sebagai pihak yang tidak terlibat dalam perjanjian kredit dan perjanjian penanggungan dapat dimohonkan pailit oleh kreditur. Dalam skripsi ini, penulis melakukan tinjauan mengenai kepailitan ahli waris personal guarantor beserta tanggung jawabnya, serta melakukan analisis terhadap putusan pembatalan pailit ahli waris personal guarantor."

---

""ABSTRACT"In order to grant a credit, the existance of guarantee is something bank usually requires to avoid the risk of default by the debtor. One form of such guarantee is personal guarantee, whereby the third party guarantees the implementation of debtor rsquo s liability to the creditor. The obligations of personal guarantor is so great until they can be bankrupted. Albeit the guarantor is not particularly a debtor, she he has the equal position as the debtor in the situation where primary debtor defaults, and if the condition fulfills the requirements of bankruptcy, a bankruptcy request can be made upon her him. A problem arises when a guarantor deceases, according to Article 1826 of Civil Code therefore the guarantor obligations switches to the heirs. This resulted an access for the creditor to fill a bankruptcy request to the heirs, in which the heirs themselves are not the parties involved in the credit and guarantee agreement. In this thesis, the author will be reviewing the bankruptcy of personal guarantor rsquo s heirs along with their responsibilities, whilst conducting an analysis on the verdict of bankruptcy cancellation upon personal guarantor rsquo s heirs. "

"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."

"Untuk kepentingan harta pailit, kepada pengadilan niaga dapat dimintakan pembatalan segala perbuatan hukum debitor yang telah dinyatakan pailit yang merugikan kepentingan kreditor, yang dilakukan sebelum putusan pernyataan pailit diucapkan. Gugatan pembatalan ini dikenal dengan nama gugatan actio pauliana. Debitor dan pihak dengan siapa perbuatan hukum itu dilakukan harus terbukti beritikad tidak baik sehingga merugikan kreditor. Tesis ini akan membahas terkait tinjauan umum hukum kepailitan di Indonesia, hukum actio pauliana dalam hukum kepailitan di Indonesia, dan analisis terkait putusan actio pauliana dalam kasus kepailitan PT Metro Batavia (Putusan Nomor 61 PK/Pdt.Sus-Pailit/2015 Jo. Nomor 389 K/Pdt.Sus-Pailit/2014 Jo. Nomor 02/Pdt. Sus. ActioPauliana/2014/PN.Niaga.Jkt.Pst). Tesis ini memakai penelitian hukum normatif dengan pendekatan undang-undang dan pendekatan kasus. Berdasarkan hasil penelitian, hukum kepailitan di Indonesia diatur dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 37 Tahun 2004 Tentang Kepailitan dan Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang ('UU Kepailitan'). Ketentuan actio pauliana diatur dalam Pasal 41 sampai Pasal 49 UU Kepailitan. Putusan pengadilan niaga dan kasasi yang menolak gugatan actio pauliana dari tim kurator PT Metro Batavia (dalam pailit) telah tepat karena aset yang menjadi obyek sengketa bukan milik PT Metro Batavia (dalam pailit). Putusan Peninjauan Kembali (PK) yang mengabulkan gugatan actio pauliana tidak tepat karena novum yang menjadi pertimbangan majelis hakim Peninjauan Kembali (PK) tidak membuktikan kepemilikan suatu aset.

---

In the interest of the bankruptcy assets, annulment may be requested to the commercial court for all legal acts of the debtor who has been declared bankrupt which prejudice the interests of the creditors, which were conducted before the declaration of bankruptcy was rendered. The annulment is known as the actio pauliana lawsuit. The debtor and the party with whom the legal acts was carried out must be proven to have a bad faith that prejudice the creditors. This thesis will discuss about general review of bankruptcy law in Indonesia, actio pauliana in Indonesia’s bankruptcy law, and analysis related to actio pauliana decision in Metro Batavia’s company (in bankruptcy). This thesis use normative legal research with statute approach and case approach.

Based on research results, bankruptcy law in Indonesia is regulated in Law Number 37 of 2004 on bankruptcy and suspension of obligation for payment of debts ('Bankruptcy Law'). The actio pauliana is regulated in article 41 to article 49 of Bankruptcy Law. The decision of the commercial court and cassation which rejected the actio pauliana lawsuit from the curator team of Metro Batavia’s company (in bankruptcy) was appropriate because the assets of the dispute did not belong to Metro Batavia’s company (in bankruptcy). The judicial review decision that grants the actio pauliana lawsuit is faulty because the new evidences (novum) that are used for consideration by the panel of judges do not prove the ownership of an asset."