Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Skripsi ini membahas mengenai kepailitan pada Badan Usaha Milik Negara berdasar UU No.37 Tahun 2004 tentang Kepailitan dan PKPU. Untuk mengetahui bagaimana permohonan pailit pada Badan Usaha Milik Negara di Indonesia, maka dibahas juga mengenai jenis-jenis Badan Usaha Milik Negara, karakteristik dari Badan Usaha Milik Negara sebagai Badan Hukum, permodalan serta pengelolaan keuangan, dan pihak-pihak yang dapat mengajukan permohonan pailit berdasar Undang-undang No.37 Tahun 2004 tentang Kepailitan dan PKPU. Skripsi ini disusun dengan metode penulisan hukum normatif untuk menghasilkan data yang bersifat deskriptif analitis. Selanjutnya kesimpulan dari hasil penelitian ini menyatakan bahwa Badan Usaha Milik Negara dapat diajukan permohonan pailit selain oleh Menteri keuangan berdasar Pasal 2 ayat (5) dimana jenis Badan Usaha Milik Negara yang berbentuk persero dimungkinkan untuk dimohonkan pailit oleh para kreditornya secara langsung. Melalui penelitian ini diharapkan mampu memberi jawaban mengenai kepailitan pada BUMN berdasarkan UU No.37 Tahun 2004 tentang Kepailitan dan PKPU.

---

This Mini-thesis discusses about the State Owned Enterprise Bankcruptcy based on Bankcruptcy and Suspension of Payment Law No.37 Year 2004. To know the process state owned enterprise bankcrupcy in Indonesia, will be discusses about state owned enterprise various, state owned enterprise characteristic and the party who will be requirement state owned enterprise bankcrupt. This research is the legal research with with a normative juridicial normative method that is descriptive analytical. This Research conclude that state owned enterprise bankcrupt can requirement with other person out of the Ministry of Finance. Therefore, with the Research can solve this problem about state owned enterprise banckruptcy based on Bankcuptcy and Suspension of Payment Law No.37 Year No.2004."

"Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menjelaskan pengaturan mengenai Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang dalam rangka restrukturisasi utang di Indonesia berdasarkan Undang-Undang No. 37 Tahun 2004 dan Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang di Amerika Serikat akibat dari Reorganisasi Perusahaan berdasarkan Chapter 11 US Bankruptcy Code serta memberikan analisis perbandingan atas pelaksanaan kedua hal tersebut. Penulis mempergunakan metode penelitian eksplanatoris-analitis dengan studi kepustakaan yang dilengkapi dengan studi kasus. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa terdapat perbedaan antara PKPU dalam konsep Hukum Kepailitan Indonesia dengan PKPU sebagai akibat dari Reorganisasi Perusahaan dalam Hukum Kepailitan Amerika Serikat. Perbedaan tersebut terletak pada kedudukan masa penundaan kewajiban pembayaran utang itu sendiri; jangka waktu penundaan kewajiban pembayaran utang di antara keduanya; serta prosedur yang berlaku pada masingmasing konsep, yakni dalam hal eksistensi Pengurus atau Trustee pada PKPU dan Reorganisasi Perusahaan. Hasil penelitian juga menunjukkan adanya perbedaan terkait dengan kesepakatan akhir yang dihasilkan oleh proses penyelesaian perkara kepailitan pada masing-masing konsep.

---

This research aimed to explain the regulation of Suspension of Payment in accordance with debt restructuring in Indonesia based on Law Number 37 Year 2004 and Suspension of Payment in United States of America due to corporate reorganization based on Chapter 11 US Bankruptcy Code. Furthermore, this research contained of comparative analysis regarding the implementation of those concepts. This research uses the concept of analytical-explanatory method by means of literature study complemented by case study.

The results of this research showed that there are some differences between the concept of Suspension of Payment based on Indonesian Bankruptcy Law with the Suspension of Payment as the impact of corporate reorganization in the concept of American Bankruptcy Law. The differences are reposed in the standing of the Suspension of Payment itself, the period of Suspension of Payment between those concepts and the procedures applied to each concept, in the matter of the existence of the Undertaker and the Trustee on Suspension of Payment and corporate reorganization. The results also showed the differences related to the final agreement generated by the process of bankruptcy case settlement of each concept."

"The motivation behind this research is rather a glance of the true purpose behind the meaning of suspension of payment obligations and the clear solution it's commonly faced with. Ever since man conceived of commerce, all entities concerned with trading are faced with the threat of a downfall, of lack of capital and/or resources to further its own end, thus is term bankruptcy. Since also the time of when the first corporations were set up in ancient Rome, the idea of a mechanism of a share or an ownership in which these primal system of trading were initiated, entities divide the ownership of these companies by means of a share or a stock. Thereby, those possessing capital may become investors in which they partake an involvement in the trading activity of the company they invested in through capital contributions. While it is the most acknowledged and upstanding of concept in the business world, shares were specifically and are legally set up in order for it to perform in a much more refined and adoptable way throughout time. As the cornerstone of commercial activity and/or early forms of corporate finance, shares are regarded as a payment obligation that a corporation must fulfill to their holders. Hence, the concept of shares are closely linked with that of bankruptcy. This research proposes a clear solution to the challenges that many businesses today are faced with in terms of bankruptcy. Whether or not it is worth converting debts into shares, of course, lies in the decision that were made between the conflicting parties. However, the fact that such action truly present a solution to their problem remain specifically and objectively to the benefits that each party obtains. This research approaches the problem through the case study of suspension of payment obligation to prevent the bankruptcy of P.T. Bakrie Telecom Tbk. that was presented by P.T. Netwave Multi Media and were decided that the debts be converted into shares. In a long run, the decisions that were made seem solid, as if all debts were to be fulfilled on specified time. However, there are assumptions as well as the probability whereby such time extension may prove to be quite risky and are frivolous in nature. This research thus seeks to enlighten the fact that the court of law fully supports the legality and the solidity of the conversion of debts into shares and how suspension of payment obligation may well benefit both parties, the debtor as well as the creditor, in the long run."

"Adanya perbedaan antara Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang PKPU berdasarkan Undang-Undang Nomor 37 Tahun 2004 yang berlaku di Indonesia dan Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang yang terjadi akibat Rehabilitasi berdasarkan Financial Rehabilitation and Insolvency Act FRIA di Filipina menyebabkan perlunya perbandingan mengenai PKPU dengan negara lain. Filipina merupakan negara ASEAN pertama yang sudah mengadopsi UNCITRAL Model Law yang mengatur tentang kepailitan lintas negara. Undang-undang kepailitan di Filipina dianggap selangkah lebih maju daripada undang-undang yang berlaku di Indonesia. Tulisan ini akan mengkaji mengenai perbandingan PKPU di Indonesia dan Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang akibat Rehabilitasi di Filipina serta menjelaskan mengenai perbedaan apa saja yang ada dalam kedua sistem tersebut.

---

The difference between Suspension of Payment PKPU based on Law Number 37 Year 2004 applicable in Indonesia and Suspension of Payment due to Rehabilitation under the Financial Rehabilitation and Insolvency Act FRIA in the Philippines led to the need for comparison of PKPU with other countries. The Philippines is the first ASEAN country to have adopted the UNCITRAL Model Law that governs cross border insolvency. Insolvency law in the Philippines is considered one step ahead of Indonesian law. This paper will examine the comparison of PKPU in Indonesia and the Suspension of Payment due to Rehabilitation in the Philippines and explain what differences exist within the two systems."

"Badan Usaha Milik Desa (BUM Desa) merupakan badan usaha yang seluruh atau sebagian modalnya dimiliki oleh desa melalui penyertaan langsung yang berasal dari kekayaan desa yang dipisahkan yang bertujuan untuk kesejahteraan masyarakat. Keberadaan BUM Desa tersebut diatur dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 6 tahun 2014 tentang Desa, Namun terdapat kekurangan atau kekosongan hukum dalam pengaturan tentang BUM Desa dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 6 tahun 2014 tersebut yakni terkait dengan konstruksi yuridis dari BUM Desa sebagai suatu subyek hukum di Indonesia. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode penelitian yuridis normatif dikarenakan dikarenakan penelitian ini mencoba untuk mengkaji norma hukum yang terdapat dalam peraturan-peraturan perundangan yang berlaku terkait dengan BUM Desa serta terkait dengan kepailitan badan usaha yaitu Undang-Undang Nomor 6 tahun 2014 tentang Desa dan Undang-Undang Nomor 37 Tahun 2004 tentang Kepailitan dan Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang. Hasil penelitian yang telah dilakukan dapat diperoleh kesimpulan bahwa: Pertama, BUM Desa merupakan badan usaha yang tidak berbadan hukum, namun dalam perkembangannya BUM Desa dapat menjadi badan usaha yang berbadan Hukum. Kedua, BUM Desa dapat diajukan Pailit berdasarkan Undang-Undang Nomor 37 Tahun 2004 tentang Kepailitan dan Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang (UU Kepalitian dan PKPU.

---

Village Owned Enterprises (BUM Desa) are business entities whose capital is wholly or partly owned by the village through direct investment originating from separated village assets aimed at the welfare of the community. The existence of BUM Desa is regulated in Law Number 6 of 2014 concerning Villages. However, there is a legal deficiency or vacuum in the regulation regarding BUM Desa in Law Number 6 of 2014 which is related to the juridical construction of BUM Desa as a legal subject in Indonesia. . This study uses a normative juridical research method because this research tries to examine the legal norms contained in the applicable laws and regulations related to BUM Desa and related to bankruptcy of business entities, namely Law Number 6 of 2014 concerning Villages and Law Number 37 of 2004 concerning Bankruptcy and Postponement of Debt Payment Obligations. The results of the research that has been carried out can be concluded that: First, BUM Desa is a business entity that is not a legal entity, but in its development BUM Desa can become a legal entity. Second, BUM Desa can be filed for bankruptcy based on Law Number 37 of 2004 concerning Bankruptcy and Postponement of Debt Payment Obligations (Bankruptcy Law and PKPU.)"

"Tesis ini membahas tentang Putusan Pengadilan Niaga Jakarta Pusat yang menolak permohonan pembatalan perdamaian penundaan kewajiban pembayaran utang yang diajukan oleh para kreditor pemegang obligasi dengan dasar pertimbangan bahwa Pasal 51 ayat (2) Undang-Undang Pasar Modal mengatur pemegang obligasi harus diwakili oleh wali amanat di dalam maupun di luar pengadilan. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode penelitian kepustakaan yang bersifat yuridis normatif untuk menghasilkan data bersifat deskriptif analitis. Berdasarkan hasil penelitian dapat disimpulkan bahwa pemegang obligasi berhak untuk mengajukan tuntutan perkara kepailitan tanpa harus melalui wali amanat. Hal ini dikarenakan berlakunya asas perundang-undangan yaitu asas lex specialis derogat legi generali yang mengatur bahwa terhadap peristiwa khusus wajib diberlakukan undang-undang yang menyebut peristiwa itu meskipun untuk peristiwa khusus tersebut dapat pula diberlakukan undang-undang yang menyebut peristiwa yang lebih luas namun dapat mencakup peristiwa khusus tersebut. Dengan demikian, untuk perkara kepailitan haruslah diberlakukan Undang-Undang Kepailitan dan PKPU. Pemegang obligasi memenuhi segala syarat kreditor yang diatur dalam Pasal 1 angka (2) Undang-Undang Kepailitan dan PKPU dan pada penjelasan pasal tersebut disebutkan bahwa bilamana terdapat sindikasi kreditor, maka masing-masing kreditor adalah kreditor sebagaimana dimaksud dalam Pasal 1 angka 2.

---

This thesis discusses the Decision of Central Jakarta Commercial Court that rejected the cancellation of a reconciliation request filed by bondholders under the basis of Article 51 paragraph (2) of the Capital Market Law which dictates that bond holders must be represented by a trustee in, or outside a court. This study uses library research methods in a normal juridical manner to provide descriptive analytical data.

This research concludes that bondholders are entitled to file a lawsuit directly to the defendant without the need of being represented by a trustee. Based on lex specialis derogat legi generali, in a specific circumstance, laws concerning that circumstance must be applied even though laws that cover more general circumstances may also be applied to the same specific circumstance. Therefore, for a bankruptcy case as such, Law No. 37 Year 2004 on Bankruptcy and Suspension of Obligation for Payment of Debts must be enacted. Bondholders must satisfy all the creditor requirements that is stated in Article 1 Paragraph (2) of Law No. 37 Year 2004, the article is interpreted as such: in case of syndicated creditors, each of the creditors shall mean the creditor as referred to in Article 1 Paragraph (2)."