Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Tesis ini membahas Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang (PKPU) sebagai metode penjadwalan kembali pembayaran utang perusahaan dengan mendasarkan pada Undang-Undang No. 37 Tahun 2004 tentang Kepailitan Dan Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang serta penerapannya dalam praktik, dan membahas mengenai bentuk pengaturan restrukturisasi utang di Amerika Serikat dan Singapura sebagai perbandingan. Penelitian ini adalah penelitian normatif yuridis. Hasil penelitian ini menyarankan bahwa dalam mengajukan permohonan PKPU harus diperhatikan mengenai pembuktian adanya utang yang telah jatuh tempo dan dapat ditagih, serta perlu adanya aturan pembatasan jumlah utang maksimal dan ketentuan jangka waktu maksimal dalam menjadwalkan kembali pembayaran utang.

---

The focus of this study is discussing about Suspension of Payment (PKPU) as a method to debt rescheduling payment of the company and its implementation in practice according to Law No. 37 of 2004 regarding Bankruptcy And Suspension of Payment, and, as comparison, this study is discuss how debt restructurization in United States Of America and Singapore are regulated. This research is juridical normative which mean the data is according to the applicable law. The researcher suggest that a simple evidentiary regarding a due and collectible debt must be aware while submission of PKPU petition, and a regulation regarding maximum debt limitation and maximum term of debt repayment are necessary needs."

"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)."

"Kepailitan dan Penundaan Kewajiban dan Pembayaran Utang merupakan salah satu wadah yang disediakan oleh Hukum di Indonesia dalam menghadapi suatu keadaan tidak mampu membayar yang dihadapi oleh Debitor terkait denganutang-utangnya pada satu atau lebih dari satu kreditor, dimana dapat diajukan atas inisiatif Debitor sendiri maupun atas permohonan Kreditor. Apabila suatu entitas hukum dinyatakan pailit, bagaimanakah boedel pailit dapat dieksekusi secara benar sesuai dengan peraturan perundangan yang berlaku. Bila terjadi suatu keadaan dimana kreditor separatis mengeksekusi boedel pailit sebelum habis masa tunggu (stay) yang diatur dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 37 Tahun 2004 tentang Kepailitan dan Penundaan Kewajiban dan Pembayaran Utang pada Pasal 56, proses yang seperti apakah yang seharusnya dapat ditempuh bagi kreditor konkuren yang dirugikan atas eksekusi tersebut. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode penelitian yuridis normatif dengan spesifikasi penelitian deskriptif analitis.

---

Bankruptcy and Suspension of Obligations and Debt Payment is one of the containers provided by law in Indonesia in the face of a state unable to pay faced by the debtor related to debts of her on one or more than one creditor, which can be submitted at the initiative of the debtor itself or at the request of creditors. If a legal entity is declared bankrupt, how boedel bankruptcy can be executed properly in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. If there is a situation where separatist creditor executes boedel bankruptcy before the expiration of the waiting (stay) which is regulated in Law Number 37 of 2004 on Bankruptcy and Suspension of Obligations and Debt Payments on Article 56, the process as if that should be taken for creditors concurrent aggrieved over the execution. This research used normative juridical research with descriptive analytical research specifications."

"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."

"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."

"Hubungan bisnis dilakukan oleh pelaku bisnis dengan pelaku bisnis lainnya dalam dunia usaha dengan tujuan ekonomis, yaitu mendapatkan keuntungan. Dalam prakteknya perikatan yang dilakukan para pelaku bisnis tersebut terkadang menimbulkan masalah di saat perikatan yang disepakati oleh para pihak ternyata tidak dapat dilaksanakan, yang kemudian menimbulkan utang yang harus dipenuhi. Penyelesaian utang piutang itu sendiri dapat dilakukan melalui jalur kepailitan melalui Pengadilan Niaga, apabila ternyata terdapat dua atau lebih pihak yang mempunyai piutang terhadap debitur yang memiliki utang. Adapun pengertian utang sebagai salah satu syarat penting dalam perkara kepailitan inilah yang kadangkala menimbulkan perbedaan pendapat di kalangan para sarjana hukum. Hal ini disebabkan karena meskipun telah diberikan definisi secara jelas melalui Undang-Undang Kepailitan 2004 dan Kitab Undang-undang Hukum Perdata tetapi pemahaman Hakim atas batasan-batasan pengertian tersebut seringkali menjadi rancu apalagi apabila dikaitkan dengan persyaratan kepailitan yang lain, yaitu jatuh waktu serta dapat ditagih, dan perlunya pembuktian secara sederhana atas adanya utang tersebut. Pengertian utang secara mendalam yang tidak hanya berasal dari konstruksi perjanjian pinjam meminjam, melainkan juga berasal balk karena perjanjian lainnya atau karena adanya perikatan yang lahir karena undangundang inilah yang harus dipahami oleh Hakim, dimana pelaksanaan Undang-Undang Kepailitan 2004 dengan demikian dapat dilakukan secara maksimal.

---

Business relations are done between one business practitioners with another with the economic purpose of achieving profit. In practice, contract between business practitioners sometimes causes difficulty when it can not be fulfilled, which then resulted in the form of debt which must be remunerated. The completion of the debt itself can be done through bankruptcy process in Business Court, if there are two or more parties acting as creditors to the debtor. Whereas, although it has been explained thoroughly in Bankruptcy Act 2004 and Civil Code Book, there are still arguments amongst law scholars regarding debt as one of important conditions in bankruptcy cases. It is caused by the lack of understanding from the Judges on the boundaries of debt, especially if it was connected with other bankruptcy conditions of overdue and liable, also the need of simple evidential phase on the debt. Therefore Judges should have profound knowledge on debt, as not only liabilities derived from loan agreement, but also resulting from other agreements or because of contract which were originated from the law, in order to have the Bankruptcy Act 2004 be exercised properly."

"Dalam hal harta debitor pailit yang ditemukan saat proses pengurusan dan pemberesan tidak cukup untuk membayar biaya kepailitan, Hakim Pengawas mengusulkan kepada Hakim Pemeriksa untuk melakukan pencabutan pernyataan pailit sebagaimana diatur dalam Pasal 18 ayat (1) UUK & PKPU. Namun, dalam Putusan Pengadilan Niaga Jakarta Pusat No. 74/PAILIT/2009/PN.NIAGA.JKT.PST jo. Putusan Mahkamah Agung No. 1037.K/PDT.SUS/2010 yang mengajukan pencabutan pernyataan pailit adalah Kurator dengan hanya berdasarkan dugaan tidak ditemukan harta pailit. Permohonan pencabutan kepailitan oleh Kurator yang demikian tentu akan merugikan para kreditor untuk memperoleh pembayaran. Padahal, UUK & PKPU seyogyanya tidak hanya memberikan perlindungan kepada debitor, tetapi juga para kreditor. Adapun metode penelitian yang digunakan dalam skripsi ini adalah metode yuridis-normatif yang menggunakan data sekunder atau studi kepustakaan dengan menggunakan bahan hukum primer, sekunder, maupun tersier. Selain itu, peneliti juga melakukan wawancara terhadap beberapa informan sebagai data tambahan yang menunjang atau melengkapi data sekunder. Dari hasil penelitian didapatkan bahwa Kurator dapat mengajukan permohonan pencabutan pernyataan pailit dengan terlebih dahulu melakukan rapat panitia kreditor untuk memastikan bahwa debitor pailit sudah tidak memiliki harta lagi untuk membayar biaya kepailitan, dan Kurator juga harus memperoleh izin dari Hakim Pengawas. Sehubungan dengan hal tersebut maka ada beberapa saran dari peneliti untuk melakukan pembaharuan terhadap UUK & PKPU, khususnya terkait prosedur dan tahapan pencabutan kepailitan.

---

In case that the debtors assets discovered during the management and settlement process of the bankruptcy assets are insufficient to cover the bankruptcy charge, the Supervisory Judge shall propose to the Panel of Judges to revoke bankruptcy decision as stipulated under Article 18 paragraph (1) of Law No. 37/2004. Having said that, however, on the Central Jakarta Commercial Court Verdict Number 74/PAILIT/2009/PN.NIAGA.JKT.PST jo. the Supreme Court Verdict Number 1037.K/PDT.SUS/2010, instead of the Supervisory Judge, it is the Receiver who proposed to revoke the bankruptcy decision merely based on unreasonable assumptions stating the debtors assets were insufficient. Such revocation proposal may have harmed the creditors to receive immediate payment. Whereas, Law No. 37/2004 implicates that reasonable protection should not only be given for the interest of the debtor, but also the creditors.

This research is a juridical-normative using secondary data or library research comprising primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials. Additionally, the researcher also conducted key informants interview to further support and complement the secondary data.

The research shows that the Receiver may propose to revoke the bankruptcy decision by covening the creditors meeting in advance to ensure that the debtor does not have sufficient assets, and the Receiver must have obtained an authorization from the Supervisory Judge prior to the revocation proposal. In connection therewith, some recommendations for possible amendments to the Law No. 32004 are provided, specifically on the procedure and phase of bankruptcy revocation."