Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"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."

"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."

"Kegiatan ekonomi antar negara membukakan pintu para investor untuk dapat menanamkan investasinya di negara lain. Seiring dengan meningkatnya kegiatan transaksi ekonomi internasional, terbuka besar kemungkinan munculnya masalah kepailitan lintas negara. Maka dari itu, instrumen hukum kepailitan di sebuah negara harus ditingkatkan. Dalam menghadapi masalah kepailitan lintas negara, beberapa negara telah mencari jalan keluar seperti halnya Perserikatan Bangsa-Bangsa yang telah menciptakan UNCITRAL Model Law 1997, dan European Union yang telah menciptakan peraturan regional yang disebut dengan Council Regulation (EC) No. 1356/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings. Permasalahan kepailitan lintas negara juga dapat diatasi dengan perjanjian bilateral seperti yang dilakukan Singapura dengan Malaysia dalam Mutual Recognition and Mutual Enforcement of Republic of Singapore and Malaysia on Cross-Border Insolvency. Indonesia merupakan salah satu negara yang belum memiliki satupun peraturan yang mengatur mengenai kepailitan lintas negara. Skripsi ini akan membahas mengenai kemungkinan diterapkannya pengaturan mengenai kepailitan lintas negara di Indonesia dengan meninjau pengaturan kepailitan lintas negara yang dilakukan Singapura dengan perjanjian bilateral bersama Malaysia, dan juga langkah Singapura dalam mengadopsi UNCITRAL Model Law melalui studi kasus. Selain itu, Skripsi ini juga membahas mengenai pengaturan regional kepailitan lintas negara yang diciptakan oleh European Union.Economic activity between countries opens opportunities for investors to be able to invest in other countries. Along with the increase of international economic transactions, there is possibility of the emergence of Cross-Border Insolvency inssues. Therefore, bankruptcy instruments in a country must be improved. In dealing with Cross-Border Insolvency, several countries have sought solutions. The United Nations created the UNCITRAL Model Law on 1997, and the European Union created a regional regulation called Council Regulation (EC) No. 1356/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings. The Cross-Border Insolvency issues can also be settled by bilateral agreements such Mutual Recognition and Mutual Enforcement of the Republic of Singapore and Malaysia on Cross-Border Insolvency which conducted by Singapore and Malaysia. Indonesia does not yet have a single regulation that governs Cross-Border Insolvency. This study will discuss the possibility of applying Cross-Border Insolvency instruments in Indonesia by reviewing the Cross-Border Insolvency Instruments undertaken by Singapore with bilateral agreements with Malaysia, and also Singapore's steps in adopting the UNCITRAL Model Law through case studies. In addition, this study also discusses regional regulation on Cross-Border Insolvency created by the European Union"

"This work aims to analyse substantive and conflict of laws rules regarding intermediated securities in a comparative way. For this purpose, it examines major jurisdictions’ rules for intermediated securities and the intermediated securities holding systems, such as the rules of the German, US, Korean, Japanese and Swiss systems, as well as the relevant EU regimes and initiatives. Above all, it analyses the two international instruments related to intermediated securities, i.e. the Geneva Securities Convention and the Hague Securities Convention. Through a functional comparative approach based upon legal traditions of the various jurisdictions, this book gives readers theoretical and practical information on intermediated securities and their national and international aspects."

"ABSTRAKAnggota direksi dalam melaksanakan tugasnya memiliki resiko bertanggung jawab secara pribadi. Saat ini terdapat kecenderungan anggota direksi melakukan perjanjian pisah harta untuk membatasi tanggung jawab pribadinya. Tesis ini mengkaji tentang keberadaan perjanjian pisah harta untuk membatasi pertanggung jawaban anggota direksi dalam hal perseroan terbatas merugi akibat kelalaian anggota direksi tersebut dan perlindungan hukum terhadap kreditur apabila anggota direksi tersebut memiliki perjanjian pisah harta. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa perjanjian pisah harta yang dilakukan anggota direksi yang bersalah atau lalai yang menyebabkan perseroan terbatas rugi dapat membatasi tanggung jawab anggota direksi tersebut apabila perjanjian pisah harta dibuat sebelum perkawinan dilakukan dan dalam bentuk akta notaries. Kreditur memang tidak mendapatkan perlindungan hukum yang memadai dalam hal anggota direksi memiliki perjanjian pisah harta. Namun demikian kreditur tetap dapat melakukan upaya hukum lainnya agar kepentingannya terlindungi dengan meminta dibuatnya asuransi jabatan direksi atau melakukan gugatan Actio Pauliana. Penelitian ini dilakukan dengan menggunakan metode yuridis normatif, dengan bahan hukum sekunder sebagai bahan utama

---

ABSTRACTBoard of directors in carrying out their duties have personal responsibility risk. Currently, there is a tendency of the directors entered into a separation of property agreement to limit personal liability. This thesis examines the existence of separate property agreement to limit liability of the directors in terms of a limited liability company lost due to the negligence of the directors and the legal protection of creditors if the board member has a separate property agreement. The results showed that the separation of property agreement of the members of the board of directors at fault or negligence which causes loss of limited liability may limit the liability of directors when the separation of property agreement made ​​before marriage done and in a notary deed. The lender did not obtain adequate legal protection in the event a director has an agreement separate property. However, lenders can still make other remedies that protected its interests by requiring insurers made ​​the position of directors or making claims Actio Pauliana. The research was conducted by using normative juridical, with secondary materials as the main materials"

"[For almost three decades, the European Union (EU) has adopted measures to regulate consumer transactions within the internal market created by the EU Treaties. Existing legislation is largely based on directives harmonizing aspects of national consumer laws. This Brief argues that a more appropriate approach for EU consumer law would be legislation in the form of a regulation which is applicable to cross-border transactions only. The author considers the constitutional constraints of the EU Treaties, before examining the case for a cross-border-only measure. He argues that the cross-border approach is preferable, because it would provide clearer benefits for consumers seeking to buy goods and services across borders, while not upsetting domestic law unnecessarily, in particular in the context of e-commerce, with implications for industry, policymaking, and regional development. The Brief concludes by suggesting that a successful EU measure on cross-border consumer transactions could create a template for global initiatives for transnational consumer law., For almost three decades, the European Union (EU) has adopted measures to regulate consumer transactions within the internal market created by the EU Treaties. Existing legislation is largely based on directives harmonizing aspects of national consumer laws. This Brief argues that a more appropriate approach for EU consumer law would be legislation in the form of a regulation which is applicable to cross-border transactions only. The author considers the constitutional constraints of the EU Treaties, before examining the case for a cross-border-only measure. He argues that the cross-border approach is preferable, because it would provide clearer benefits for consumers seeking to buy goods and services across borders, while not upsetting domestic law unnecessarily, in particular in the context of e-commerce, with implications for industry, policymaking, and regional development. The Brief concludes by suggesting that a successful EU measure on cross-border consumer transactions could create a template for global initiatives for transnational consumer law.]"