Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Skripsi ini adalah suatu karya ilmiah yuridis normatif yaitu penelitian yang dilakukan melalui kepustakaan dengan melakukan perbandingan hukum. Latar belakang penelitian ini adalah dalam Undang-Undang No. 40 Tahun 2007 tentang Perseroan Terbatas ditemukan adanya keterbatasan untuk mengajukan gugatan derivatif yang merupakan salah satu perlindungan hukum bagi pemegang saham, terutama pemegang saham minoritas. Sedangkan sebagai perbandingan pengaturan dalam peraturan perundang-undangan lain, yaitu pengaturan dalam Undang-Undang Perusahaan Singapura 1994 dan Undang-Undang Perusahaan Jepang 2005, dalam penelitian ini ditemukan aspek-aspek tertentu dalam Undang-Undang Perusahaan Singapura 1994 dan Undang-Undang Perusahaan Jepang 2005 yang mampu mewujudkan keadilan dan kepastian hukum bagi pemegang saham, meliputi akses yang luas kepada seluruh pemegang saham, terutama pemegang saham minoritas dalam mengajukan gugatan derivatif, memberikan perlindungan terhadap Perseroan dengan menjadikan gugatan derivatif sebagai upaya hukum terakhir guna menjaga kestabilan Perseroan, dan memberikan perlindungan terhadap Perseroan dari itikad buruk pemegang saham yang mengajukan gugatan derivatif.

---

This undergraduate thesis is a normative juridical scientific work, that is a study conducted through literature by doing comparative study of law. The background of this research is that in Act No. 40 of 2007 on Limited Liability Companies, it is found limitations to file derivative action which is one of the legal protections for shareholders, especially minority shareholders. Meanwhile, as a comparison from other legislations, i.e. the regulation in the Singapore Company Act 1994 and the Japan Company Act 2005, in this study it is found certain aspects in the Singapore Company Act 1994 and the Japan Company Act 2005 which are able to bring about justice and legal certainty for shareholders, including extensive access to all shareholders, especially minority shareholders to file derivative action, to provide protection against the Companies by making a derivative action as the last legal effort to maintain the stability of the Companies, and to provide protection against the Companies from bad faith of shareholders filing the derivative action."

"Konsepsi Derivative Action tidak dapat dipisahkan dari konsep perlindungan dan hak-hak Pemegang Saham Minoritas.Derivative Right atau Derivative Action merupakan salah satu hak yang diberikan oleh Undang-undang Nomor 1 Tahun 1995 tentang Perseroan Terbatas, kepada pemegang saham yang mempunyai minimal 10% saham, untuk menggugat direksi atau komisaris atas nama perseroan, dalam hal Direksi atau Komisaris melakukan kesalahan yang menyebabkan kerugian pada perusahaan. Jadi pada hakikatnya Derivative Action adalah bertujuan untuk melindungi kepentingan perseroan, dan tidak secara langsung melindungi kepentingan pemegang saham minoritas.Konsep Derivative Action merupakan terobosan dalam hukum perusahaan yang bertujuan untuk mencegah terjadinya penyalahgunaan wewenang oleh direksi atau komisaris, yang pada umumnya didominasi oleh pemegang saham mayoritas.Makna perlindungan kepentingan pemegang saham minoritas dalam konsep Derivative Action, bukanlah kepentingan materil secara langsung, dan karenanya ganti rugi yang dihasilkan dari Derivative Action, akan dibayarkan kepada perusahaan, bukan kepada pemegang saham minoritas Penggugat."

"[ABSTRAKUndang-Undang No. 40 Tahun 2007 tentang Perseroan Terbatas menetapkan 3 (tiga) organ perseroan yaitu Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham, Direksi, dan Dewan Komisaris. Direksi berfungsi pada pokoknya untuk bertanggung jawab penuh atas pengurusan perseroan untuk kepentingan perseroan sedangkan Dewan Komisaris berfungsi melakukan pengawasan umum dan/atau khusus sesuai dengan Anggaran Dasar serta memberi nasihat kepada Direksi. Pada setiap masa akhir jabatannya, Direksi mempertanggung jawabkan pengurusan perseroan dalam Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham, yang memiliki kewenangan yang tidak diberikan kepada Direksi atau Dewan Komisaris dalam batas yang ditentukan Undang-Undang dan/atau Anggaran Dasar perseroan. Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham kemudian memberikan pelunasan dan pembebasan tanggung jawab (acquit et de charge) kepada Direksi jika tindakan kepengurusan perseroan telah tercermin dalam laporan keuangan.Pada tahun 2006, PT Indosat Mega Media sebagai perseroan yang menyediakan jasa internet (Internet Service Provider) menyelenggarakan jasanya melalui jaringan bergerak seluler milik PT Indosat Tbk melalui perjanjian kerjasama broadband. Kerjasama ini telah dipertanggung jawabkan dalam Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham pada tahun 2011 dan telah mendapatkan acquit et de charge kepada Direksi yang diwakili oleh Indar Atmanto selaku Direktur Utama. Kejaksaan Agung sebagai aparat penegak hukum mendakwa Indar Atmanto telah menggunakan frekuensi 2.1 GHz (3G) untuk menyelenggarakan jasa internetnya sehingga mengakibatkan kerugian negara sedangkan telah diketahui Direksi telah mendapatkan acquit et de charge dari Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham. Permasalahan hukum timbul atas pertanyaan sejauh mana acquit et de charge melindungi Direksi secara perdata dan pidana.

---

ABSTRACTAct No. 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Company establishes three (3) organs of the company i.e. General Meeting of Shareholders, the Board of Directors, and the Board of Commissioners. Board of Directors take full responsibility for the management of the company for the benefit of the company, while the Board of Commissioners for performing general supervision and/or in accordance with the Articles of Association as well as giving advice to the Board of Directors. At the end of their period, the Board of Directors accountable to the shareholder or management in General Meeting of Shareholders, which has special authority which is not granted to the Board of Directors or Board of Commissioners within construed to the Act and/or the Articles of Association of the company. Afterward, General Meeting of Shareholders grant release and discharge of responsibility (acquit et de charge) to the company's Board of Directors if the duty has been reflected in the financial statements.In 2006, PT Indosat Mega Media as an Internet Service Provider company, provide services through mobile cellular network owned by PT Indosat Tbk through broadband cooperation agreements. This cooperation has been accountable to the General Meeting of Shareholders in 2011 and the Board of Directors, represented by Indar Atmanto as CEO, has gained acquit et de charge. Attorney General as law enforcement officers indicted Indar Atmanto has been using 2.1 GHz frequency (3G) to provide internet services, therefore, resulting state loss while it is known that the Board of Directors has been obtained acquit et de charge from the General Meeting of Shareholders. Legal problem arisen is how acquit et de charge could protect the Board of Directors from the liability of civil lawsuit and the criminal indicment.;Act No. 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Company establishes three (3) organs of the company i.e. General Meeting of Shareholders, the Board of Directors, and the Board of Commissioners. Board of Directors take full responsibility for the management of the company for the benefit of the company, while the Board of Commissioners for performing general supervision and/or in accordance with the Articles of Association as well as giving advice to the Board of Directors. At the end of their period, the Board of Directors accountable to the shareholder or management in General Meeting of Shareholders, which has special authority which is not granted to the Board of Directors or Board of Commissioners within construed to the Act and/or the Articles of Association of the company. Afterward, General Meeting of Shareholders grant release and discharge of responsibility (acquit et de charge) to the company's Board of Directors if the duty has been reflected in the financial statements.In 2006, PT Indosat Mega Media as an Internet Service Provider company, provide services through mobile cellular network owned by PT Indosat Tbk through broadband cooperation agreements. This cooperation has been accountable to the General Meeting of Shareholders in 2011 and the Board of Directors, represented by Indar Atmanto as CEO, has gained acquit et de charge. Attorney General as law enforcement officers indicted Indar Atmanto has been using 2.1 GHz frequency (3G) to provide internet services, therefore, resulting state loss while it is known that the Board of Directors has been obtained acquit et de charge from the General Meeting of Shareholders. Legal problem arisen is how acquit et de charge could protect the Board of Directors from the liability of civil lawsuit and the criminal indicment.;Act No. 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Company establishes three (3) organs of the company i.e. General Meeting of Shareholders, the Board of Directors, and the Board of Commissioners. Board of Directors take full responsibility for the management of the company for the benefit of the company, while the Board of Commissioners for performing general supervision and/or in accordance with the Articles of Association as well as giving advice to the Board of Directors. At the end of their period, the Board of Directors accountable to the shareholder or management in General Meeting of Shareholders, which has special authority which is not granted to the Board of Directors or Board of Commissioners within construed to the Act and/or the Articles of Association of the company. Afterward, General Meeting of Shareholders grant release and discharge of responsibility (acquit et de charge) to the company's Board of Directors if the duty has been reflected in the financial statements.In 2006, PT Indosat Mega Media as an Internet Service Provider company, provide services through mobile cellular network owned by PT Indosat Tbk through broadband cooperation agreements. This cooperation has been accountable to the General Meeting of Shareholders in 2011 and the Board of Directors, represented by Indar Atmanto as CEO, has gained acquit et de charge. Attorney General as law enforcement officers indicted Indar Atmanto has been using 2.1 GHz frequency (3G) to provide internet services, therefore, resulting state loss while it is known that the Board of Directors has been obtained acquit et de charge from the General Meeting of Shareholders. Legal problem arisen is how acquit et de charge could protect the Board of Directors from the liability of civil lawsuit and the criminal indicment.;Act No. 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Company establishes three (3) organs of the company i.e. General Meeting of Shareholders, the Board of Directors, and the Board of Commissioners. Board of Directors take full responsibility for the management of the company for the benefit of the company, while the Board of Commissioners for performing general supervision and/or in accordance with the Articles of Association as well as giving advice to the Board of Directors. At the end of their period, the Board of Directors accountable to the shareholder or management in General Meeting of Shareholders, which has special authority which is not granted to the Board of Directors or Board of Commissioners within construed to the Act and/or the Articles of Association of the company. Afterward, General Meeting of Shareholders grant release and discharge of responsibility (acquit et de charge) to the company's Board of Directors if the duty has been reflected in the financial statements.In 2006, PT Indosat Mega Media as an Internet Service Provider company, provide services through mobile cellular network owned by PT Indosat Tbk through broadband cooperation agreements. This cooperation has been accountable to the General Meeting of Shareholders in 2011 and the Board of Directors, represented by Indar Atmanto as CEO, has gained acquit et de charge. Attorney General as law enforcement officers indicted Indar Atmanto has been using 2.1 GHz frequency (3G) to provide internet services, therefore, resulting state loss while it is known that the Board of Directors has been obtained acquit et de charge from the General Meeting of Shareholders. Legal problem arisen is how acquit et de charge could protect the Board of Directors from the liability of civil lawsuit and the criminal indicment.;Act No. 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Company establishes three (3) organs of the company i.e. General Meeting of Shareholders, the Board of Directors, and the Board of Commissioners. Board of Directors take full responsibility for the management of the company for the benefit of the company, while the Board of Commissioners for performing general supervision and/or in accordance with the Articles of Association as well as giving advice to the Board of Directors. At the end of their period, the Board of Directors accountable to the shareholder or management in General Meeting of Shareholders, which has special authority which is not granted to the Board of Directors or Board of Commissioners within construed to the Act and/or the Articles of Association of the company. Afterward, General Meeting of Shareholders grant release and discharge of responsibility (acquit et de charge) to the company's Board of Directors if the duty has been reflected in the financial statements.In 2006, PT Indosat Mega Media as an Internet Service Provider company, provide services through mobile cellular network owned by PT Indosat Tbk through broadband cooperation agreements. This cooperation has been accountable to the General Meeting of Shareholders in 2011 and the Board of Directors, represented by Indar Atmanto as CEO, has gained acquit et de charge. Attorney General as law enforcement officers indicted Indar Atmanto has been using 2.1 GHz frequency (3G) to provide internet services, therefore, resulting state loss while it is known that the Board of Directors has been obtained acquit et de charge from the General Meeting of Shareholders. Legal problem arisen is how acquit et de charge could protect the Board of Directors from the liability of civil lawsuit and the criminal indicment.;Act No. 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Company establishes three (3) organs of the company i.e. General Meeting of Shareholders, the Board of Directors, and the Board of Commissioners. Board of Directors take full responsibility for the management of the company for the benefit of the company, while the Board of Commissioners for performing general supervision and/or in accordance with the Articles of Association as well as giving advice to the Board of Directors. At the end of their period, the Board of Directors accountable to the shareholder or management in General Meeting of Shareholders, which has special authority which is not granted to the Board of Directors or Board of Commissioners within construed to the Act and/or the Articles of Association of the company. Afterward, General Meeting of Shareholders grant release and discharge of responsibility (acquit et de charge) to the company's Board of Directors if the duty has been reflected in the financial statements.In 2006, PT Indosat Mega Media as an Internet Service Provider company, provide services through mobile cellular network owned by PT Indosat Tbk through broadband cooperation agreements. This cooperation has been accountable to the General Meeting of Shareholders in 2011 and the Board of Directors, represented by Indar Atmanto as CEO, has gained acquit et de charge. Attorney General as law enforcement officers indicted Indar Atmanto has been using 2.1 GHz frequency (3G) to provide internet services, therefore, resulting state loss while it is known that the Board of Directors has been obtained acquit et de charge from the General Meeting of Shareholders. Legal problem arisen is how acquit et de charge could protect the Board of Directors from the liability of civil lawsuit and the criminal indicment., Act No. 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Company establishes three (3) organs of the company i.e. General Meeting of Shareholders, the Board of Directors, and the Board of Commissioners. Board of Directors take full responsibility for the management of the company for the benefit of the company, while the Board of Commissioners for performing general supervision and/or in accordance with the Articles of Association as well as giving advice to the Board of Directors. At the end of their period, the Board of Directors accountable to the shareholder or management in General Meeting of Shareholders, which has special authority which is not granted to the Board of Directors or Board of Commissioners within construed to the Act and/or the Articles of Association of the company. Afterward, General Meeting of Shareholders grant release and discharge of responsibility (acquit et de charge) to the company's Board of Directors if the duty has been reflected in the financial statements.In 2006, PT Indosat Mega Media as an Internet Service Provider company, provide services through mobile cellular network owned by PT Indosat Tbk through broadband cooperation agreements. This cooperation has been accountable to the General Meeting of Shareholders in 2011 and the Board of Directors, represented by Indar Atmanto as CEO, has gained acquit et de charge. Attorney General as law enforcement officers indicted Indar Atmanto has been using 2.1 GHz frequency (3G) to provide internet services, therefore, resulting state loss while it is known that the Board of Directors has been obtained acquit et de charge from the General Meeting of Shareholders. Legal problem arisen is how acquit et de charge could protect the Board of Directors from the liability of civil lawsuit and the criminal indicment.]"

"ABSTRAKTingkat voluntary disclosure yang tinggi pada laporan tahunan nkan memberika'l manfilat bagi perusahaan berupa adanya penurunan cost of equity (Botosan, 1997) maupun cost of debt (Sengupta, 1998). Mengingat manfaat tersebut banyak penelitian berusaba mempelajari mengenai adanya faktor-faktor yang mempengaruhi dan mendorong perusahaan untnk meningkatkan tingkat disclosure perusabaan.Berbeda dengan penelitian-penelitian yang dilakukan sebelumnya di Indonesia dimana sebagian besar meneliti masalah pengaruh internal perusahaan terbadap tingkat disclosure perusabaan. Pada penelitian yang dilakukan menggunnkan data 101 perusabaan manufaktur yang terdaflar pada Bursa EfekIndonesia ini, mempelajari adanya pengarub ekternal yaitu kompetisi disamping pengarub yang berasal dari internal perusabaan yaitu total aset dan kepentilikan pemegang sabam besar.Dalam penelitian ini tingkat disclosure pe.rusabaan diukur denganmenggunnkan indeks Botosan. Sedangkan untuk mengukur tingkat kompetisi perusahaan, dalam penelitian ini perusahaan dikelompokan dalam jenis industri berdasarkan klasifikasi StanckJrd Indu.stry Code (SIC) dan dibitung tingkat kompetisi menggunnkan rnetode Herfindahllndeks (HI).Hasi! dari penelidan ini mendnkang dan mernberikan bukti empiris babwa faktor internal:total aset perusabaan dan kepemilikan pemegang sabam besar serta lilktor ekstemal yaltu kompetisi yang memberikan pengarub yang positif terhadap tingkat disclosure perusahaan."

"Skripsi ini membahas mengenai permasalahan-permasalahan konsep gugatan derivatif dalam suatu gugatan perbuatan melawan hukum di Indonesia apabila ditinjau dari putusan-putusan pengadilan yang dipublikasi pada situs Mahkamah Agung khususnya pada periode tahun 2007-2018.  Penelitian ini menggunakan metode yuridis normatif, dimana data yang digunakan bersumber dari studi kepustakaan dan wawancara dengan narasumber. Adapun hasil penelitian mengenai permasalahan yang dibahas dalam penelitian ini adalah bahwa terdapat beberapa permasalahan penerapan gugatan derivatif dalam suatu gugatan perbuatan melawan hukum pada prakteknya, antara lain yaitu: 1) permasalahan terkait Legal Standing baik terkait kepemilikan saham maupun keturutsertaan pihak ke-3; 2) permasalahan mengenai ganti kerugian; 3) permasalahan penerapan unsur-unsur perbuatan melawan hukum, serta 4) terdapatnya inkonsistensi putusan pengadilan terkait gugatan derivatif perbuatan melawan hukum tersebut. Dari hasil penelitian, ditemukan bahwa permasalahan-permasalahan tersebut dapat disebabkan antara lain oleh karena hal-hal sebagai berikut: tidak diterapkannya Schutznorm Theorie di Indonesia, kurangnya pengaturan mengenai gugatan derivatif berdasarkan hukum positif yang berlaku di Indonesia, serta tidak terdapatnya pedoman dalam bentuk apapun dari pihak Mahkamah Agung yang dapat menjadi pegangan bagi para hakim dalam memutus kasus yang berkaitan dengan gugatan derivatif.

---

This thesis discusses several Problems of Derivative Action in Tortious Liability Claim in Indonesia by reviewing at Indonesia court decisions which are published at the Indonesia Supreme Court website, especially the decisions period of 2007 until 2018. This study uses normative juridical methods, where the data used are sourced from literature studies and interviews with informants. The results of this researches are that there are some problems of derivative action in Tortius Liability Lawsuit in Indonesia, which includes: 1) problems about Legal Standing including both about the share ownership and about the third party participation on Lawsuit; 2) problems about the compensation; 3) problems about the application of Indonesia tortius liability lawsuit elements, also 4) inconsistency problems of Indonesia Court decision on derivative action in Tortius Liability lawsuit. As obtained in the research, each of those problems may be caused by the following thins: the inapplicable Schutznorm Theorie in Indonesia, the lack of regulations about derivative action in Indonesia, and the absence of guidance from the Supreme Court of Indonesia that could become the guidelines for judges all over Indonesia to decide cases related to derivative action in tortius liability lawsuit."

"Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengevaluasi implikasi perpajakan atas transaksi derivatif di Indonesia. Untuk menutup celah penghindaran pajak melalui penggunaan instrumen derivatif, diperlukan pengaturan perpajakan atas transaksi derivatif di Indonesia. Penelitian ini menggunakan pendekatan kualitatif dengan melakukan studi literatur, studi benchmarking peraturan negara lain, serta wawancara kepada Direktorat Jenderal Pajak dan Konsultan Pajak. Penelitian ini menyimpulkan bahwa tidak terdapat peraturan perpajakan yang komprehensif atas transaksi derivatif di Indonesia sehingga perlunya pengaturan lebih lanjut yang menyelaraskan antara standar akuntansi dan perpajakan di Indonesia. Studi benchmarking menghasilkan bahwa pencatatan dan pengukuran derivatif mengikuti standar akuntansi dan atas perpajakannya dihitung dalam penghitungan PPh Badan. Sehingga pemajakan atas keuntungan transaksi derivatif dikenakan atas realisasi keuntungan di laporan laba rugi setelah dikurangi kerugian bersifat spekulasi. Bila net-off antara keuntungan dan kerugian bersifat spekulasi menghasilkan kerugian maka harus dilakukan koreksi fiskal. Berkaitan dengan pemeriksaan pajak, diperlukan pengaturan kriteria transaksi derivatif dengan kriteria lindung nilai dan spekulasi yang harus ditegaskan dengan mengacu pada kriteria pada PSAK 71: Akuntansi Lindung Nilai.

---

This study aims to evaluate the tax implications of derivative transactions in Indonesia. To close the gap in tax avoidance through the use of derivative instruments, it is necessary to regulate the taxation of derivative transactions in Indonesia. This research uses a qualitative approach by conducting a literature study, benchmarking studies of other countries' regulations, as well as interviews with the Directorate General of Taxes and Tax Consultants. This study concludes that there is no comprehensive tax regulation on derivative transactions in Indonesia so that further regulation is needed that harmonizes accounting and taxation standards regarding derivative transaction. Benchmarking studies result that the recording and measurement of derivatives follow accounting standards and their taxation is calculated in the calculation of corporate income tax. Thus, the taxation of gains on derivative transactions is imposed on the realization of gains in the income statement after deducting speculative losses. If the net-off between speculative profits and losses results in losses, a fiscal correction must be made. In relation to tax audits, it is necessary to stipulate criteria for derivative transactions with hedging and speculation criteria which must be reffered to the criteria in PSAK 71: Hedging Accounting."

"Tanah terlantar merupakan suatu hal yang merugikan masyarakat umum karena tanah merupakan milik Bangsa Indonesia yang harus dimanfaatkan sebesar-besanrya untuk kesejahteraan umum sehingga apabila ditelantarkan maka berdampak menimbulkan kerugian terhadap masyarakat. Oleh karena itu mengenai tanah terlantar perlu dilakukan penertiban yang mana hal tersebut dilakukan oleh Badan Pertanahan Nasional selaku instansi ynag berwenang dalam menertibkan dan menetapkan tanah terlantar. Namun, dalam praktik melaksanakan kewenangannya dalam bentuk Surat Keputusan Penetapan Tanah Terlantar yang diterbitkan oleh Badan Pertanahan Nasional justru berujung hingga Pengadilan karena pihak yang memiliki tanah merasa bahwa keputusan yang dibuat atas tanah milik mereka tidak selayaknya ditetapkan sebagai tanah terlantar yang mana dalam beberapa putusan pengadilan, Badan Pertanahan Nasional justru kalah dalam gugatan atas penetapan tanah terlantar sehingga surat keputusan yang telah diterbitkan dinyatakan dicabut. Atas dasar itu, maka terdapat faktor-faktor yang menyebabkan surat keputusan yang telah diterbitkan dicabut sehingga hal ini menimbulkan perkara hukum atas keputusan yang telah diterbitkan. Analisis mengenai penertiban tanah terlantar dalam penelitian ini akan dibatasi dengan 7 (tujuh) putusan pengadilan untuk melihat pola dari penertiban tanah terlantar.

---

Abandoned land is something that is detrimental to the general public because land belongs to the Indonesian nation which must be utilized to the fullest extent possible for the general welfare so that if it is neglected it will have an impact on causing harm to the community. Therefore, regarding abandoned land, it is necessary to control it, which is carried out by the National Land Agency as the agency that has the authority to regulate and determine abandoned land. However, in practice exercising its authority in the form of a Decree on the Determination of Abandoned Land issued by the National Land Agency actually ends up in court because the parties who own the land feel that decisions made on their land should not be designated as abandoned land which in several court decisions, The National Land Agency actually lost the lawsuit over the designation of abandoned land so that the decree that had been issued was declared repealed. On that basis, there are factors that cause the decision letter that has been issued to be revoked so that this creates a lawsuit against the decision that has been issued. The analysis regarding the control of abandoned land in this study will be limited to 7 (seven) court decisions to see the pattern of controlling abandoned land."

"ABSTRAKTesis ini membahas tentang urgensi hak imunitas kepada kurator sebagai bentukperlindungan hukum saat mengurus dan membereskan harta pailit. Penelitian iniadalah penelitian kualitatif dengan metode preskriptif yuridis analitis. Hasilpenelitian adalah Undang-Undang Kepailitan tidak tegas dalam memberikanperlindungan hukum kepada kurator sehingga para kurator rentan menjadi targettuntutan hukum, baik secara pidana maupun perdata.Untuk itu, para praktisimenginginkan satu dasar hukum yang kuat, yaitu dicantumkannya satu klausulperlindungan hukum dalam UU Kepailitan layaknya UU Advokat. Dengandemikian, para kurator dapat bekerja dengan aman meskipun masih terbukakesempatan kepada pihak lain yang berkepentinga nuntuk menuntut danmenggugat kurator.

---

ABSTRACTThe focus of this study urgency of giving immunity right to bankruptcy trustee as alegal protection when taking care of the bankruptcy estate. The purpose of this studyis to know how important immunity right for bankruptcy trustee. As a result, Trusteeneed a legal protection because Bankruptcy Law in Indonesia does not provide legalprotection to the trustee so they become a natural target for lawsuits. Therefore,trustees want an article about legal protection in Bankruptcy Law as a lawyer. Theresearch is qualitative with a juridical prescriptive analytical. The data were collectedby deep interview."