Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

Abstrak :
Kepailitan mengenal tiga unsur penting dan saling terkait yang harus dipenuhi yaitu adanya kreditor, debitor, dan utang yang telah jatuh tempo dan dapat ditagih. Secara teoritis, pada umumnya debitur yang memiliki masalah untuk memenuhi kewajibannya dalam membayar utang akan menempuh berbagai alternatif penyelesaian. Dalam sebuah hubungan utang-piutang, terkadang disadari maupun tidak disadari terjadi hal-hal yang dapat menghapuskan utang. Salah satu alasan penghapusan utang tersebut adalah perjumpaan utang. Perjumpaan utang merupakan salah satu cara hapusnya sebuah perikatan yang diatur dalam Kitab Undang-undang Hukum Perdata dan secara khusus pula diatur dalam Undangundang Nomor 37 Tahun 2004. Perjumpaan utang dalam kepailitan menjadi salah satu konsep yang menentukan keberadaan utang sehingga juga menentukan putusan pailit dapat dijatuhkan atau tidak. ...... Bankruptcy recognize three essential and interrelated elements that must be accomplished, namely the creditor, debtor, and the debt which is due and payable. Theoretically, the debtor who has problem with the ability to meet its obligations to pay the debt will take various alternative settlement. In debt relation, consciously or unconsciously, sometimes things that can eliminate debt happen. One of those reason to remove the debt is compensation. Compensation is one way to abolish an engagement that stipulated in the Civil Code and also specifically regulated in Law Number 37 Year 2004. Compensation in bankruptcy is one of the concepts that define the existenc.

Abstrak :
Penelitian ini meneliti pengaruh karakteristik perusahaan dan karakteristik negara terhadap tingkat utang perusahaan dengan proksi leverage. Observasi dilakukan terhadap 63 perusahaan di Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapura, dan Filipina selama kurun waktu 2002-2011. Data yang digunakan merupakan data panel yang bersumber dari data perusahaan dan data negara terkait. Dengan menggunakan model estimasi Generalized Least Square, didapatkan hasil bahwa karakteristik perusahaan dan karakteristik negara memiliki pengaruh yang signifikan terhadap leverage. Ditemukan pula bahwa adanya perbedaan pengaruh karakteristik perusahaan terhadap leverage antar negara. Selain itu, karakteristik perusahaan dan karakteristik negara secara bersama-sama memiliki pengaruh yang signifikan terhadap leverage. ......This research examines the impact of firm- and country-specific factors on leverage. 63 firms in Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, and Philippines are observed within period of 2002-2011. By using panel data of firm and country data and by using Generalized Least Square estimation model, research finds that firm- and country-specific factors significantly affect leverage. It also discovers that there are some differences in the effect of firm-specific factors on leverage among the countries. Firm- and country-specific factors altogether also significantly affect leverage.

Abstrak :
Kepailitan dan Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang merupakan salah satu prosedur hukum penyelesaian masalah utang oiutang yang menghimpit seorang debitor, dimana debitor tersebut sudah tidak mampu membayar utang-utangnya kepada para kreditornya. Sehingga Undang-Undang omor 37 Tahun 2004 tentang Kepailitan dan PKPU cenderung melindungi kepentingan kreditor konkuren. Dalam kasus ini, konstruksi hukum adanya utang, perlindungan hukum kreditor, dan penjatuhan putusan pailit menjadi pokok permasalahan utama yang dibahas. Oleh karena itu, untuk dapat menjawab pokok permasalahan maka harus melihat pada perjanjian yang melandasi utang, fakta-fakta dan pertimbangan hakim dalam putusan, dan teori mengenai hukum kepailitan. ......Bankruptcy and Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations is a legal procedure on debt solving for debtor who faces financial problem. Therefore, the Bankruptcy and Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations Law No. 37 in 2007 tends to protect the preferent creditor. In this case, the existence of debt, legal protection of creditor, and the court decision are the important object to be analysed. Therefore, to analyse the objects, we need analyse the agreement between debtor and credtors, the fact according to the court decision, judge legal consideration, and some bankruptcy theories.

Abstrak :
Endless economic crisis knocked over Indonesia since 1997 and causing many companies unable to pay for the obligation and creditor proposed it to be a bankrupt in Commercial Justice. This condition for Tax General Directorate (DJP) become separate problems, because to the number of Taxpayers which is bankrupt cause DJP losing of Taxpayer and un-billed for tax debt. In bankrupt case there is interesting matter needing careful attention, such as at PT XYZ it explained to why the defined tax debt is based on SKP and aggregated by a warrant are unpaid thoroughly instead state has preferential right to tax debt over tax defendant properties. DJP should conduct a law effort to appeal level through Supreme Court in order to billing tax debt. Therefore problem raised in this research is to describe how the implementation of preferential right by a country in paying of ta debt at bankrupt case of PT.XYZ and numerous barriers which become an insulator implementation of preferential right from country in paying of tax debt at bankrupt case of PT XYZ. Research method used is a descriptive with a qualitative approach. In solving case of PT XYZ case it is necessarily to apply Bankruptcy provisions so that research results are obtained and take no base account of tax provisions as an extra ordinary rules. Therefore PT XYZ?s preferential right has not run well in billing tax debt. This will caused of many obstacles turn to insulator as to know of DJP postponement in learning any bankruptcy of tax payer information also caused a long effort to bill, and the adjustment of preferential right in tax provisions is limited by time. The existency of curator?s role in paying tax debt of tax payer bankruptcy that has a consideration in sharing acquisition of debt sales, and tax provisions of preferential right clashes with workforce provisions of preferential right and during in billing tax payer should follow bankruptcy process so that will cause tax debt put into equation of common debt. By anticipating the bankruptcy of tax payer it is necessary for DJP to look in to information and cooperation through Memorandum Of Understanding (MoU) with Commercial Court in order to perform an instant billing. KPP shall notify curator of DJP?s position which have a preferential right against Tax Payer bankruptcy. In order to have a standing law force, a Supreme Court Jurisprudencial during in appealing case recommend to tax sector to be inserted into revision of Bankruptcy Provisions. Implementation of Chapter 41 verse (3) legislation number 4 year 2008 of Bankruptcy, has mentioned that the replacement of settlement of tax debt collection are beyond bankruptcy process paths. It is expected that government would provide a strict management in constructing provisions in which related to Tax Preferential Right, or of imbalance between Tax Provisions with other Legislations that should be reviewed.

Abstrak :
[Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui dan menganalisa apakah penanggung utang dapat dimohonkan pailit oleh kreditur dengan berdasarkan pada utang-utang debitur utama pada saat terjadi wanprestasi serta prosedur pengajuan permohonan pailit apabila penanggung utang dapat dipailitkan oleh kreditur berdasarkan pada utang debitur utama yang wanprestasi. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode penelitan hukum yuridis normatif, dengan cara menganalisa norma-norma hukum yang berlaku dalam peraturan perundang-undangan dibidang kepailitan. Bahwa penanggung utang dapat diajukan pailit oleh kreditur dengan didasarkan pada sisa utang yang belum dibayarkan oleh debitur utama, dan pengajuan pailit tersebut dilakukan dengan cara terlebih dahulu mempailitkan debitur utama. sisa utang yang belum terbayarkan setelah dilakukan pemberesan utang debitur utama merupakan utang yang masih harus ditanggung dan menjadi kewajiban bagi penanggung untuk melunasinya. Bahwa setelah dilakukan penelitian lebih lanjut dapat disimpulkan bahwa penanggung utang dapat dipailitkan oleh kreditur dengan didasarkan pada sisa utang debitur utama berdasarkan perjanjian pokok. Hal mana menunjukkan bahwa kewajiban pembayaran sisa utang tersebut berpindah pada penanggung dengan segala akibat hukumnya. Permohonan pailit terhadap penanggung. ......The purpose of this research are to know and analyze where creditor are able to file the bankruptcy lawsuit against the guarantor base on debt of the default debtor, and the procedures of bankruptcy lawsuit if the creditor are able to file the bankruptcy lawsuit against the guarantor base on debt of the default debtor. The legal research method to analyze the data are normative law (yuridis normatif), by analyze prevailing legal norms on bankruptcy sector. The Creditor are able to file the bankruptcy lawsuit to the guarantor base on outstanding debt of main debtor, and the bankruptcy lawsuit to the guarantor are filed after prior filed the bankruptcy lawsuit to the main debtor. The guarantor is responsible to pay the outstanding debt after the debt settlement of main debtor. After doing the research we are in conclusions that the guarantor are able to be filed of bankruptcy by the creditor base on outstanding debt of main debtor. Were the obligation to pay the outstanding debt are switch to the guarantor with all law consequences. The bankruptcy lawsuits to the guarantor are filed after prior filed the bankruptcy lawsuit to the main debtor. Unfortunately the Indonesian civil code regulates the exception of those regulations that made the differences of the procedure to file the bankruptcy lawsuits. Therefore we suggest for making the specific regulation for submitting the bankruptcy lawsuits to the guarantor. The purpose of this research are to know and analyze where creditor are able to file the bankruptcy lawsuit against the guarantor base on debt of the default debtor, and the procedures of bankruptcy lawsuit if the creditor are able to file the bankruptcy lawsuit against the guarantor base on debt of the default debtor. The legal research method to analyze the data are normative law (yuridis normatif), by analyze prevailing legal norms on bankruptcy sector. The Creditor are able to file the bankruptcy lawsuit to the guarantor base on outstanding debt of main debtor, and the bankruptcy lawsuit to the guarantor are filed after prior filed the bankruptcy lawsuit to the main debtor. The guarantor is responsible to pay the outstanding debt after the debt settlement of main debtor. After doing the research we are in conclusions that the guarantor are able to be filed of bankruptcy by the creditor base on outstanding debt of main debtor. Were the obligation to pay the outstanding debt are switch to the guarantor with all law consequences. The bankruptcy lawsuits to the guarantor are filed after prior filed the bankruptcy lawsuit to the main debtor. Unfortunately the Indonesian civil code regulates the exception of those regulations that made the differences of the procedure to file the bankruptcy lawsuits. Therefore we suggest for making the specific regulation for submitting the bankruptcy lawsuits to the guarantor.;The purpose of this research are to know and analyze where creditor are able to file the bankruptcy lawsuit against the guarantor base on debt of the default debtor, and the procedures of bankruptcy lawsuit if the creditor are able to file the bankruptcy lawsuit against the guarantor base on debt of the default debtor. The legal research method to analyze the data are normative law (yuridis normatif), by analyze prevailing legal norms on bankruptcy sector. The Creditor are able to file the bankruptcy lawsuit to the guarantor base on outstanding debt of main debtor, and the bankruptcy lawsuit to the guarantor are filed after prior filed the bankruptcy lawsuit to the main debtor. The guarantor is responsible to pay the outstanding debt after the debt settlement of main debtor. After doing the research we are in conclusions that the guarantor are able to be filed of bankruptcy by the creditor base on outstanding debt of main debtor. Were the obligation to pay the outstanding debt are switch to the guarantor with all law consequences. The bankruptcy lawsuits to the guarantor are filed after prior filed the bankruptcy lawsuit to the main debtor. Unfortunately the Indonesian civil code regulates the exception of those regulations that made the differences of the procedure to file the bankruptcy lawsuits. Therefore we suggest for making the specific regulation for submitting the bankruptcy lawsuits to the guarantor., The purpose of this research are to know and analyze where creditor are able to file the bankruptcy lawsuit against the guarantor base on debt of the default debtor, and the procedures of bankruptcy lawsuit if the creditor are able to file the bankruptcy lawsuit against the guarantor base on debt of the default debtor. The legal research method to analyze the data are normative law (yuridis normatif), by analyze prevailing legal norms on bankruptcy sector. The Creditor are able to file the bankruptcy lawsuit to the guarantor base on outstanding debt of main debtor, and the bankruptcy lawsuit to the guarantor are filed after prior filed the bankruptcy lawsuit to the main debtor. The guarantor is responsible to pay the outstanding debt after the debt settlement of main debtor. After doing the research we are in conclusions that the guarantor are able to be filed of bankruptcy by the creditor base on outstanding debt of main debtor. Were the obligation to pay the outstanding debt are switch to the guarantor with all law consequences. The bankruptcy lawsuits to the guarantor are filed after prior filed the bankruptcy lawsuit to the main debtor. Unfortunately the Indonesian civil code regulates the exception of those regulations that made the differences of the procedure to file the bankruptcy lawsuits. Therefore we suggest for making the specific regulation for submitting the bankruptcy lawsuits to the guarantor.]

Abstrak :
Pendanaan perusahaan menggunakan utang dapat berujung kepada financial distress apabila debitor tidak mampu membayar utang sehingga mengakibatkan kepailitan. Agar menghindari perebutan harta debitor dalam hal ada beberapa kreditor yang menagih piutangnya secara bersamaan, diatur prosedur kepailitan dalam peraturan perundang-undangan. Perselisihan utang dalam rapat verifikasi utang kepailitan dapat diselesaikan dengan renvoi prosedur. Tulisan ini menganalisis bagaimana pengaturan mengenai proses kepailitan khususnya prosedur penyelesaian perkara perselisihan jumlah piutang dalam tahap pencocokan piutang berdasarkan Undang-Undang No. 37 Tahun 2004 tentang Kepailitan dan Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang serta bagaimana pertimbangan hukum Majelis Hakim dalam perkara Renvoi Prosedur no. 04/Renvoi Prosedur/2015/PN.Niaga.Sby. Tulisan ini disusun dengan metode yuridis normatif yang merupakan penelitian dengan cara meneliti bahan kepustakaan serta data sekunder. Dari penelitian ini ditemukan bahwa dalam proses kepailitan, khususnya pencocokan utang, apabila ada pihak yang tidak setuju dengan hasil rapat dapat mengajukan keberatan kepada pengadilan yang kemudian akan diproses melalui renvoi prosedur. Dalam Putusan Renvoi Prosedur No. 04/Renvoi Prosedur/2015/PN.Niaga.Sby ditemukan bahwa majelis hakim renvoi prosedur tidak hanya telah melanggar asas pemeriksaan sederhana kepailitan, namun juga melampaui kewenangan yang dimiliki oleh majelis hakim renvoi prosedur sebagai forum yang menyelesaikan perselisihan dalam kepailitan yang bersifat non-sengketa. ......Corporate financing using debt can lead to financial distress if the debtor is unable to repay the debt, resulting in bankruptcy. To prevent the scramble for the debtor's assets when multiple creditors are simultaneously claiming their receivables, bankruptcy procedures are regulated in the legislation. Disputes over debt in bankruptcy debt verification meetings can be resolved through the renvoi procedure. This writing analyzes the regulations regarding the bankruptcy process, particularly the procedures for resolving disputes over the amount of debts in the debt reconciliation phase based on Law No. 37 of 2004 concerning Bankruptcy and Postponement of Debt Payment Obligations. It also discusses the legal considerations of the Panel of Judges in the case of Renvoi Procedure No. 04/Renvoi Procedure/2015/PN.Niaga.Sby. This paper is composed using a normative juridical method, which involves researching literature and secondary data. From this research, it was found that in the bankruptcy process, especially in debt reconciliation, if there is a party dissatisfied with the meeting's results, they can file an objection with the court, which will then be processed through the renvoi procedure. In Decision Renvoi Procedure No. 04/Renvoi Procedure/2015/PN.Niaga.Sby, it was discovered that the panel of judges in the renvoi procedure not only violated the principle of a simple bankruptcy examination but also exceeded the authority held by the renvoi procedure panel of judges as a forum for resolving non-dispute disputes in bankruptcy.

Abstrak :
Pendanaan perusahaan menggunakan utang dapat berujung kepada financial distress apabila debitor tidak mampu membayar utang sehingga mengakibatkan kepailitan. Agar menghindari perebutan harta debitor dalam hal ada beberapa kreditor yang menagih piutangnya secara bersamaan, diatur prosedur kepailitan dalam peraturan perundang-undangan. Perselisihan utang dalam rapat verifikasi utang kepailitan dapat diselesaikan dengan renvoi prosedur. Tulisan ini menganalisis bagaimana pengaturan mengenai proses kepailitan khususnya prosedur penyelesaian perkara perselisihan jumlah piutang dalam tahap pencocokan piutang berdasarkan Undang-Undang No. 37 Tahun 2004 tentang Kepailitan dan Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang serta bagaimana pertimbangan hukum Majelis Hakim dalam perkara Renvoi Prosedur no. 04/Renvoi Prosedur/2015/PN.Niaga.Sby. Tulisan ini disusun dengan metode yuridis normatif yang merupakan penelitian dengan cara meneliti bahan kepustakaan serta data sekunder. Dari penelitian ini ditemukan bahwa dalam proses kepailitan, khususnya pencocokan utang, apabila ada pihak yang tidak setuju dengan hasil rapat dapat mengajukan keberatan kepada pengadilan yang kemudian akan diproses melalui renvoi prosedur. Dalam Putusan Renvoi Prosedur No. 04/Renvoi Prosedur/2015/PN.Niaga.Sby ditemukan bahwa majelis hakim renvoi prosedur tidak hanya telah melanggar asas pemeriksaan sederhana kepailitan, namun juga melampaui kewenangan yang dimiliki oleh majelis hakim renvoi prosedur sebagai forum yang menyelesaikan perselisihan dalam kepailitan yang bersifat non-sengketa. ......Corporate financing using debt can lead to financial distress if the debtor is unable to repay the debt, resulting in bankruptcy. To prevent the scramble for the debtor's assets when multiple creditors are simultaneously claiming their receivables, bankruptcy procedures are regulated in the legislation. Disputes over debt in bankruptcy debt verification meetings can be resolved through the renvoi procedure. This writing analyzes the regulations regarding the bankruptcy process, particularly the procedures for resolving disputes over the amount of debts in the debt reconciliation phase based on Law No. 37 of 2004 concerning Bankruptcy and Postponement of Debt Payment Obligations. It also discusses the legal considerations of the Panel of Judges in the case of Renvoi Procedure No. 04/Renvoi Procedure/2015/PN.Niaga.Sby. This paper is composed using a normative juridical method, which involves researching literature and secondary data. From this research, it was found that in the bankruptcy process, especially in debt reconciliation, if there is a party dissatisfied with the meeting's results, they can file an objection with the court, which will then be processed through the renvoi procedure. In Decision Renvoi Procedure No. 04/Renvoi Procedure/2015/PN.Niaga.Sby, it was discovered that the panel of judges in the renvoi procedure not only violated the principle of a simple bankruptcy examination but also exceeded the authority held by the renvoi procedure panel of judges as a forum for resolving non-dispute disputes in bankruptcy.

Abstrak :
Pendanaan perusahaan menggunakan utang dapat berujung kepada financial distress apabila debitor tidak mampu membayar utang sehingga mengakibatkan kepailitan. Agar menghindari perebutan harta debitor dalam hal ada beberapa kreditor yang menagih piutangnya secara bersamaan, diatur prosedur kepailitan dalam peraturan perundang-undangan. Perselisihan utang dalam rapat verifikasi utang kepailitan dapat diselesaikan dengan renvoi prosedur. Tulisan ini menganalisis bagaimana pengaturan mengenai proses kepailitan khususnya prosedur penyelesaian perkara perselisihan jumlah piutang dalam tahap pencocokan piutang berdasarkan Undang-Undang No. 37 Tahun 2004 tentang Kepailitan dan Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang serta bagaimana pertimbangan hukum Majelis Hakim dalam perkara Renvoi Prosedur no. 04/Renvoi Prosedur/2015/PN.Niaga.Sby. Tulisan ini disusun dengan metode yuridis normatif yang merupakan penelitian dengan cara meneliti bahan kepustakaan serta data sekunder. Dari penelitian ini ditemukan bahwa dalam proses kepailitan, khususnya pencocokan utang, apabila ada pihak yang tidak setuju dengan hasil rapat dapat mengajukan keberatan kepada pengadilan yang kemudian akan diproses melalui renvoi prosedur. Dalam Putusan Renvoi Prosedur No. 04/Renvoi Prosedur/2015/PN.Niaga.Sby ditemukan bahwa majelis hakim renvoi prosedur tidak hanya telah melanggar asas pemeriksaan sederhana kepailitan, namun juga melampaui kewenangan yang dimiliki oleh majelis hakim renvoi prosedur sebagai forum yang menyelesaikan perselisihan dalam kepailitan yang bersifat non-sengketa. ......Corporate financing using debt can lead to financial distress if the debtor is unable to repay the debt, resulting in bankruptcy. To prevent the scramble for the debtor's assets when multiple creditors are simultaneously claiming their receivables, bankruptcy procedures are regulated in the legislation. Disputes over debt in bankruptcy debt verification meetings can be resolved through the renvoi procedure. This writing analyzes the regulations regarding the bankruptcy process, particularly the procedures for resolving disputes over the amount of debts in the debt reconciliation phase based on Law No. 37 of 2004 concerning Bankruptcy and Postponement of Debt Payment Obligations. It also discusses the legal considerations of the Panel of Judges in the case of Renvoi Procedure No. 04/Renvoi Procedure/2015/PN.Niaga.Sby. This paper is composed using a normative juridical method, which involves researching literature and secondary data. From this research, it was found that in the bankruptcy process, especially in debt reconciliation, if there is a party dissatisfied with the meeting's results, they can file an objection with the court, which will then be processed through the renvoi procedure. In Decision Renvoi Procedure No. 04/Renvoi Procedure/2015/PN.Niaga.Sby, it was discovered that the panel of judges in the renvoi procedure not only violated the principle of a simple bankruptcy examination but also exceeded the authority held by the renvoi procedure panel of judges as a forum for resolving non-dispute disputes in bankruptcy.