Search Result  ::  Save as CSV :: Back

"Tesis ini membahas tentang perlindungan kepada kreditur terhadap perjanjian kredit antara debitur dan kreditur dengan jaminan hak tanggungan untuk mengamankan kreditur apabila debitur cidera janji. Tetapi pada kenyataannya meskipun telah mendapat dan memegang hak tanggungan belum tentu posisi kreditur sepenuhnya aman, sebab tidak selalu hak tanggungan tersebut dapat dieksekusi sehingga mengakibatkan kerugian bagi kreditur. Penelitian ini adalah yuridis normatif dengan desain preskriptif. Analisis kasus dilakukan terhadap putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 396 K/Pdt/2009 yang menyatakan bahwa kreditur tidak dapat mengeksekusi hak tanggungan yang diberikan sebagai jaminan kepadanya. Hasil penelitian menyatakan bahwa kurangnya komitmen kreditur dalam melaksanakan prinsip kehati-hatian dapat mengakibatkan kerugian bagi kreditur, maka dari itu disarankan agar kreditur menjalankan semua tahapan dalam proses penilaian calon debitur sehingga kreditur mendapat perlindungan menyeluruh, dan notaris hanya bertanggung jawab sebatas kebenaran formal.

---

This thesis deals with protection for creditor over a credit agreement between a creditor and a debtor with security taking the form of mortgage right to protect the creditor if debtor is in default. However in practice in spite of having obtained and having held the mortgage right the position of creditor is not necessarily safe (secure), because the mortgage right is not always executable as to cause loss to creditor. This research (study) is judicially normative in prescriptive design. Case analysis is done on the Verdict of the Supreme Court Number: 396 K/Pdt/2009 stating that creditor cannot execute the mortgage right granted for him/her/its security. The research result shows that because creditor looking commitment in prudence principle may cause a loss to creditor, and therefore it is recommended that creditor should take all phases (action) in the assessment process of prospective debtor so that creditor get an overall protection and notary public is only responsible to the extent of formal authenticity."

"Perseroan Terbatas (perseroan) sebagai badan hukum memiliki pertanggungjawaban yang bersifat terbatas. Sebagai subyek hukum, dia dianggap cakap untuk bertanggungjawab atas segala kegiatannya termasuk bila terjadi kerugian. Pertanggungjawaban demikian seringkali dimanfaatkan pelaku usaha perseroan, dalam hal ini direksi dengan menggunakan perseroan untuk kepentingan pribadi dan bukan untuk kelangsungan perseroan. Menurut Undang-undang nomor 1 Tabun 1995 tentang Perseroan Terbatas, direksi diwajibkan beritikad balk dalam mengurus perseroan, sehingga pelanggaran terhadapnya merupakan kelalaian dan kesalahan yang harus dipertanggungjawabkan secara pribadi. Namun tentang itikad baik oleh direksi tersebut lebih lanjut tidak ditemui penjelasannya. Penafsiran yang keliru tentang itikad baik berakibat lolosnya direksi dari pertanggungjawaban atas kerugian perseroan yang disebabkannya (pailit). Padahal pertanggungjawaban direksi penting bagi kreditor ketika budel pailit peseroan tidak mencukupi untuk membayar piutang mereka pada perseroan. Bagaimana sebenarnya tindakan pengurusan direksi dapat dikatakan salah atau lalai mengakibatkan perseroan pailit? Serta bagaimana pertanggungjawaban direksi atas kerugian yang tidak mampu dibayar oleh perseroan akibat kepailitan yang disebabkannya tersebut? Untuk itu penulis melakukan penelitian dengan metode yuridis normatif dengan wawancara: sebagai data penunjang. Penulis mendapatkan bahan-bahan hukum melalui perundang-undangan, yurisprudensi serta literatur-literatur terkait. Sehingga diketahui bahwa direksi tidak dikatakan lalai atau salah mengakibatkan kepailitan sepanjang direksi beritikad balk dengan acuan duty of care, duty of loyalty dan melaksanakan pengurusan sesuai kewenangan yang diberikan kepadanya (intra vices) yang dapat ditemui pada corporate law system. Namun bila terbukti sebaliknya mengakibatkan perseroan pailit, direksi dapat dimintai pertanggungjawaban secara tanggung renteng melalui proses kepailitan di Pengadilan Niaga. Hal demikian dilakukan agar pemenuhan pembayaran piutang kreditor dapat diiaksanakan secara adil dan seimbang.

---

The limited liability company as a legal entity enjoys the benefits of limited responsibility. As a subject of Law, it is deemed to have the capacity to bear responsibilities upon its activities including should there rise any deficiency. Such limited responsibility is often miss used by businessmen or entrepreneurs for their own self benefits and not for the company's best interest. Pursuant to Law number I of the year of 1995 regarding The Limited Liability company, the board of directors are obliged by law to have good intentions in managing the company, thus the breach of such shall be deemed as an act of misconduct and negligence which amounts to personal reponsibility. However, the regulation of which remains unclear.

The board of directors responsibility is crucial for creditors especially when the assets of the company is not enough to compensate the creditors, event so the miss-interpretation of good intention still exist and such leads to the unfair acquital of the Board of directors for their misconduct which contributes to the loss of the company (the default of the company). Then, how to determine the faults of the board of directors which leads to the default of the company? Furthermore, how is the mechanism to held the responsibility of the board of directors in the case if the company goes default because of their fault? To answer that problem the writer has conducted researches with the normative juridical method with interviews as supporting data.

The writer obtains her law materials through the regulations, jurisprudence, and also other literatures in connection with this issue. Such is completed so to know that as long as the board of directors exercise its good intention pursuant to the principles of duty of care, duty of loyalty, and exercise its discretion according to the measurements it is given (intra vices) which can be found in the corporate law system, then it will be acquited. However, if the conduct of which can be proven otherwise that leads to the default of the company, then the board of directors can be personally held liable proportionallyby the verdict of the Commercial Court. Such is done to ensure the fair and balanced return of payment from the debtors to the creditors."