Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

Abstrak :
"ABSTRACT
" Skripsi ini membahas mengenai syarat kepailitan di Indonesia yang terdapat dalam Pasal 2 ayat 1 Undang-Undang Nomor 37 Tahun 2004 dan juga syarat kepailitan di Singapura serta perbedaan diantara keduanya, dan bagaimana penerapan syarat-syarat tersebut pada kasus kepailitan PT Telkomsel. Pada bagian analisis akan dibahas mengenai penerapan syarat kepailitan dalam kasus kepailitan PT Telkomsel dalam Putusan Pengadilan Niaga Nomor 48/Pailit/2012/PN.Niaga.Jkt.Pst dan juga Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 704 K/Pdt.Sus/2012 dimana putusan pailit terhadap PT Telkomsel dibatalkan. Dalam penelitian ini, penulis menggunakan metode penelitian yuridis normatif, dengan studi kepustakaan sebagai cara menganalisis kasus yang sudah dalam bentuk putusan pengadilan. Dari hasil penelitian, penulis mendapat kesimpulan bahwa perbedaan antara syarat kepailitan di Indonesia dan Singapura terkait jumlah minimal kreditor, jumlah minimal utang, dan keadaan tidak mampu membayar utang, serta bahwa penulis setuju dengan putusan Mahkamah Agung yang membatalkan kepailitan PT Telkomsel karena Majelis Hakim di Pengadilan Niaga kurang tepat dalam menerapkan syarat-syarat kepailitan. "

---

" "ABSTRACT
" This thesis discusses the terms of bankruptcy in Indonesia contained in Article 2 paragraph 1 of Law Number 37 Year 2004 and also the condition of bankruptcy in Singapore and the difference between the two, and how the application of those conditions in the bankruptcy case of PT Telkomsel. In the analysis section will be discussed the application of bankruptcy requirements in the bankruptcy case of PT Telkomsel in the Commercial Court Decision Number 48 Bankrupt 2012 PN.Niaga.Jkt.Pst and also the Supreme Court Decision Number 704 K Pdt.Sus 2012 where the decision to put PT Telkomsel in bankruptcy is canceled. In this study, the author uses normative juridical research methods, with literature study as a way of analyzing cases that have been in the form of court decisions. The author concludes that the difference between bankruptcy requirements in Indonesia and Singapore is related to the minimum number of creditors, the minimum amount of debt, and the inability to pay the debt, and that the authors agree with the decision of the Supreme Court to cancel the bankruptcy of PT Telkomsel because the Panel of Judges in the Commercial Court did not apply the terms of bankruptcy appropriately.

Abstrak :
Pada skripsi ini, penulis melakukan analisis yuridis terhadap beberapa aspek dari putusan pailit dan pembatalan pailit PT. Cipta Televisi Indonesia, antara lain : pertimbangan hukum Majelis Hakim tingkat pertama dalam memutus pailit PT. Cipta Televisi Indonesia, pertimbangan hukum Hakim Agung dalam memutus pembatalan pailit PT. Cipta Televisi Indonesia, serta eksistensi utang yang menjadi persoalan pokok dalam perkara ini. Dalam menganalisis putusan pailit dan pembatalan PT. Cipta Televisi Pendidikan Indonesia ini, penulis mendasarkan analisisnya dengan Undang-Undang Nomor 37 Tahun 2004 tentang Kepailitan dan Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang, terutama penerapan secara hukum mengenai syarat-syarat kepailitan oleh Majelis Hakim tingkat pertama dan Hakim Agung. Dalam penelitian ini, penulis menggunakan metode penelitian hukum normatif dengan tipe penelitian deskriptif dan metode analisa data kualitatif dengan cara pengumpulan data dengan meneliti literatur-literatur dan melakukan wawancara dengan nara sumber yang berhubungan dengan objek yang diteliti sehingga akan memberikan gambaran umum mengenai permasalahan yang akan dibahas. ......In this study, the Writer tries to juridically analyze several aspects of PT. Cipta Televisi Pendidikan Indonesia bankruptcy and the cancellation of bankruptcy verdicts, among others : the consideration of the Panel of Judges of first instance in deciding the bankruptcy petition of PT. Cipta Televisi Pendidikan Indonesia, the consideration of the Supreme Court Judges in deciding the cancellation of bankruptcy of PT. Cipta Televisi Pendidikan Indonesia, and the existence of debt that became the primary issue in this case. In analyzing the verdicts of the bankruptcy and the cancellation of PT. Cipta Televisi Pendidikan Indonesia, the Writer based her analysis by Law Number 37 Year 2004 concerning Bankruptcy and Suspension of Payment, particularly the application of the law on bankruptcy requirements by the Panel of Judges of first instance and Supreme Court Judges. In this study, the Writer uses a normative legal research methods with the type of descriptive research and qualitative methods of data analysis by collecting data with examining the literature and interviews with resource persons associated with the object under study, so that it will provide an overview of issues to be discussed.

Abstrak :
Debitor merupakan salah satu pihak yang dapat mengajukan kepailitan berdasarkan Undang-Undang No. 37 Tahun 2004. Untuk dapat dinyatakan pailit terdapat syarat yang harus dipenuhi sebagaimana yang dinyatakan dalam Undang-Undang Kepailitan. Setelah diterbitkannya SEMA No. 2 Tahun 2016 tentang Peningkatan Efisiensi Dan Transparansi Penanganan Perkara Kepailitan dan Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang di Pengadilan, dalam mengajukan permohonan kepailitan secara sukarela (voluntary petition) terdapat syarat lain yang harus dipenuhi. Tidak dipenuhinya syarat sebagaimana yang diatur dalam SEMA ini akan mengakibatkan permohonan pernyataan pailit akan ditolak oleh Pengadilan. Diterbitkannya SEMA tersebut memiliki pengaruh yang besar terhadap pemenuhan syarat kepailitan dan dengan sistem pembuktian. Berdasarkan Undang-Undang Kepailitan sistem pembuktian acara kepailitan adalah pembuktian sederhana. Permohonan harus dikabulkan apabila terdapat fakta atau keadaan yang menunjukan bahwa syarat kepailitan dalam Undang-Undang Kepailitan telah terpenuhi. Adanya penamban syarat formil dalam SEMA merupakan tambahan syarat kepailitan yang wajib dipenuhi Debitor agar permohonan dapat dikabulkan oleh Hakim. Dalam konteks ini, penambahan syarat dalam SEMA unutk dapat dinyatakan pailit dalam mengajukan voluntary petition telah bertentangan dengan pembuktian sederhana dalam hukum kepailitan.

---

Debtor is one of the parties who can file bankruptcy based on Law No. 37 Year 2004. In order to be declared bankrupt there is a requirement that must be fulfilled as stated in the Bankruptcy Act. After the issuance of SEMA No. 2 Year 2016 on Improving Efficiency and Transparency of Bankruptcy Case Handling and Delay of Obligation of Debt Payment at the Court, on the phase of filling voluntary petition there is another requirement that the Debtor must fulfill. The failure fulfillment of the conditions set forth in this SEMA will result in a petition for declaration of bankruptcy to be rejected by the Court. The issuance of such SEMA has a great influence on the fulfillment of bankruptcy requirements and with the evidentiary system. Under the Bankruptcy Act, the bankruptcy procedural evidentiary system is a simple verification. An application must be granted if there is a fact or circumstance indicating that the insolvency requirement in the Bankruptcy Act has been fulfilled. The presence of a formal requirement in SEMA is an additional requirement of bankruptcy that must be fulfilled by the Debtor so that the request can be granted by the Judge. In this context, the addition of a requirement in SEMA to be declared bankrupt in proposing voluntary petition contradicts the simple proof of bankruptcy law.

Abstrak :
Dalam hukum kepailitan dikenal adanya Concursus Creditorum yang mewajibkan adanya lebih dari satu orang kreditor sebagai syarat kepailitan. Tetapi hingga saat ini keberadaan Concursus Creditorum sebagai syarat kepailitan masih sering diabaikan dalam penerapannya. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui apakah Sengketa Nomor 64/PKPU/2012/PN.Niaga.JKT.PST jo 214/K/Pdt.sus-Pailit/2013 telah selaras dengan Undang Undang Nomor 37 Tahun 2004 tentang Kepailitan dan Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang, dan untuk mengetahui apakah masih dibutuhkan keberadaan Concursus Creditorum dalam syarat kepailitan beserta bagaimana penerapannya dalam sengketa PKPU yang memutus AcrossAsia Limited berada dalam keadaan pailit. Metode penelitian yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah yuridis normatif yang dilakukan dengan menggunakan pendekatan kualitatif. Penulis memperoleh kesimpulan bahwa dalam keberadaan Concursus Creditorum masih sangat dibutuhkan dalam kepailitan namun belum diterapkan dengan baik di dalam Sengketa Nomor 64/PKPU/2012/PN.Niaga.JKT.PST jo 214/K/Pdt.sus-Pailit/2013 sehingga dapat disimpulkan bahwa Sengketa PKPU tersebut adalah melanggar ketentuan yang ada dalam Undang Undang. ...... In bankruptcy law it is known that there is a Concursus Creditorum which requires more than one creditors to meet the bankruptcy requirements. During this time, Concursus Creditorum as a condition of bankruptcy is still often ignored in its application. This study aims to determine whether Case Number 64 PKPU 2012 PN.Niaga.JKT.PST jo 214 K Pdt.sus Pailit 2013 has been aligned with an Act Number 37 of 2004, and to find out what the Concursus Creditorum may require in bankruptcy requirements and how its application in Suspension of Payment Case which decided AcrossAsia Limited is in a state of bankruptcy. The research method used is normative juridical done by using qualitative approach. The author may conclude that Concursus Creditorum is still indispensable in bankruptcy but has not been applied properly in the Case Number 64 PKPU 2012 PN.Niaga.JKT.PST jo 214 K Pdt.sus Pailit 2013 and which means the Suspension of Payment Dispute is againts the law.

Abstrak :
[ABSTRAK
Hukum kepailitan di Indonesia masih memiliki kekurangan, yaitu tidak terdapatnya syarat tes insolvensi di dalam permohonan pailit. Hal ini menyebabkan seringnya terjadi kepailitan terhadap perusahaan-perusahaan yang masih solven, hanya karena tidak mau membayar utangnya. Syarat tes insolvensi diperlukan untuk membedakan mana debitur yang masih mampu melunasi utangnya dengan debitur yang tidak mampu untuk melunasi utangnya, agar kepailitan terhadap debitur yang masih solven tidak terulang kembali. Penelitian ini membahas mengenai bagaimanakah pentingnya syarat tes insolvensi dalam permohonan pailit suatu perusahaan dan bagaimanakah kemungkinan penerapan tes insolvensi dalam permohonan pailit suatu perusahaan di Indonesia. Metode penelitan menggunakan pendekatan yuridis normatif dan dianalisa secara kualitatif serta dilaporkan dalam bentuk preskriptif analitis. Dengan membandingkan kepailitan di Amerika Serikat, diketahui terdapat metode-metode untuk menilai kemampuan debitur dalam melunasi utangnya, salah satunya dengan menggunakan metode perhitungan Altman Z-Score. Metode Altman Z-Score telah lama digunakan di Amerika Serikat dan terbukti dapat digunakan untuk menghitung kemampuan pelunasan utang dalam perkara kepailitan di Indonesia pula. Oleh karena itu, metode Altman Z-Score dapat digunakan sebagai tolak ukur untuk membentuk peraturan setingkat Peraturan Menteri yang mengatur mengenai tes insolvensi yang akan digunakan dalam kasus-kasus kepailitan di Indonesia. Implementasi secara langsung adalah dengan memanfaatkan jasa akuntan publik selaku profesi penunjang untuk melakukan tes insolvensi terhadap debitur dalam kasus kepailitan.

---

ABSTRACT
The law of bankruptcy in Indonesia still has some weakness points, such as the unavailability terms of insolvency test in the bankruptcy petition. This condition often induces bankruptcy towards the companies which are still solvent, just because not willing to pay the debt. The term of insolvency test is needed to differentiate which debtors are still affordable to pay off their debt with the unaffordable ones, so that bankruptcy towards the solvent debtors not to be reoccurred. This thesis covers about how important the term of insolvency test is in a company‟s bankruptcy petition in and how the possibility to apply the insolvency test in a company‟s bankruptcy petition is in Indonesia. The method of this research use juridical and normative approach, and to be analyzed qualitatively and to be reported in the form if prescriptive analytically. By comparing the bankruptcy in the United States of America, there are methods to evaluate the affordability of the debtors to pay off their debt, one of which using the Altman Z-Score method. The method of Altman Z-Score has been commonly used in the Unite States of America and also proved can be used for measuring the affordability of debt payment in the bankruptcy cases in Indonesia. Therefore the method of Altman Z-Score is able to be used as a standard measurement to construct the rules as the same level of the Minister Regulation (Peraturan Menteri) which manages about the insolvency test which will be used in bankruptcy cases in Indonesia. The direct implementation is to use the service of Public Accountant as a supportive profession to perform the insolvency test toward the debtors in the bankruptcy cases., The law of bankruptcy in Indonesia still has some weakness points, such as the unavailability terms of insolvency test in the bankruptcy petition. This condition often induces bankruptcy towards the companies which are still solvent, just because not willing to pay the debt. The term of insolvency test is needed to differentiate which debtors are still affordable to pay off their debt with the unaffordable ones, so that bankruptcy towards the solvent debtors not to be reoccurred. This thesis covers about how important the term of insolvency test is in a company‟s bankruptcy petition in and how the possibility to apply the insolvency test in a company‟s bankruptcy petition is in Indonesia. The method of this research use juridical and normative approach, and to be analyzed qualitatively and to be reported in the form if prescriptive analytically. By comparing the bankruptcy in the United States of America, there are methods to evaluate the affordability of the debtors to pay off their debt, one of which using the Altman Z-Score method. The method of Altman Z-Score has been commonly used in the Unite States of America and also proved can be used for measuring the affordability of debt payment in the bankruptcy cases in Indonesia. Therefore the method of Altman Z-Score is able to be used as a standard measurement to construct the rules as the same level of the Minister Regulation (Peraturan Menteri) which manages about the insolvency test which will be used in bankruptcy cases in Indonesia. The direct implementation is to use the service of Public Accountant as a supportive profession to perform the insolvency test toward the debtors in the bankruptcy cases.]