Jurist-Diction最新文献

{"title":"Perlindungan Hukum Terhadap Kreditor Atas Penolakan Pengajuan Permohonan Pernyataan Pailit Perusahaan Asuransi oleh Otoritas Jasa Keuangan","authors":"Avan Oktabrian Buchori","doi":"10.20473/jd.v5i6.40071","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.20473/jd.v5i6.40071","url":null,"abstract":"AbstractBankruptcy is one form of general confiscation of all debtor's assets, in the arrangement of the laws and regulations in Indonesia. Based on the provisions in Article 2 paragraph (5) of Law no. 37 of 2004 jo. Article 55 of Law no. 21 of 2011, the Financial Services Authority has the authority to apply for a declaration of bankruptcy against an insurance company. However, a problem arises, regarding legal protection for creditors if the submission of the application for a declaration of bankruptcy is rejected by the Financial Services Authority.. This aims to analyze and provide explanations regarding legal protection for creditors for the rejection of applications for bankruptcy statements against insurance companies by the Financial Services Authority. Keywords: Bankruptcy; Financial Services Authority; Insurance; Rejection.\u0000AbstrakKepailitan merupakan salah satu bentuk sita umum atas semua kekayaan debitor, dalam pengaturan pada peraturan perundang-undangan di Indonesia. Berdasarkan pengaturan pada Pasal 2 ayat (5) Undang-Undang No. 37 Tahun 2004 jo. Pasal 55 Undang-Undang No. 21 Tahun 2011, Otoritas Jasa Keuangan memiliki wewenang untuk mengajukan permohonan pernyataan pailit atas perusahaan asuransi. Namun, timbul permasalahan yaitu mengenai perlindungan hukum terhadap kreditor apabila pengajuan permohonan pernyataan pailit nya ditolak oleh Otoritas Jasa Keuangan. Sehingga dalam penelitian ini penulis melakukan penelitian mengenai perlindungan hukum terhadap kreditor atas penolakan permohonan pernyataan pailit atas perusahaan asuransi oleh Otoritas Jasa Keuangan.. Yang mana memiliki tujuan agar dapat menganalisa dan memberikan penjelasan mengenai perlindungan hukum terhadap kreditor atas penolakan permohonan pernyataan pailit terhadap perusahaan asuransi oleh Otoritas Jasa Keuangan. Kata Kunci: Kepailitan; Otoritas Jasa Keuangan; Asuransi; Penolakan.","PeriodicalId":139489,"journal":{"name":"Jurist-Diction","volume":"107 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122745234","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Kepailitan Terhadap Ahli Waris Penanggung yang Perjanjian Penanggungannya Tanpa Persetujuan Istri Penanggung","authors":"Tia De Sangkai","doi":"10.20473/jd.v5i6.40132","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.20473/jd.v5i6.40132","url":null,"abstract":"AbstractIt is often found that one of the parties, the husband or wife acts on common property without agreement from the marriage partner, which can lead to cases. The real case taken by the author arising from this action is that the heir before death has become a guarantor but in making a guarantee agreement (borgtocht) with the insured there is no agreement by the wife of the guarantor. In this case the creditor can sue for bankruptcy if the creditor can prove that the guarantor has two or more creditors and has not paid off at least one debt that has due and is collectible, which is a requirement that is expressly stated in Article 2 paragraph (1) of Law Number 37 year 2004 concerning Bankruptcy and Suspension of Liability Debt Payment. Then the heir can be filed for bankruptcy to replace the position of the guarantor. Keywords: Common Property; the Heirs; Guarantee Agreement; Bankruptcy.\u0000AbstrakSeringkali ditemukan terdapat salah satu pihak yaitu suami atau istri yang bertindak mengenai harta bersama tanpa persetujuan pasangan kawinnya, yang mana hal tersebut dapat menimbulkan kasus. Kasus nyata yang ditarik oleh penulis yang timbul dari adanya tindakan tersebut yaitu pewaris sebelum meninggal telah menjadi penanggung namun dalam pembuatan perjanjian penanggungan (borgtocht) dengan tertanggung perjanjian tersebut tidak ada persetujuan oleh istri penanggung. Dalam hal ini kreditor mengajukan permohonan pailit apabila kreditor dapat membuktikan bahwa penanggung tersebut memiliki dua atau lebih kreditor dan tidak membayar lunas sedikitnya satu utang yang telah jatuh waktu dan dapat ditagih, yang mana hal tersebut merupakan syarat yang secara tegas dicantumkan dalam pasal 2 ayat (1) Undang-Undang Nomor 37 Tahun 2004 tentang Kepailitan dan Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang. Maka ahli waris dapat dimohonkan pailit yang menggantikan posisi penanggung. Kata Kunci: Harta Bersama; Perjanjian Penanggungan; Ahli Waris; Kepailitan.","PeriodicalId":139489,"journal":{"name":"Jurist-Diction","volume":"26 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132227036","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Sistem Pembuktian Gugatan Lain-Lain dalam Kepailitan","authors":"Yoshe Agatha Patricia","doi":"10.20473/jd.v5i6.40137","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.20473/jd.v5i6.40137","url":null,"abstract":"AbstractBankruptcy is a general confiscation of all debtor's assets to pay debtors' debts to all their creditors collectively. To file for bankruptcy, two requirements need to be met, namely the debtor has two or more creditors and debts that have matured and can be collected (Article 2 Paragraph (1) of the UUK and PKPU, if these two requirements have been fulfilled, the Commercial Court must grant the petition for bankruptcy based on Article 8 Paragraph (4) UUK and PKPU Consequences of general confiscation of the assets of a bankrupt debtor can cause new problems or disputes to the Commercial Court, but based on the explanation following the authority of Article 8 Paragraph (4) UUK and PKPU. So, in this case there is uncertainty about the procedure for examining other lawsuits based on the explanation of Article 3 Paragraph (1) of the UUK and PKPU against the bankruptcy authority as regulated in Article 8 Paragraph (4) UUK and PKPU. Keywords: Bankruptcy; Micellaneous Lawsuits; Debtors; Creditors; Commercial Courts.\u0000AbstrakKepailitan merupakan sita umum terhadap seluruh harta debitor untuk membayar utang-utang debitor kepada seluruh kreditor-nya secara kolektif. Untuk mengajukan permohonan pailit perlu dipenuhinya dua persyaratan yaitu debitor memiliki dua kreditor atau lebih dan utang yang telah jatuh tempo dan dapat ditagih (Pasal 2 Ayat (1) UUK dan PKPU, apabila telah terpenuhinya dua persyaratan tersebut maka Pengadilan Niaga harus mengabulkan permohonan pailit berdasarkan Pasal 8 Ayat (4) UUK dan PKPU. Konsekuensi dari sita umum terhadap harta debitor pailit, dapat menimbulkan permasalahan atau sengketa baru, berdasarkan Pasal 3 Ayat (1) UUK dan PKPU, permasalahan/sengketa yang timbul akibat kepailitan dapat diajukan sebagai Gugatan Lain-Lain ke Pengadilan Niaga, namun berdasarkan penjelasannya mengikuti kewenangan Pasal 8 Ayat (4) UUK dan PKPU. Sehingga dalam hal ini terdapatnya ketidakpastian tata cara pemeriksaan perkara Gugatan Lain-Lain berdasarkan penjelasan Pasal 3 Ayat (1) UUK dan PKPU terhadap kewenangan kepailitan sebagaimana diatur dalam Pasal 8 Ayat (4) UUK dan PKPU. Kata Kunci: Kepailitan; Gugatan Lain-Lain; Debitor; Kreditor; Pengadilan Niaga.","PeriodicalId":139489,"journal":{"name":"Jurist-Diction","volume":"39 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121595140","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Tanggung Jawab Pengurus Perseroan dalam Kepailitan Badan Hukum Perseroan Perorangan","authors":"Amirah Zalfa Arindya","doi":"10.20473/jd.v5i6.40065","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.20473/jd.v5i6.40065","url":null,"abstract":"AbstractThe existence of a new type of Limited Liability Company (PT) in the Job Creation Law, namely the Individual Company Legal Entity, aims to facilitate Micro and Small Business (UMK) actors. An individual company has a character limited liability like Capital Partnership of PT, the difference is that the establishment of an individual company founded by one person, who is the only party filling the position of the company's organs. However, the two entities have significant differences, mainly in the position of the Company's organs and management, so that they can have different legal consequences in various aspects including bankruptcy. With the legal research method, reviewing the laws and regulations with the aim of knowing the characteristics of an Individual company in Indonesia, and the form of responsibility of the company management in the bankruptcy of an individual company. From the results of the research, it is necessary to improve regulations, especially regarding the bankruptcy of individual companies which are UMK in accordance with the Job Creation Law and PP No. 8 of 2021, to protect that the formation of UMK Individual Companies as job creation and ease of doing business does not become a disaster for entrepreneurs whose Individual Companies are declared bankrupt. Keywords: Individual Company Legal Entity; Liability; Bankruptcy.\u0000AbstrakEksistensi Perseroan Terbatas (PT) baru dalam UU Cipta Kerja yaitu Badan Hukum Perseroan Perorangan bertujuan memudahkan pelaku usaha Mikro Kecil (UMK). Perseroan Perorangan berkarakter limited liability selayaknya PT Persekutuan Modal, perbedaannya pendirian Perseroan Perorangan didirikan oleh satu orang, yang menjadi satu-satunya pihak pengisi kedudukan organ Perseroan. Namun, kedua entitas tersebut memiliki perbedaan signifikan utamanya pada kedudukan organ Perseroan dan kepengurusannya sehingga dapat menimbulkan akibat hukum berbeda pada berbagai aspek termasuk kepailitan. Dengan metode penelitian hukum, menelaah peraturan perundang-undangan dengan tujuan untuk mengetahui karakteristik Perseroan Perorangan, dan bentuk Tanggung Jawab Pengurus Perseroan dalam Kepailitan Perseroan Perorangan. Dari hasil penelitian, penyempurnaan regulasi dibutuhkan khususnya terkait kepailitan Perseroan Perorangan yang merupakan UMK sesuai UU Cipta Kerja dan PP No. 8 Tahun 2021, untuk melindungi agar pembentukan Perseroan Perorangan UMK sebagai penciptaan lapangan kerja dan kemudahan berusaha tidak menjadi malapetaka bagi pengusaha yang Perseroan Perorangannya dinyatakan pailit.Kata Kunci: Badan Hukum Perseroan Perorangan; Tanggung Jawab; Kepailitan.","PeriodicalId":139489,"journal":{"name":"Jurist-Diction","volume":"294 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132569127","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Keabsahan Izin Usaha Pertambangan Sebagai Objek Sita Umum oleh Kurator Dalam Perkara Kepailitan","authors":"Abita Aiko Miyata","doi":"10.20473/jd.v5i6.40059","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.20473/jd.v5i6.40059","url":null,"abstract":"AbstractIndonesia is a country with abundant natural wealth of various types, including the mining products that are scattered in several parts of Indonesia. Based on Article 6 point 1 of the Mineral and Coal Mining Law, any party wishing to carry out mining business activities is required to have a Mining Business License. The existence of a mining business license itself gives rights to the holder and has economic value. In several bankruptcy cases, the declaration of bankruptcy stated that the debtor holding the Mining Business License was bankrupt, which resulted in the debtor's assets under general confiscation. The definition of bankruptcy property itself is not limited to a tangible object, but can take the form of rights. With the existence of this legal event, it is necessary to study the mining business license as an object of bankruptcy assets based on the bankruptcy law. Keywords: Mining Business License; Mineral and Coal Mining Law; Bankruptcy Law.\u0000AbstrakIndonesia merupakan negara dengan kekayaan alam yang melimpah dengan berbagai macam jenisnya, tak terkecuali dengan hasil galian tambangnya yang tersebar di beberapa wilayah Indonesia. Berdasarkan Pasal 6 angka 1 UU Pertambangan Mineral dan Batubara setiap pihak yang hendak melaksanakan kegiatan usaha pertambangan wajib memiliki Izin Usaha Pertambangan. Izin Usaha Pertambangan sendiri eksistensinya memberikan hak kepada pemegangnya dan memiliki nilai ekonomis. Dalam beberapa perkara kepailitan, putusan pernyataan pailit menyatakan debitor pemegang Izin Usaha Pertambangan pailit, yang mengakibatkan harta kekayaan debitor berada dalam sita umum. Pengertian mengenai harta pailit sendiri tidak terbatas pada sebuah benda berwujud, melainkan dapat berbentuk hak. Dengan adanya peristiwa hukum tersebut, perlu dikaji Izin Usaha Pertambangan sebagai objek harta pailit berdasarkan Undang-undang kepailitan. Kata Kunci: Izin Usaha Pertambangan; Undang-undang Minerba; Undang-undang Kepailitan.","PeriodicalId":139489,"journal":{"name":"Jurist-Diction","volume":"92 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124593076","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Wewenang Kreditor Separatis Dalam Mengeksekusi Jaminan Saat Insolvensi Akibat Gagalnya Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang (PKPU)","authors":"Daniel Marihot Tambunan","doi":"10.20473/jd.v5i6.40076","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.20473/jd.v5i6.40076","url":null,"abstract":"AbstractThe debtor's bankruptcy decision based on the failure of PKPU will immediately placed the separatist creditors within 2 months to execute the collateral during the insolvency period. This short period of time caused conflict in practice between the curator and the separatist creditors over the authority of the separatist creditors to execute the collateral. This research discussed the legal remedies that could be used by separatist creditors who cannot finish executing their collateral, but have started exercising their rights in two months. This doctrinal research uses a conceptual approach, a statutory approach, and a case approach. The results of this research were that the legal remedies that could be taken by separatist creditors, which to take other legal remedies against curator. Keywords: Bankruptcy; Suspension of Payment; Insolvency; Collateral Fore closure; Separatist creditors.\u0000AbstrakPutusan pailitnya debitor yang berdasarkan gagalnya PKPU akan langsung menempatkan kreditor separatis dalam jangka waktu 2 bulan untuk mengeksekusi benda jaminannya saat masa insolvensi tersebut. Jangka waktu yang singkat ini menyebabkan konflik dalam praktik antara kurator dan kreditor separatis terhadap wewenang kreditor separatis dalam mengeksekusi benda agunan tersebut. Penelitian ini membahas mengenai upaya hukum yang dapat digunakan kreditor separatis yang sudah mulai namun belum selesai mengeksekusi agunannya dalam jangka waktu 2 bulan. Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian doctrinal research dengan menggunakan pendekatan konseptual, pendekatan perundang-undangan, dan juga pendekatan kasus. Hasil dari penelitian ini, yakni upaya hukum yang dapat dilakukan kreditor separatis yaitu melakukan perlawanan gugatan lain-lain terhadap kurator. Kata Kunci: Kepailitan; PKPU; Insolvensi; Eksekusi Benda jaminan; Kreditor Separatis.","PeriodicalId":139489,"journal":{"name":"Jurist-Diction","volume":"66 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115949231","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Akibat Hukum Kepailitan Induk Perusahaan Terhadap Saham Pada Anak Perusahaan","authors":"Aulia Dwi Ramadhanti","doi":"10.20473/jd.v5i6.40069","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.20473/jd.v5i6.40069","url":null,"abstract":"AbstractBankruptcy is a general confiscation of all assets of a Bankrupt Debtor whose management and the settlement carried out by the Curator under the supervision of the Supervisory Judge as regulated in Law 37/2004. Bankruptcy is very likely to be experienced by companies, including the parent company. The bankruptcy of the parent company will affect the shares it owns in the subsidiary. The parent's shares in the subsidiary will have the status of a bankruptcy estate and be settled based on the bankruptcy procedure as regulated in Article 185 of the Indonesian Bankruptcy Law. All legal cases related to bankruptcy must comply with the provisions of the Bankruptcy Law. Conflicting norms arise when the Articles of Association of a subsidiary contain a blokkering clause which states that if a shareholder wishes to transfer his shares, he must first offer it to other shareholders in the Company before offering it to outsiders. The Bankruptcy Law must be used in the settlement of Bankruptcy cases and the provisions of the blockkering clause. Keywords: Bankruptcy; Parent Company; Shares; Blokkering Clause.\u0000AbstrakKepailitan adalah sita umum atas semua kekayaan Debitor Pailit yang pengurusan dan pemberesannya dilakukan oleh Kurator di bawah pengawasan Hakim Pengawas sebagaimana diatur dalam UU 37/2004 tentang Kepailitan dan PKPU. Kepailitan sangat mungkin dialami perusahaan, tidak terkecuali induk perusahaan. Kepailitan induk perusahaan akan mempengaruhi saham yang dimilikinya pada anak perusahaan. Saham milik induk pada anak perusahaan akan berstatus sebagai boedel pailit dan dibereskan berdasarkan prosedur kepailitan yang diatur dalam Pasal 185 UU Kepailitan. Segala perkara hukum yang berkaitan dengan kepailitan harus tunduk pada ketentuan UU Kepailitan. Pertentangan norma timbul ketika Anggaran Dasar anak perusahaan memuat klausula blokkering yang menyatakan bahwa apabila pemegang saham hendak mengalihkan sahamnya, wajib menawarkan terlebih dahulu pada pemegang saham lain yang ada dalam Perseroan sebelum menawarkan pada pihak luar. Menanggapi pertentangan tersebut, UU Kepailitan merupakan ketentuan khusus yang harus digunakan dalam penyelesaian perkara Kepailitan dan mengesampingkan ketentuan klausula blokkering. Kata Kunci: Kepailitan; Induk Perusahaan; Saham; Klausula Blokkering.","PeriodicalId":139489,"journal":{"name":"Jurist-Diction","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126822446","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Tanggung Jawab Direktur yang Ultra Vires yang Menyebabkan Kepailitan Perusahaan","authors":"Bagus Ramadhan","doi":"10.20473/jd.v5i6.40074","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.20473/jd.v5i6.40074","url":null,"abstract":"AbstractThe Board of Directors of a Limited Liability Company has the task and authority to carry out the management of the company in accordance with the company's articles of association. If the company's board of directors commits acts outside of the company's purposes and objectives and exceeds the limits of authority given by the UUPT, articles of association and gms decisions, then the actions of the board of directors can be categorized as act of ultra vires. The ultra vires doctrine is a doctrine that considers null and void of any action of the company that exceeds the authority granted as stated in the purpose and purpose of the Company. Referring to Article 97 uupt, if the board of directors performs act of ultra vires,then the board of directors must be personally responsible for the losses suffered by the company. In reality it is still difficult to hold the company's directors personally accountable. UUPT is a regulation that regulates the limitative regarding Limited Liability Companies. Uupt in principle adheres to the doctrine of ultra vires seen in the formulation of several clauses. However in the UUPT is not formulated sanctions against violations of ultra vires. Keywords: Doctrine Ultra Vires; Directors; Authority Responsibility; Company; Bankruptcy.\u0000AbstrakDireksi Perseroan Terbatas mempunyai tugas dan wewenang menjalankan pengurusan perseroan sesuai dengan anggaran dasar perseroan. Bilamana direksi perseroan melakukan perbuatan diluar dari maksud dan tujuan perseroan serta melampaui batas kewenangan yang diberikan oleh UUPT, anggaran dasar maupun keputusan RUPS, maka perbuatan direksi tersebut dapat dikategorikan sebagai act of ultra vires. Doktrin ultra vires adalah suatu doktrin yang menganggap batal demi hukum atas setiap tindakan perseroan yang melebihi kewenangan yang diberikan sebagaimana yang disebutkan dalam maksud dan tujuan perseroan. Mengacu Pasal 97 UUPT, bilamana direksi melakukan act of ultra vires, maka direksi harus bertanggung jawab secara pribadi atas kerugian yang dialami perseroan. Pada kenyataannya masih sulit meminta pertanggungjawaban secara pribadi kepada direksi perseroan yang melakukan act of ultra vires. UUPT merupakan regulasi yang mengatur limitatif mengenai Perseroan Terbatas. UUPT secara prinsip menganut doktrin ultra vires yang terlihat dalam rumusan beberapa klausul. Namun dalam UUPT tidak dirumuskan sanksi terhadap pelanggaran ultra vires. Kata Kunci: Doktrin Ultra Vires; Direktur; Tanggung Jawab; Perseroan; Kepailitan.","PeriodicalId":139489,"journal":{"name":"Jurist-Diction","volume":"45 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124824007","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Kepailitan Perusahaan Pasangan Usaha Berbentuk Perseroan Terbatas Terkait Penyertaan Modal oleh Perusahaan Modal Ventura","authors":"F. Nadhif","doi":"10.20473/jd.v5i6.40123","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.20473/jd.v5i6.40123","url":null,"abstract":"AbstractThe development of a country cannot be separated from the economic sector in which capital financing is one of the important elements in a business activity. Without capital a business will not be able to run. Financial institutions exist as institutions that provide financing in the form of providers of funds or capital goods. Venture capital companies and investee companies are two legal subjects that are interconnected in venture capital financing. Financing in the form of shares and convertible bonds made by venture capital companies to investee companies has its own characteristics. As a result of equity participation that has the potential to cause debt, the partner company can be bankrupted. This research was conducted using two approaches, namely Statue Approach and conceptual approach. Which aims to analyze and provide an explanation of how debt arises in venture capital financing and the legal consequences when the Investee company is bankrupt. Keywords: Venture Capital Company; Investee Company; Shares; Convertible Bonds; Bankruptcy.\u0000AbstrakPembangunan suatu negara tidaklah dapat dipisahkan dari sektor perekonomian yang mana pembiayaan modal merupakan salah satu elemen penting di dalam sebuh kegiatan usaha. Tanpa modal sebuah usaha tidak akan dapat berjalan. Lembaga pembiayaan hadir sebagai lembaga yang melakukan pembiayaan dalam bentuk penyedia dana atau barang modal. Perusahaan modal ventura dan perusahaan pasangan usaha merupakan dua subjek hukum yang saling berhubungan didalam pembiayaan modal ventura. Pembiayaan berupa penyertaan saham dan obligasi konversi yang dilakukan oleh perusahaan modal ventura kepada perusahaan pasangan usaha memiliki karakteristiknya masing-masing. Akibat penyertaan modal yang berpotensi menimbulkan utang, menjadikan perusahaan pasangan usaha dapat dipailitkan. Penelitian ini dilakukan menggunakan dua pendekattan yaitu pendekatan perundang-undangan (Statue Approach) dan pendekatan konseptual (conceptual approach). Yang mana bertujuan untuk menganalisa dan memberikan penjelasan tentang bagaimana timbulnya utang didalam pembiayaan modal ventura beserta akibat hukumnya ketika perusahaan pasangan usaha dipailitkan. Kata Kunci: Perusahaan Modal Ventura; Perusahaan Pasangan Usaha; Saham; Obligasi Konversi; Kepailitan.","PeriodicalId":139489,"journal":{"name":"Jurist-Diction","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131667594","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Kedudukan Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara Dalam Penyalahgunaan Wewenang Pada Kegiatan Pengadaan Barang Dan Jasa Pemerintah","authors":"Muhamad Agev Dzulfikar","doi":"10.20473/jd.v5i6.40130","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.20473/jd.v5i6.40130","url":null,"abstract":"AbstractThe system formation and implementation of the procurement of goods and services must be carried out by applying the general principles of good governance. However, in practice, there are still various real obstacles to implementing good governance in the form of widespread authority exercised by certain parties. In addition, it is possible to examine the authorized handling mechanism carried out by Government Officials, in particular which judicial goods and services procurement officials are entitled to adjudicate. Therefore, this paper aims to discuss the competent authority for the procurement of goods and services based on administrative law as well as conflicts regarding the competence of the court in the authority to procure government goods and services. This paper is a normative legal research that puts emphasis on the legal approach. Based on administrative law, procurement of goods and the arrangement of legal relations between providers and users in the preparation process until the process of issuing a letter of determination of the provider of goods and services. Keywords: Procurement of Goods and Services; Abuse of Authority; State Administrative Court.\u0000AbstrakDalam pembentukan sistem dan implementasi dari pengadaan barang dan jasa harus dilakukan dengan menerapkan asas-asas umum pemerintahan yang baik. Namun, pada prakteknya, masih terdapat berbagai hambatan ketika menerapkan asas-asas umum pemerintahan yang baik berupa maraknya penyalahgunaan wewenang yang dilakukan oleh pihak-pihak tertentu. Selain itu, terdapat ketidakpastian mengenai mekanisme penanganan penyalahgunaan wewenang yang dilakukan oleh pejabat pengadaan barang dan jasa berupa kompetensi peradilan mana yang berhak untuk memeriksa dan mengadili. Oleh karenanya tulisan ini bertujuan untuk membahas penyalahgunaan wewenang pengadaan barang dan jasa berdasarkan hukum administrasi serta konflik aturan mengenai kompetensi pengadilan dalam penyalahgunaan wewenang pengadaan barang dan jasa pemerintah. Tulisan ini merupakan penelitian hukum normatif yang menekankan pada pendekatan hukum. Berdasarkan hukum administrasi, pengadaan barang dan jasa mengatur hubungan hukum antara penyedia dan pengguna pada proses persiapan sampai pada proses penerbitan surat penetapan penyedia barang dan jasa. Kata Kunci: Pengadaan Barang dan Jasa; Penyalahgunaan Wewenang; Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara.","PeriodicalId":139489,"journal":{"name":"Jurist-Diction","volume":"265 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114272303","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}