Juridical Analysis of Partner Liabilities in Bankruptcy Process at CV Agro Sawita Mandiri Perkasa (original) (raw)
Related papers
2023
Bankruptcy according to Article 1 point 1 of the Bankruptcy Law No. 37 of 2004 is a general confiscation of all the assets of the Bankrupt Debtor which management and settlement are carried out by the Curator under the supervision of the Supervisory Judge as stipulated in this Law. The Bankruptcy and PKPU Laws have a wider reach both in terms of norms, scope of material, and the process of settling debts. This wider reach is necessary due to the emergence of legal developments and needs in society.
Edunity : Kajian Ilmu Sosial dan Pendidikan
The bankruptcy case of PT Aliga Internasional Pratama is proof of the dualism of the position of criminal confiscation over general confiscation in the bankruptcy estate. Based on the decision of the Commercial Court at the Central Jakarta District Court, PT. Aliga International Pratama has been legally declared bankrupt with all the legal consequences. Whereas as of the date of the bankruptcy decision, all assets of PT. Aliga is in a state of general confiscation, and the authority to control and manage all of their asset rests with the Curator Team. However, 2 buildings which are bankrupt assets, namely The Aliga Hotel and factory/office buildings, have been confiscated by the Criminal Investigation Police Investigators (Bareskrim Polri).The research method in this paper is descriptive qualitative, namely the legal material obtained is presented descriptively and analyzed qualitatively. The results showed that, analyzed using the theory of justice according to Thomas Aquinas and t...
https://www.ijrrjournal.com/IJRR\_Vol.8\_Issue.1\_Jan2021/IJRR-Abstract036.html, 2021
In connection with the bankruptcy issue, in this case PT. Inti Kapital Sekuritas, formerly known as PT. Andalan Artha Advisindo Sekuritas, for filing a bankruptcy application made by two creditors namely Ghozi Muhammad and Azmi Ghozi Harharah who are customers of PT. Inti Kapital Sekuritas. The court has handed down the previous decision number 08/Pdt.Sus/Pailit/ 2015/PN.Niaga.Jkt.Pst, because they have more than one debt that is due and can be collected in accordance with law number 37 of 2004 concerning bankruptcy and postponement debt payment obligations, article 2 paragraph (1) jo. Article 8 paragraph (4) which regulates the conditions for bankruptcy as follows, "A debtor who has two or more creditors and does not pay in full at least one debt that is due and can be collected, is declared bankrupt by a court decision, either on his own request or at the request of one or more creditors”. Due to no further legal remedies by the securities debtor, the decision number 08/Pdt.Sus/Pailit/2015/ PN. Niaga.Jkt.Pst has permanent legal force (inkracht). Respondent or securities debtor then submits a request for reconsideration of the court decision which has permanent legal force, by taking external legal remedies, namely reconsideration. The research method used in this thesis research is descriptive analysis, with the type of normative legal research, namely to examine legal norms related to bankruptcy petition decisions through literature study, research in terms of statutory regulations and also their elaboration and explanation of procedures and bankruptcy provisions and postponement of debt payment obligations. The conclusion of this research is that the judge granted the request for bankruptcy cancellation made by the securities debtor because there had been a significant error in the previous decision, namely case number 08/Pdt.Sus/Pailit/2015/ PN. Niaga.Jkt.Ps because the applicant is a creditor an individual who is not the Financial Services Authority (OJK) so that it does not comply with the provisions of article 2 paragraph (4) of the bankruptcy law and postponement of debt payment obligations as well as article 55 paragraph (1) of RI Law number 21 of 2011 concerning the Financial Services Authority (OJK) "function, duty and authority to regulate and supervise financial services activities in the capital market sector (BAPEPAM), or now also known as the Financial Services Authority (OJK). Therefore, the party entitled to apply for bankruptcy is the Financial Services Authority (OJK)”.
NOMOI Law Review, 2021
This study discusses the status of collateral objects belonging to third parties in bankruptcy. This study aims to find out whether the collateral belonging to the party that is used as collateral debtor debt that is declared bankrupt is included in the bankruptcy boedel or not. The research method used is normative juridical law research. The results showed that in practice this is often a debate between curators and separatist creditors whether the assets of third parties that are used as collateral debts of debtors declared bankrupt or not and include collateral belonging to third parties that are used as collateral debt Debitor Bankruptcy into boedel (property) bankruptcy has violated the provisions of Article 21 of the Bankruptcy Act and PKPU which states that Bankruptcy covers all the wealth of debtors at the time the verdict of the bankruptcy statement is pronounced and everything obtained during Bankruptcy. Furthermore, as a result of the third party collateral that is used as collateral for insolvency debtor debt into boedel (property) bankruptcy, then it violates the provisions of Article 6 of the Law on The Right of Dependents because the rest of the sale of the object of dependent rights does not return to the third party as the bearer of dependent rights, but becomes boedel (property) bankruptcy.
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 Interpreted-Constructed by the Supreme Court of India
NLIU Journal of Business Laws , 2019
Since the inception of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 several amendments have been introduced to the Code so far. The law declared by the Supreme Court of India have been swiftly incorporated in the Code by the Parliament which in itself is a rare phenomenon in India. This article seeks to analyze the judgments of the Supreme Court of India interpreting-constructing the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The objective of this article is two-fold: First, to find out whether the Supreme Court has merely interpreting the text of the Code or it has also constructed the meaning of the ambiguous and vague provisions of the Code. Second, to cull out the principles of law from the decisions of the Supreme Court. This article has been divided into three parts. Part I identify the holdings of the Court which have been incorporated in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 through amendments. Part II analyses the judgments in thirteen broad categories. Part III concludes.
FIAT JUSTISIA
Workers are preferred creditors whose payment must take precedence in the bankruptcy of the company. Problems in practice occur in the company's assets as collateral for debt to separatist creditors so that workers' rights are ruled out. Therefore, workers submit applications for judicial review of the Bankruptcy Law and Labor Law. This study is normative research using primary legal materials, namely laws and case study decisions that are analysed qualitatively. The results of the study and discussion determined that the Bankruptcy Law and the Labor Law regulate the same as the legal status of workers as preferred creditors who are entitled to prioritize payment in the distribution of bankrupt assets strengthened by the results of a judicial review in Decision of the Constitutional Court Number 67/PUU-XI/2013 The right of workers to wages is prioritized and calculated from collateral objects which are the rights of separatist creditors. For this reason, curators with author...
Juridical Review of Bankruptcy Conditions and Delay of Debt Repayment Obligations
Awang Long Law Review, 2023
Bankruptcy results in a general confiscation of all assets of the bankrupt debtor (budel bankrulit). An important phase in the bankruptcy process is the insolvency stage. Based on the explanation of Article 57 paragraph 1 of the Bankruptcy Law and PKPU, what is meant by insolvency is the state of inability to pay, this is in line with the Central Jakarta Commercial Court Decision Number: 44 / PDT. SUS. PAILIT/20 20/PN. TRADE. JKT. PST. That PT. Pazia Retailindo was declared bankrupt. Application for bankruptcy filed by PT. Dana Kaya through its Directors, namely Sri Dewi Endang Mumpuni and Ambar Bawono on October 20, 2020, was represented by the appointed legal representative, namely PARLIN SIHOMBING, S.E., S.IP., S.H. Advocate at the Law Firm BELASSANDRO TORUAN &; PARTNERS. The problem raised in this study is the condition of Insolvency of PT. Pazia Retailindo before the bankruptcy decision , and what underlies the judge's consideration in the bankruptcy decision Number: 44 / Pdt.Sus.Pailit / 20 20 / Pn.Niaga.Jkt.Pst which refers to Law Number 37 of 2004. This research uses a Normative Juridical approach. The result of this study is that the legal considerations used by the panel of judges in deciding the bankruptcy case of PT. Pazia Retailindo complies with Law Number 37 of 2004 concerning Bankruptcy and PKPU, namely the fulfillment of all elements contained in Article 2 Paragraph 1 and Article 8 Paragraph 4 of the Bankruptcy Law and PKPU.
QISTINA: Jurnal Multidisiplin Indonesia
Basically an agreement is made based on negotiations by the parties, but using standard clauses. One of the default cases that occurred was decided by the Surabaya District Court at the First Level Court with case number 55/Pdt GS/2022/PN Sby. The lawsuit was filed because the Defendant, namely CV AL-FAYYADH, had defaulted on the Plaintiff who is an investor/financier. The method in this study uses normative juridical methods. defaults made by CV AL-FAYYADH did not carry out achievements in payment. The dispute resolution process between CV AL-FAYYADH and Investors used the negotiation route based on Article 6 paragraph (2) of Law Number 30 of 1999 concerning Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution by producing a new agreement or renegotiation and of course with a favorable agreement before going through the courts.
Implementation of the Doctrine of the Business Judgment Rule on Bankruptcy Law in Indonesia
Yuridika, 2019
One of the mechanisms that can be taken in resolving accounts payable to a limited liability company in bankruptcy. In the case of bankruptcy due to mistakes made personally by the Board of Directors and the Board of Commissioners, they must be responsible for debts held by limited liability companies. The company law regulates the way for the Board of Directors and Board of Commissioners to avoid liability for losses suffered by the company, through the doctrine of the Business Judgment Rule (BJR). In practice, the application of the BJR doctrine in bankruptcy law is characterized by differences in interpretation between law enforcers. Differences in interpretation occur because there is no clear provision in the Republic of Indonesia Law Number 37 of 2004 concerning Bankruptcy and Delay of Obligations to Pay Debt (Law No. 37/2004) which limits the filing of bankruptcy applications to the personal Directors and Board of Commissioners. The research in this article is carried out by ...