Postponement Of Debt Payment Obligations Research Articles

Penerapan Undang-Undang Kepailitan dalam Menciptakan Iklim Berusaha Yang Sehat Bagi Seluruh Pelaku Usaha

Law Number 37 Year 2004 concerning Bankruptcy and Postponement of Debt Payment Obligation (PKPU) is enacted in good faith to protect the rights of creditors who have receivables on the insolvent party, since in general the assets left by the insolvent party is less than the amount of the debt . So that the condition is very potential to cause chaos if the number of creditors more than one, because they each will fight each other to control the assets left behind as compensation for the settlement of receivables, and eventually among the creditors will apply: "who fast/strong he can, and who is slow / weak he bit the finger". With the stipulation of bankruptcy provisions in this law, congruent lenders will no longer fight each other because each will get the compensation of debt repayment proportionally according to the principle of "pari pasu pro rata parte".

THE STATE POSITION AS A PREFERENT CREDITOR OF THE TAX DEBT IN BANKRUPTCY

Bankruptcy is a decision issued by the Court that resulted in a general confiscation of all the wealth owned and the wealth that will be owned by the debtor in the future. The State has the preference right to tax debt on the property of the Taxpayer. This means that the position of the state as a preferent creditor who is declared to have prior rights over the property of the Taxpayer to be auctioned in public. The state's preference by taxpayer repayment is in fact not as easy as one might imagine, there are some problems. The purpose of article writing is to know the position of the State as a preferent creditor for the tax debt of the taxpayer declared bankrupt and know the obstacles of the State as a preferent creditor to the repayment of tax debt on taxpayers declared bankrupt. Provisions on the State's prior rights include the principal taxes, administrative sanctions in the form of interest, penalties, increases, and tax collection fees. The weakness in the regulation creates an impediment to the application of the State as a preferential creditor who has the preference right, namely the formulation of the preference right itself that is unclear about the notion of the state's position as the preferent creditor, in addition to the overlapping regulation of the preference right (preferent creditor) The Civil Code, the Law on General Taxation and Bankruptcy Laws and Postponement of Debt Payment Obligations which not only the State as the Preference rights holder's creditors.

Pembatasan Jangka Waktu Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang terhadap Debitor dalam Kepailitan

The aims of the research is to analyze reasons for short term restriction onthe Postponement of Debt Payment Obligation (PDPO), the existence of time limitprovisions resulting the failure of the debtors’ debt efforts with creditors, and thePKPU’s term limits on legal protection for the interests of debtors to prevent bankruptcy.This research is a normative juridical research. Data used in this researchwere secondary data obtained from official documents, books related to the objectof research, research results in the form of reports, bachelor thesis, master thesis,dissertation and regulations. This research was also supported with primary databy conducting an interview with Advocates as resource persons to support the research.Data were analyzed qualitatively. The results of the research indicated that:(1) the term restriction given by Law no. 37 of 2004 concerning Bankruptcy andPostponement of Debt Payment Obligation has an objective of making debtors ableto offer amicable resolution to creditors related to debt payments so that debtors cancontinue their business. (2) The term is not a determinant of the failure of amicableresolution effort in the Postponement of Debt Payment Obligation, but affect theprocess of achieving the Postponement of Debt Payment Obligation, (3) Law No.37 of 2004 concerning Bankruptcy and Postponement of Debt Payment Obligationprovides security guarantee such as giving the debtors an opportunity to reorganizebusiness or company management or to restructure their debts within the period ofPostponement of Debt Payment Obligation, and the debtor does not lose their rightsto take care of the company and assets, so that the debtors still have the authorityto manage the company. It can be concluded from the research that (1) Law no.37 of 2004 concerning Bankruptcy and Postponement of Debt Payment Obligationprovides a short term for the debtors so that the debtors are really able to makeamicable resolution to the creditor in relation to the payment of debts. (2). The termis not a determinant of the failure of amicable resolution effort in the Postponementof Debt Payment Obligation, but affect the process of achieving the Postponementof Debt Payment Obligation. (3). Law no. 37 of 2004 concerning Bankruptcy and Postponement of Debt Payment Obligation has provided a guarantee of legal protection in the form of certainty to the debtor to prevent bankruptcy.

STUDI KOMPARATIF PENYELESAIAN SENGKETA EKONOMI MELALUI PENGADILAN NIAGA DAN ARBITRASE

Formally, the economics of alternative dispute resolution can be done through the Commercial Court and Arbitration. Both are different in terms of the object of dispute, the procedures for dispute resolution and legal consequences. In terms of the object of dispute the equation is the Commercial Court and Arbitration courts can be resolving disputes in the field of property rights along a predetermined interlektual in UUHKI. While the difference is the scope of Arbitration has a broad field that encompasses all economic fields of trade, finance, industry, banking, and everything related to the rights of the parties. Commercial Court only has the authority in the field of IPR and bankruptcy as well as the postponement of debt payment obligations. Keywords: Economic Dispute Resolution, Commercial Court of Arbitration

PENYELESAIAN SENGKETA AKIBAT KESALAHAN KURATOR DARI BERKURANGNYA HARTA DEBITUR PAILIT YANG MERUGIKAN PIHAK KREDITUR DALAM KEPAILITAN

Curator in carrying out their duties based on the principle of fiduciary duty, which means task assigned based on the trust that appoint the curator, the court. Therefore, it's reasonable if the article 72 Bankruptcy Act of 2004 provides that: “curator is responsible for it mistakes or omissions in carrying out managing and/or settlement duties which led to losses against the bankruptcy assets. This trigger so that the curators do their job as well as possible and carefully. In addition, the curators can be sued and must pay restitution if due to their negligence, even more due to fault (deliberate) has caused the parties interested in the bankruptcy assets, affected mainly to the unsecured creditors. Those Losses mainly if the value of bankruptcy assets were decreased and thus the creditors obtain repayment less than necessary bills received from the sale of bankruptcy assets. This research applied a method of normative juridical approach as it resarch type, so called babecause the research looks at law from a normative aspect. From the results of research conducted, it can be concluded that the legal protection of the curator in the management and settlement bankruptcy assets in the law No. 37 of 2004 (on bankruptcy and postponement of debt payment obligations) has provided a good legal protection to the curator in carrying out handling tasks and settlement bankruptcy assets. Keywords: curator, mistakes managing of banckruptcy assets and bankruptcy