Upaya Hukum Kreditor Terkait Aset Yang Dialihkan Setelah Putusan Pencabutan Putusan Pernyataan Pailit

Theodora, Gavrilla

doi:10.20473/jd.v2i4.14490

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…9 Sedangkan penelitian Theodora menganalisis tentang status piutang kreditur setelah putusan pencabutan pernyataan pailit kembali dalam keadaan otonom seperti sebelum adanya putusan pernyataan pailit dan action pauliana secara perdata adalah suatu bentuk upaya hukum untuk menjadi dasar pembuktian untuk mengajukan pailit ulang kepada debitur. 10 Perbedaan penelitian ini dengan penelitian terdahulu yutu penelitian ini fokus mengkaji putusan pencabutan pailit dengan objek penelitian ini yaitu PT. D'Paragon Labbaika Utama (Royal D'Paragon Residence Apartement) yang dinyatakan pailit oleh Pengadilan Niaga Semarang dan kepailitannya juga dicabut oleh Pengadilan Niaga Semarang.…”

Section: Pendahuluanunclassified

Pencabutan Putusan Pailit Dalam Hal Harta Pailit Tidak Cukup Untuk Membayar Biaya Kepailitan

Sirait,

Junaidi,

Sudarmanto

et al. 2023

JULR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this research is to learn about the revocation of bankruptcy judgments in the event that bankruptcy assets are not sufficient to pay bankruptcy costs. If, in the management of bankruptcy assets, the curator considers that the bankruptcy assets are insufficient to pay the bankruptcy costs, the curator may apply for revocation of the bankruptcy statement submitted to the supervisory judge. Based on the proposal of the supervisory judge to revoke the debtor's bankruptcy statement, the commercial court may decide to revoke the debtor's bankruptcy statement. The problems that occur over the revocation and the problems and solutions to the revocation of the bankruptcy judgment in the event that the bankruptcy assets are not enough to pay the bankruptcy costs. The research method used is a legal research method that prioritizes how to research library materials and laws and regulations. The results of this study indicate that the revocation of the bankruptcy decision prioritizes legal certainty for debtors but does not provide certainty of payment of creditors' bills. Second, the revocation of the bankruptcy declaration decision by the Commercial Court has caused problems where the bankruptcy assets are only used to pay bankruptcy costs; the bankruptcy revocation decision is not accompanied by an order for the receivership to liquidate the company's debtors; and actio pauliana in bankruptcy is only valid while the bankruptcy process is still running. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengkaji tentang pencabutan putusan pailit jika harta pailit tidak cukup untuk membayar biaya kepailitan. Jika kurator dalam pengurusan harta pailit percaya bahwa harta pailit tidak mencukupi untuk membayar biaya kepailitan, kurator dapat mengajukan permohonan pencabutan pernyataan pailit yang disampaikan kepada Hakim Pengawas. Jika Hakim Pengawas merekomendasikan untuk mencabut pernyataan pailit debitur, maka Pengadilan Niaga dapat memutuskan untuk mencabut pernyataan pailit debitur. Permasalahan yang terjadi atas pencabutan serta problematika dan solusi pencabutan putusan pailit dalam hal harta pailit tidak cukup untuk membayar biaya kepailitan. Metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah metode penetian yuridis normatif yang mengutamakan cara meneliti bahan pustaka dan peraturan perundang-undangan. Hasil penelitian ini dapat disimpulkan adalah pencabutan putusan pailit lebih mengutamakan kepastian hukum bagi debitur namum tidak memberikan kepastian pembayaran atas tagihan kreditur. Kedua, pencabutan putusan pernyataan pailit oleh Pengadilan Niaga telah menimbulkan problematika dimana harta pailit hanya dipergunakan untuk membayar biaya kepailitan, putusan pencabutan pailit tidak disertai dengan perintah bagi kurator untuk melakukan likudasi terhadap debitur perseroan, actio pauliana dalam kepailitan hanya berlaku selama proses kepailitan masih berjalan.

show abstract

Section: Pendahuluanunclassified

Pencabutan Putusan Pailit Dalam Hal Harta Pailit Tidak Cukup Untuk Membayar Biaya Kepailitan

Sirait,

Junaidi,

Sudarmanto

et al. 2023

JULR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Legal Protection for Third Parties in Good Faith on Actio Pauliana Litigation in Bankruptcy Proceedings

Wiguna,

Andaretna,

Budianto

et al. 2024

Yuridika

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Actio Pauliana in bankruptcy, as stipulated under Law Number 37 of 2004, empowers the Curator to seek the annulment of transactions undertaken by the bankrupt debtor, causing harm to the bankrupt estate. Actio Pauliana requires proof that a third party, the debtor's transaction partner is proven to not have acted in good faith, as outlined in the law. However, the legislation lacks clarity on the criteria safeguarding third parties in good faith against Actio Pauliana claims. This research employs a doctrinal research method involving a statute, conceptual, case, and comparative approach. The novelty of this research expounds upon and elucidates the need for amendments to Law Number 37 of 2004, particularly concerning the criteria protecting third parties in good faith. These criteria could be differentiated based on the third parties' position in bankruptcy and the nature of the objects constituting the bankrupt estate, including tangible and intangible movable objects, unregistered objects, immovable objects, and/or registered objects. Furthermore, proposed improvements to the law include refining provisions related to creditors' right to file Actio Pauliana lawsuits, affirming a one-year period rather than a deadline, and addressing timelines within Actio Pauliana lawsuits. Actio Pauliana claims should only be submitted after the debtor's bankruptcy declaration, excluding the Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations (PKPU) process. In conclusion, the research proposes possible solutions, such as the issuance of a Regulation (Perma) or a Circular Letter (SEMA) by the Supreme Court, containing the essential improvements to Law Number 37 of 2004.

show abstract

Upaya Hukum Kreditor Terkait Aset Yang Dialihkan Setelah Putusan Pencabutan Putusan Pernyataan Pailit

Cited by 2 publications

References 0 publications

Pencabutan Putusan Pailit Dalam Hal Harta Pailit Tidak Cukup Untuk Membayar Biaya Kepailitan

Pencabutan Putusan Pailit Dalam Hal Harta Pailit Tidak Cukup Untuk Membayar Biaya Kepailitan

Legal Protection for Third Parties in Good Faith on Actio Pauliana Litigation in Bankruptcy Proceedings

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About