PENGERTIAN UTANG DALAM KASUS KEPAILITAN( SUATU ANALISA YURIDIS : BERRAITANDENGAN UTANG DALAM PUTU SAN PAILITMANULIFE INDONESIA)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Monetary crisis happens in Indonesia since the middle of 1997 has put many companies in Indonesia in difficulty so that bankruptcy cases increase. The recent contoversial bankruptcy case has happened in Manulife Indonesia co. Commerce court in its decision as of June 2002 grants PT. Dharmala Sakti claim to put the PT. Asuransi Jiwa Manulife Indonesia into bankruptcy. The controversy then becomes developed. The condition is due to the fact thatwhile being stated to be bankrupt, the company that its 51 % share is held by Canada Manulife Financial Cooperation has a good enough financial condition. Even though the decision then suspended by Supreme Court, the controversy on the legal aspects has still continued. The Manulife case then considered as an evidence of weakness of Regulation No.4/ 1998 on Bankruptcy. It is due to the regulation is not able to define what means. Explanation of section 1, verse (1) only states that debt un-paid by debtor as pointed in the definition is capital debt or the interest. The undefined debt term allows various interpretations on debt among the debtor, creditors, lawyers, and judges. Research method used is Juridical-Normative Research that is a research pointed in the library research, to the Manulife bankruptcy decision research, and also toward some bankruptcy decisions show different interpretation on debt between commerce court judges and supreme court. It can be concluded that in the shake of law affirmation, it is important to define the meaning of Debt due to the law affirmation in bankruptcy cases is totally needed by Indonesia that has improved its economical condition. The thesis writing is a correction effort and aimed to acquire suggestions toward the newer Bankruptcy Regulation arrangement. Krisis moneter yang terjadi di Indonesia sejak pertengahan tahun 1997 mengakibatkan banyaknya perusahaan Indonesia mengalami kesulitan dalam mempertahankan dan mengembangkan usahanya sehingga kasus-kasus kepailitan bermunculan. Kasus kepailitan yang barn-barn ini terjadi dan menjadi kontroversial adalah kasus kepailitan Manulife Indonesia. Pengadilan Niaga melalui putusan tanggal 13 Juni 2002 mengabulkan permohonan PT. Dharmala sakti untuk memailitkan PT. Asuransi Jiwa Manulife Indonesia. Kontroversipun merebak, betapa tidak pada saat dipailitkan perusahaan asuransi yang 51 sahamnya dikuasai Manulife Financial Corporation dari Kanada itu sesungguhnya memiliki keadaan keuangan culcup baik. Kendati akhirnyapun putusan itu dibatalkan oleh Mahkamah Agung, kontroversi seputar aspek hukumnya terus berlanjut. Kasus Manulife dipandang sebagai bukti kelemahan UU No.4 / 1998 tentang Kepailitan. Salah satu kelemahannya, UU tentang Kepailitan itu tidak memberikan definisi atau pengertian apa yang dimaksudkan dengan utang . Penjelasan Pasal 1 ayat ( 1 ) hanya menyebutkan bahwa utang yang tidak dibayar oleh debitur sebagaimana dimaksud dlam ketentuan ini adalah utang pokok atau bunganya. Ketiadaan pengertian ini membuka penafsiran yang berbeda-beda tentang arti utang diantara lcreditur, debitur, pengacara, dan hakim. Metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah penelitian yuridis normatif yaitu penelitian yang menitikberatkan pada penelitian perpustakaan, dan penelitian terhadap putusan pailit Manulife tersebut, sena juga terhadap beberapa putusan pailit yang menunjukan telah terjadinya penafsiran yang berbeda tentang pengertian utang antara hakim Pengadilan Niaga dan Mahkamah Agung Dapat disimpulkan, demi kepastian hukum maka pengertian utang harus didefinisikan karena kepastian hukum dalam penyelesaian kasus-kasus kepailitan sangat diperlukan bagi Indonesia yang tengah melakukan perbaikan ekonomi, dan penulisan tesis ini merupakan suatu upaya koreksi dan ditujukan untuk mendapatkan saran-saran terhadap penyusunan Undang-undang Kepailitan yang barn.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.004 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".