Update Artikelilmiah: 26912

RUBIYA AMILA DARIN

NIM

Judul Artikel

Abstrak (Bhs. Indonesia)

Perusahaan yang tidak mampu membayar utang-utangnya dapat mengajukan permohonan Kepailitan ke Pengadilan Niaga. Debitor dapat dinyatakan pailit apabila memenuhi syarat yang terkandung dalam Pasal 2 ayat (1) Undang-Undang Nomor 37 Tahun 2004 tentang Kepailitan dan Kewajiban Penundaan Pembayaran Utang selanjutnya apabila memenuhi syarat tersebut, maka Majelis Hakim dapat menjatuhkan putusan pailit apabila terdapat fakta atau keadaan sederhana berdasarkan Pasal 8 ayat (4) Undang-Undang Nomor 37 Tahun 2004 tentang Kepailitan dan Kewajiban Penundaan Pembayaran Utang. Karena utang yang lebih besar daripada harta kekayaan yang dimilikinya. Dalam hal ini hukum jaminan memliki arti penting guna pembagian sisa harta kekayaan perusahaan kepada para kreditor dengan adil, sesuai besar kecil tagihan yang dimiliki seperti pada kasus putusan Nomor 11/Pdt-susPailit/2018/PN.Niaga.Semarang.Metode pendekatan yang digunakan adalah metode pendekatan yuridis normatif. Data yang digunakan adalah data sekunder. Analisis data-data yang diperoleh dianalisis dan dijabarkan berdasarkan norma hukum yang berkaitan degan objek penelitian. Hasil penelitian menunjukan bahwa Majelis Hakim telah tepat dalam menerapkan Pasal 2 ayat (1) mengenai syarat permohonan Kepailitan, serta pasal 8 ayat (4) mengenai pembuktian sederhana dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 37 Tahun 2004 tentang Kepailitan dan Kewajiban Penundaan Pembayaran Utang.

Abtrak (Bhs. Inggris)

Companies that cannot afford and pay their debts could plea for bankruptcy adjuration to the Commercial Court. Debtors could be declared bankrupt if they qualify the requirements contained in Article 2 paragraph (1) of Constitution 37th of 2004 About Bankruptcy and Suspension Of Obligations for Payment of Debts. Hereafter if they have the adequate requirements, the Panel of Judges could impose a verdict bankruptcy if there are facts or simple circumstances based on Article 8 paragraph (4) of Constitution 37th of 2004 About Bankruptcy and Suspension Of Obligations for Payment of Debts since the debt amount is larger than the wealth that they have. In this case, the guarantee law possesses an important meaning for the fair distribution of the remaining assets of the company to the creditors, following the size of the invoice owned as in the case of decision number: 11/Pdt.sus-Pailit/2018/ PN.Niaga.Semarang.This study applied a normative juridical approach and used secondary data. Analysis of the data obtained is analyzed and described based on legal norms related to the object of research. The results showed that the Panel of Judges was right in applying Article 2 paragraph (1) regarding the requirements for bankruptcy applications, as well as article 8 paragraph (4) regarding simple verification in Constitution 37th of 2004 About Bankruptcy and Suspension Of Obligations for Payment of Debts. And the application of the guarantee law to the decision number: 11/Pdt.sus-Pailit/2018/ PN.Niaga.Semarang Now it is following the provisions of the Law of the guarantee in the Civil Code

Kata kunci

Pembimbing 1

Pembimbing 2

Pembimbing 3

Tahun

Jumlah Halaman