SETTLEMENT OF CREDITOR BILL DISPUTES IN THE DEBT PAYMENT POSTPONEMENT PROCESS

Authors

  • Muhammad Adli Universitas Muhammadiyah Sumatera Utara
  • Ramlan Universitas Muhammadiyah Sumatera Utara
  • Ida Nadirah Universitas Muhammadiyah Sumatera Utara

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.31941/pj.v23i1.7154

Keywords:

Creditor Bill, Dept Payment

Abstract

There are problems that creditors often have to face in bankruptcy, especially concurrent creditors or ordinary creditors (unsecured creditors), namely to obtain payment of their receivables to debtors who have been declared bankrupt, due to bad faith from the debtor to transfer the assets they own or all efforts by the bankrupt debtor made to hinder the management and settlement of the bankrupt assets (bankruptcy boedel) by the curator. A company, specifically a PT (Limited Liability Company), is unable to pay its debts, and bankruptcy proceedings begin with a creditor filing a petition to the court for past-due bills. Debt restructuring has been the preferred solution for many years to resolve financial problems in a company. Restructuring under a Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations (PKPU) is intended to restructure the debtor's debt payments solely with the goal of restoring the debtor's company to health. Restructuring is more of a rescue measure than a corrective action or permanent fix. One of the legal protections provided by the Bankruptcy Law and PKPU for creditors is the actio paulina, which gives creditors the right to request the cancellation of any legal action not required by the debtor. If a debtor is deemed to have defaulted on a debt repayment agreement with a creditor, they can demand that the agreement be fulfilled, or seek compensation from the defaulting party

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Derita Prapti Rahayu. (2010). Eksistensi Perusahaan dalam Pelaksanaan Fungsi dan Tujuannya di Masyarakat. Masalah-Masalah Hukum, Semarang: Universitas Diponegoro, 39(1), hlm. 52.

Sri Redjeki Hartono. (2000). Kapita Selekta Hukum Perusahaan. Bandung: CV. Mandar Maju, hlm 38

Purbandari, “Tanggung Jawab Hukum Perseroan Terbatas (PT) Yang Dinyatakan Pailit”, E-Journal WIDYA Yustisia, Vol. 1 No. 1 (Mei 2014), hlm. 1

Yuhelson, Prioritas Pembagian Harta Kekayaan Debitor Pailit (Boedel Pailit) Terhadap Kreditor Preferen Dan Kreditor Separatis Berdasarkan Prinsip-Prinsip Keadilan Dan Kepastian Hukum, (Jakarta : Universitas Jayabaya, 2016), hlm. 10

Sri Redjeki Hartono, Hukum Perdata Sebagai Dasar Hukum Kepailitan Modern, Jurnal Hukum Bisnis, Volume 7, Yayasan Pengembangan Hukum Bisnis, Jakarta, 2009, hal. 22

Doni Budiono, “Analisis Pengaturan Hukum Acara Kepailitan dan Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang”, ADHAPER: Jurnal Hukum Acara Perdata Vol. 4, No. 2, 2018,Hlm.109.

Rachmadi Usman, Dimensi Hukum Kepailitan di Indonesia, (Jakarta :Gramedia Pustaka Utama, 2004), hlm. 4

Sutan Remy Sjahdeini, Hukum Kepailitan: Memahami Faillissementsverordening Juncto Undang-Undang No. 4 Tahun 1998, (Jakarta : Grafiti,2004), hlm.5

Rahayu Hartini, Penyelesaian Sengketa Kepailitan di Indonesia, Dualisme Kewenangan Pengadilan Niaga & Lembaga Arbitrase, Cetakan Ke-1, (Jakarta: Kencana Prenada Media Group, 2009), hlm.100

Ediwarman, Monograf Metodologi Penelitian Hukum, (Sof Media :Medan,2009), hlm. 19

Dodi Oktarino, 2021, Hukum Bisnis Perjanjian Kredit dan Jaminan Pemegang Saham, Bogor: Guepedia, hlm. 142

M. Hadi Subhan, 2014, Hukum Kepailitan: Prinsip, Norma, dan Praktik Di Peradilan, Jakarta: Kencana, hlm. 158

Elyta Ras Ginting, 2018, Hukum Kepailitan Teori Kepailitan, Jakarta: Sinar Grafika, hlm. 306

Masyhud Ali, Restrukturisasi Perbankan dan Dunia Usaha, ( Jakarta : PT. Elex Media Komputindo, 2002), hlm. 192

Downloads

Published

2024-05-20