ANALISIS YURIDIS PENAMBAHAN MODAL OLEH DEBITUR PASCA PAILIT YANG BELUM MELUNASI UTANG (Studi Putusan Nomor 18/Pdt.Sus-Gugatan Lain- lain/2019/PN.Niaga jkt.Pst. Jo. Nomor 51/PK/Pdt.Sus- Pailit/2014. Jo. Nomor 484/K/Pdt.Sus-Pailit/2013. Jo. Nomor : 44/Pdt
| Main Author: | Ilmanhuda, Maulana Farras |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article eJournal |
| Bahasa: | ind |
| Terbitan: |
Kumpulan Jurnal Mahasiswa Fakultas Hukum
, 2021
|
| Online Access: |
http://hukum.studentjournal.ub.ac.id/index.php/hukum/article/view/4260 |
Daftar Isi:
- Maulana Farras Ilmanhuda, Setiawan Wicaksono, Ranitya Ganindha Fakultas Hukum, Universitas Brawijaya e-mail: Maulana.faras@gmail.com ABSTRAK Pasca berakhirnya kepailitan tentunya tak luput dari suatu permasalahan, dalam penelitian ini Penulis mengangkat permasalahan mengenai Debitur yang melakukan RUPS penambahan modal pasca pailit yang masih mempunyai utang. Pilihan tema tersebut dilatarbelakangi karena Debitur dalam hal ini melakukan RUPS untuk penambahan modal dengan dalil bahwa proses kepailitannya berakhir, padahal debitur masih mempunyai utang, disisi lain juga di dalam Undang-Undang No.37 Tahun 2004 tentang kepalitan dan penundaan kewajiban pembayaran utang belum mengatur secara konkrit debitur yang melakukan RUPS Penambahan Modal pasca pailit yang masih meninggalkan utang kepada kreditur, sehingga menimbulkan kerugian atas piutang Kreditur. Berdasarkan kasus tersebut Kreditur akhirnya mengajukan gugatan lain-lain karena tinggal upaya ini yang bisa diajukan oleh Kreditur setelah semua upaya hukum kepailitan sudah diajukan. Penulisan karya tulis ini menggunakan pendekatan perundang-undangan (statute approach), pendekatan kasus (case approach), dan pendekatan analisis (analytical approach). Bahan hukum primer, sekunder, dan tersier yang diperoleh penulis akan dianalisis dengan menggunakan teknik analisis intepretasi gramatikal yaitu apa yang tertulis dalam undang-undang akan ditafsirkan menurut tata bahasanya sesuai dengan Bahasa yang mudah untuk dipahami dan menelaah berdasarkan kasus yang ada dilapangan. Selain itu juga menggunakan intepretasi sistematis. Berdasarkan hasil penelitian debitur harus mengajukan rehabilitasi terlebih dahulu sebelum RUPS penambahan modal dan harus mendapat persetujuan dari hakim pengadilan niaga. Sesuai dengan kasus ini Kreditur bisa mengajukan gugatan lain-lain perkara kepailitan kepada Pengadilan Niaga karena Kurator dan Debitur tidak maksimal dan professional dalam pemberesan harta kepailitan yang merugikan Kreditur, dengan demikian perkara kepailitan dapat dibuka kembali. Kata kunci: Kepailitan, Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham, Utang ABSTRACTThis research topic departs from the condition where a debtor held General Meeting of Shareholders (hereinafter RUPS) in terms of additional investment following the end of the bankruptcy case process despite the fact that the debtor still had debt to pay off. On the other hand, the provision of Law Number 37 of 2004 concerning Bankruptcy and Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations do not specifically govern RUPS regarding additional investment that still leaves some debt to be paid to a creditor. This condition causes loss for the creditor over accounts receivable. Following this hurdle, the creditor decided to file another lawsuit when several legal remedies had been previously performed by the creditor over this bankruptcy.Departing from the aforementioned issue, this research investigates: the authority of the debtor holding RUPS of additional investment following the end of bankruptcy case and other forms of lawsuit taken by the creditor to whom the debtor had debt when he/she is declared bankrupt but the RUPS of additional investment was still held.This research employed statutory, case, and analytical approach, with the research data involving primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials, which were further analysed based on grammatical interpretation. This technique interprets what is set forth in Law to a language with flow that is easily understood based on the case taking place. Systematic interpretation was also employed to help analyse the Articles of the law or across laws carefully.The research concludes that the debtor must propose for rehabilitation before he/she decides to hold RUPS of additional investment, and this rehabilitation must be approved by the judge of commercial court. In this case, the creditor can move on with other lawsuits over this bankruptcy to commercial court since trustee and the debtor are deemed not to tackle this case professionally, and such performance disadvantages the creditor. With this approach, the bankruptcy case can later be reopened. Keywords: Bankcruptcy, Extraordinary General Meeting, Debt