scholarly journals Analisis Perubahan Undang-Undang Investasi Melalui Omnibus Law 2020 dan Dampaknya Terhadap Perijinan Investasi

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (11) ◽  
pp. 2072-2082
Author(s):  
Hanna M. Simanjuntak ◽  
Bernard Nainggolan ◽  
Wiwik Sri Widiarty

Hubungan debitur dan kreditur dalam perjanjian utang piutang menimbulkan suatu perjanjian pinjam meminjam uang yang menyebabkan adanya suatu perikatan diantara para pihak. Dengan adanya perikatan maka masing-masing pihak mempunyai hak dan kewajiban. Salah satu kewajiban dari debitor adalah mengembalikan utangnya sebagai suatu prestasi yang harus dilakukan. Perjanjian utang piutang bukanlah menjadi suatu masalah dalam dunia usaha bila antara debitur dan kreditur terdapat konsep pemahaman dalam isi perjanjian dan debitur tetap mampu untuk melakukan pembayaran utang. Permasalahan baru timbul apabila debitur tidak cukup efisien dalam menjalankan roda perusahaan dikarenakan krisis financial dan mengalami kebangkrutan atau yang disebut dengan pailit. Oleh karena itu, bagaimana persamaan dan perbedaan perdamaian menurut Undang-Undang Kepailitan dengan Reorganization Plan menurut Chapter 11 United State Bankruptcy code serta Penerapan Reorganization Plan berdasarkan Chapter 11 United State Bankruptcy menjadi rumusan dalam penelitian ini. Berdasarkan pendapat dari Lawrence terdapat tiga komponen yang menjadi dasar perbedaan hukum antara lain; sistem hukum, subtansi hukum, budaya hukum. Adapun metode penelitian yang digunakan dalam penelitian dengan pendekatan perundang-undangan. Pendekatan ini dilakukan dengan menelah semua peraturan perundang-undangan yang berkaitan dengan isu hukum yang akan diteliti. penelitian ini menggunakan data sekunder dengan mengumpulkan data-data berupa peraturan hukum kepailitan dan Chapter 11 serta Chapter 7. Setelah itu, penulis melakukan analisis data. Sehingga menemukan hasil yaitu; terdapat perbedaan sistem hukum Indonesia Undang-Undang Nomor 37 Tahun 2004 tentang Kepailian dan penundaan Kewajiban Pembayran Utang berbeda dengan Chapter 11 Reorganization Plan US Bankrupty Code. Persamann dan perbedaan didasarkan pada adanya sistem hukum yang berbeda Chapter yang menjelaskan tentang Reorganisasi Plan yang pada umumnya disebut sebagai reorganisasi kedua negara menentukan pihak ketiga yang ikut menyelesaikan permasalah yaitu Amerika disebut dengan Trustee dan Indonesia disebut dengan kurator. Penerapan reorganisasi Plan di Amerika Serikat Dalam Chapter 11 yang menjelaskan tentang Reorganisasi Plan yang pada umumnya perusahan yang mengalami kesulitan keuangan memberikan suatu petisi (Petition), (Protection), (Proceeding) yang menjadi tahap-tahap pengajuan permohonan, perlindungan hukum diberikan terhadap pihak yang harus menerimanya serta proses dan ketentuan yang berlaku bagi kreditor dan debitor dalam menyelesaiakan permasalahan utang

2020 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 66-84
Author(s):  
Sanford U. Mba

Recently, the Nigerian Senate passed the Bankruptcy and Insolvency (Repeal and Re-enactment) Bill. This is no doubt a welcome development following the continued demand by insolvency practitioners, academics and other stakeholders for such legislation. The call has not only been for the enactment of just about any legislation, but (consistent with the economic challenges faced by businesses in the country), one that is favourably disposed to the successful restructuring of financially distressed businesses, allowing them to weather the storm of (impending) insolvency, emerge from it and continue to operate within the economy. This article seeks to situate this draft legislative instrument within the present wave of preventive restructuring ably espoused in the European Union Recommendation on New Approaches to Business Rescue and to Give Entrepreneurs a Second Chance (2014), which itself draws largely from Chapter 11 of the US Bankruptcy Code. The article draws a parallel between the economic crisis that gave rise to the preventive restructuring approach of the Recommendation and the present economic situation in Nigeria; it then examines the chances of such restructuring under the Nigerian draft bankruptcy and insolvency legislation. It argues in the final analysis that the draft legislation does not provide for a prophylactic recourse regime for financially distressed businesses. Consequently, a case is made for such an approach.


2007 ◽  
Vol 56 (3) ◽  
pp. 515-551 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gerard McCormack

AbstractThis article compares and contrasts Chapter 11 of the US Bankruptcy Code with the UK administration procedure under the Insolvency and Enterprise Acts. It focuses in particular on who runs a company during the restructuring process—debtor-in-possession or management displacement in favour of an outside administrator. Various reasons have been given to explain the US/UK divergence in this respect including differences in entrepreneurial culture and differences in the lending markets in the two countries. The article suggests that the divergence cannot be reduced to a single factor but instead implicates a complex web of circumstances.


Author(s):  
Faber Dennis ◽  
Verhoeven Frédéric ◽  
Vermunt Niels

The commencement of chapter 11 proceedings in respect of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc (LBHI) triggered the downfall of its intricate web of group companies around the world. The Dutch incorporated second-tier subsidiary Lehman Brothers Treasury Co BV (LBT) was declared bankrupt on 8 October 2008 – the largest bankruptcy case in Dutch history and unprecedented in Dutch insolvency practice. Various new features were tested (and approved by the court) in the LBT proceedings which could provide important lessons for future large insolvency cases of issuers of debt securities on the international capital markets. Despite the fact that the Dutch Bankruptcy Code dates back more than a century ago and was not designed for several complex issues which arose in the LBT proceedings, the chapter argues, it did facilitate a tailored made solution for an effective and transparent settlement of the affairs of the main treasury entity of the Lehman Brothers group.


Author(s):  
Michael Schillig

The jurisdictions under consideration provide a range of options for effectuating corporate rescue or reorganization. Some of these procedures are long-standing and applicable across the board; others are new and financial institution-specific. In England and Wales, administration has been used successfully to restructure financial institutions in the past; the bank administration procedure is new and largely untested, whereas the investment bank special administration regime (SAR) has already been applied in several cases. Germany’s brand-new pre-insolvency procedures apply to credit institutions only, but do not look very promising when it comes to the restructuring of large, systemically important financial institutions. Chapter 11 of the US Bankruptcy Code is regarded as very effective. It was put to the test when Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy in the autumn of 2008. Many commentators believe that it has coped well. However, there is always room for improvement and an exciting reform debate is underway.


Author(s):  
Olivares-Caminal Rodrigo ◽  
Douglas John ◽  
Guynn Randall ◽  
Kornberg Alan ◽  
Paterson Sarah ◽  
...  

This chapter starts by presenting the case for a comparative approach of the UK and US models for financial restructurings of companies in financial difficulties. It argues that a comparison is useful as the systems used to deal with financial problems are actually very dissimilar. The US has its chapter 11 regime, which is a statutory process under the Bankruptcy Code. This allows a company to restructure under court protection and does not require proof of insolvency. The English system has, by contrast, a mixed approach of contract, common law, and statute and no formal regime specifically designed to achieve a financial restructuring of secured debt. The chapter also considers what changes have occurred since the first edition of this book was published.


2011 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 391-419 ◽  
Author(s):  
Reuven Lehavy ◽  
Suneel Udpa

ABSTRACT On January 22, 2002, Kmart Corporation filed voluntary petitions for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the federal bankruptcy laws. While under Chapter 11 protection, Kmart renegotiated its debt, shed some of its non-performing assets, and issued new equity. Financier Eddie Lampert of ESL Investments bought much of Kmart's debt for less than $1 billion while it was in bankruptcy. As part of the reorganization plan, virtually all of Kmart's debt was converted into shares, and ESL Investments emerged as Kmart's largest shareholder. Subsequent to its emergence from bankruptcy on May 6, 2003, Kmart's stock has gone up from around $15/share to nearly $80/share over a period of one year. The case requires students to analyze Kmart's financial performance prior to the bankruptcy, identify the circumstances leading to the bankruptcy, use projected financial statements to derive Kmart's value post-bankruptcy, and explore issues related to Kmart's adoption of Fresh Start reporting upon its emergence from bankruptcy. The case questions fall into five categories: (1) pre-bankruptcy evaluation, (2) reorganization plan and Kmart in bankruptcy, (3) Fresh Start reporting, (4) bankruptcy valuation analysis, and (5) post-bankruptcy performance. The questions are largely independent, allowing instructors the flexibility to adopt only the sections relevant to their courses.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document