| dc.contributor.author | HARTINI, RAHAYU | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2017-07-21T03:25:23Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2017-07-21T03:25:23Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2017-04-04 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://repository.umy.ac.id/handle/123456789/11664 | |
| dc.description | Curator plays an important role in bankruptcy, because in the next curator who will be assigned to
manage and complete the bankruptcy estate (boedel bankruptcy). In performing its duties guided by the
law No. 37 of 2004 on bankruptcy and suspension of debt payments (PKPU). Curator entitled to receive
payment for its services. It is stipulated in the Regulation of Minister of Law and Human Rights No. 1 in
2013. The purpose of this study to determine how the regulations on fee curator in bankruptcy in
Indonesia, and what the legal consequences of the curator in handling the settlement of bankruptcy in
Indonesia after the Supreme Court Decision No 54 P/HUM/2013. This study is a normative juridical:
statueand case approach. That concluded:First, there have been inconsistencies curator fee arrangement
between Justice and Human Rights Minister Regulation No. 1 of 2013, particularly Article 2 paragraph
(1) letter c with Law No. 37 of 2004 on Bankruptcy and PKPU particular Article 17 Paragraph (3).
Secondly, the legal consequences of the Supreme Court Decision No 54 P/HUM/2013, that Article 2
paragraph (1) letter c Regulation of the Minister of Justice and Human Rights of the Republic of Indonesia
Number 01/2013 regarding Guidelines for Remuneration for Receivers and Administrators declared
contrary to legislation higher, namely Law No. 37 of 2004 on Bankruptcy and Suspension of
Payment(PKPU). Thus, Regulation Minister of Law and Human Rights of the Republic of Indonesia
Number 01 Year 2013 is not valid and does not have binding legal force. | en_US |
| dc.description.abstract | Curator plays an important role in bankruptcy, because in the next curator who will be assigned to
manage and complete the bankruptcy estate (boedel bankruptcy). In performing its duties guided by the
law No. 37 of 2004 on bankruptcy and suspension of debt payments (PKPU). Curator entitled to receive
payment for its services. It is stipulated in the Regulation of Minister of Law and Human Rights No. 1 in
2013. The purpose of this study to determine how the regulations on fee curator in bankruptcy in
Indonesia, and what the legal consequences of the curator in handling the settlement of bankruptcy in
Indonesia after the Supreme Court Decision No 54 P/HUM/2013. This study is a normative juridical:
statueand case approach. That concluded:First, there have been inconsistencies curator fee arrangement
between Justice and Human Rights Minister Regulation No. 1 of 2013, particularly Article 2 paragraph
(1) letter c with Law No. 37 of 2004 on Bankruptcy and PKPU particular Article 17 Paragraph (3).
Secondly, the legal consequences of the Supreme Court Decision No 54 P/HUM/2013, that Article 2
paragraph (1) letter c Regulation of the Minister of Justice and Human Rights of the Republic of Indonesia
Number 01/2013 regarding Guidelines for Remuneration for Receivers and Administrators declared
contrary to legislation higher, namely Law No. 37 of 2004 on Bankruptcy and Suspension of
Payment(PKPU). Thus, Regulation Minister of Law and Human Rights of the Republic of Indonesia
Number 01 Year 2013 is not valid and does not have binding legal force. | en_US |
| dc.language.iso | en | en_US |
| dc.publisher | Faculty of Law & Board of Research, Educational Development and Community Empowerment (LP3M) Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta | en_US |
| dc.subject | Fee Curator, Judicial Review, Bankruptcy Law and PKPU, Permenkumham | en_US |
| dc.title | REVIEWS JURIDICAL ON FEE ARRANGEMENTS IN BANKRUPTCY CURATOR AFTER THE SUPREME COURT DECISION NO. 54 P/HUM/2013 | en_US |
| dc.type | Book | en_US |
