Anda belum login :: 23 Nov 2024 07:14 WIB
Detail
ArtikelPermohonan Pailit Terhadap Perusahaan Asuransi : Suatu Tinjauan Terhadap Kasus PT. Asuransi Jiwa Manulife Indonesia  
Oleh: Ponto, Harry
Jenis: Article from Journal - ilmiah nasional - tidak terakreditasi DIKTI
Dalam koleksi: Jurnal Hukum Bisnis vol. 22 no. 2 (2003), page 25-29.
Topik: Asuransi; pailit; asuransi jiwa
Ketersediaan
  • Perpustakaan Pusat (Semanggi)
    • Nomor Panggil: JJ102.3
    • Non-tandon: 1 (dapat dipinjam: 0)
    • Tandon: tidak ada
    Lihat Detail Induk
Isi artikelThe insolvency case of "asuransi jiwa manulife indonesia" (AJMI) has become controversy not only amongst business entities but also causes strong protest from world bank, IMF and canadian government as controlling stakeholders of AJMI. The case has drawn attention of central government of indonesia especially from ministry of finance and supreme court of indonesia. A few days after the verdict of insolvency, then diriectorate general of finance declares that AJMI is a solvent company with risk based capital (RBC) of 167,26%. Later on the supreme court has taken decision against the commercial court's verdict. What's going wrong there ? Is there any political intervention on the case or just pure judicial error ? This article examines the case throughly by given critical opinion on the judge decision and elaborated the opposite decision of supreme court. The central issue on this discussion refers to the question of how come the committees of judges of the commercial court carelles disregard the article 67 section (5) and article 75 of the insolvency act. There are two prerequisites for guardian submitting a legal suit in case of insovenvy viz. the agrement of supervision judge and the advice of creditors meeting. These prerequisites have been neglected by the guardian. He is not intentionally neglecting it, but he may have different opinion on the articles. How are about the committee of judges ? They were already investigated by their direct supervision and the final decision about them has been known publicly, they were not guilty. How come then ?
Opini AndaKlik untuk menuliskan opini Anda tentang koleksi ini!

Kembali
design
 
Process time: 0.03125 second(s)