TINJAUAN YURIDIS PERTANGGUNGJAWABAN DIREKSI SECARA PRIBADI BERDASARKAN PRINSIP FIDUCIARY DUTY DI DALAM PUTUSAN PENUNDAAN KEWAJIBAN PEMBAYARAN UTANG (PKPU) ANTARA PT. GRIYA PESONA MENTARI MELAWAN PEMEGANG MAYOFIELD NOTES

• Main Authors: , ANNURDI, , Dr. Tata Wijayanta, SH., M.Hum.
• Format: Theses and Dissertations NonPeerReviewed
• Published: [Yogyakarta] : Universitas Gadjah Mada 2013
• Subjects: ETD
• Online Access: https://repository.ugm.ac.id/125738/; http://etd.ugm.ac.id/index.php?mod=penelitian_detail&sub=PenelitianDetail&act=view&typ=html&buku_id=65913
• Institution: Universitas Gadjah Mada

This research is aimed at analyzing the consideration employed by the judge which resulted in the difference between the Verdict No.10/PKPU/2011/PN.Niaga. Jkt.Pst and the Verdict No.734 K/PDT.SUS/2011 as well as the Verdict No. 79 PK/Pdt.Sus/2012, and analyzing the responsibility of the management of PT. Griya Pesona Mentari towards the mayofield notes holders of PT. Griya Pesona Mentari. The research belongs to a juridical normative research. Research materials were taken from secondary data obtained from primary, secondary and tertiary law materials. The data were collected by employing documentary method with using document instrument. The data were analyzed descriptively and qualitatively. The research result indicates that in the Verdict No.10/PKPU/2011/PN.Niaga. Jkt.Pst the judge considered that the debtor failed to fulfill his obligation in the process of the suspension of debt payment obligations (PKPU) so that the debtor was declared bankrupt. Previously, the judge accepted the request of PKPU, while the holders of mayofield notes filed the mayofield notes as the basis of debt. Meanwhile, in the Verdict No.734 K/PDT.SUS/2011 the judge revoked the verdict of PKPU because the judge considered that the mayofield notes was not the debt of PT. Griya Pesona Mentari, but the personal responsibility of Dr. Viriyawan Murti, MBA. Furthermore, in the Verdict No. 79 PK/ Pdt.Sus/2012 the judge rejected the request of judicial review from the holders of mayofield notes due to the absence of novum and the judge�s error could not be found at the level of appeal. Based on the research result, in can be concluded that there were different consideration employed by the judges regarding the existence of debt due to the issuance of mayofield notes and Dr. V.M. was the one who should be responsible for the mayofiled notes. The research result concludes that the judge should consider the existence of debt in the investigation process appropriately pursuant to the laws and regulations related to the case in order to avoid a verdict of PKPU which inflicted the respondent of PKPU and the management should fulfill their obligation according to the corporate interest.