Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2021 - 2026
2.076
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal LAW REVIEW Jurnal Hukum IUS QUIA IUSTUM Jurnal Daulat Hukum Mimbar Hukum - Fakultas Hukum Universitas Gadjah Mada Jurnal Hukum Bisnis Journal Equity of Law and Governance Law Development Journal Prosiding Konferensi Nasional PKM-CSR Yuriska : Jurnal Ilmiah Hukum Bhayangkara Law Review
Alum Simbolon
Unknown Affiliation
Humanities Control & Systems Engineering Economics, Econometrics & Finance Education Environmental Science Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice Nursing Public Health Social Sciences

Published : 19 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 19 Documents
Search

 1   2 
The Ambiguity Application of Business Judgment Rule Doctrine As Director Immunity Right in the Company Law (Analysis of Supreme Court Verdict No 121k/Pid.Sus/2020) Alum Simbolon; Calvin Pramarta
Journal Equity of Law and Governance Vol. 3 No. 1
Publisher : Warmadewa Press

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.55637/elg.3.1.6613.1-12

Abstract

Director is personally liable for the company's losses if proven guilty or negligent in carrying out his duties and may be personally sued by the shareholder as a result of his negligence or mistake in carrying out the management of the company which causes the company to suffer losses. This surely emits fear for Directors and hinders them in making important decisions for the Company. Essentially in carrying out their duties, Directors are always faced with uncertain so that fear of threats to the director’s personal liability is one of the factors that reduces performance. This research uses normative-empiric research by analyzing the written law from such various aspects as theory, history, philosophy, comparison, structure and composition, scope and material, consistency, general explanation, and article by article, formality, and binding power of law, and mainly BJR norm application in the Supreme Court Verdict Number 121K/PID.SUS/2020 The results of this research shows that Judges in the Supreme Court Decision Number 121K/PID.SUS/2020 didn’t consider the criteria for "readiness of information" and "the criteria for taking action to prevent continued losses" which are the essential criterias of the business judgment rule but only considered PT Pertamina has an asset impairment, PT Pertamina Hulu Energi is a subsidiary of a state-owned Enterprise, the Defendant (incasu Karen Agustiawan) has obtained permission from the Board of Commissioners, and the business decision doesn’t contain elements of fraud, conflict of interest, unlawful acts and intentional errors, however these considerations create ambiguity and potential new legal disputes. because the actions of the Defendant (incasu Karen Agustiawan) have fulfilled all elements of the business judgment rule in Article 97 paragraph (5) of the Company Law, although the legal considerations of the Panel of Judges are incomplete, the business judgment rule can still be applied in the Supreme Court Verdict Number 121K/PID.SUS/2020.
LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF BANKRUPTCY DECISIONS AGAINST PT. ASURANSI JIWA KRESNA (STUDY OF THE SUPREME COURT DECISION NUMBER: 647 K/PDT.SUS-BANKRUPTCY/2021) Alum Simbolon; Cindy Leowardy
Journal Equity of Law and Governance Vol. 4 No. 1
Publisher : Warmadewa Press

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.55637/elg.4.1.9440.34-43

Abstract

Abstract. The purpose of this thesis research conducted by researchers with the title Legal Consequences of Bankruptcy Decisions Against PT Asuransi Jiwa Kresna (Study of Supreme Court Decision Number 647 K/Pdt.Sus-Bankruptcy/2021) is aimed at knowing and understanding the legal consequences of a bankruptcy decision against an insurance company that has an impact on customers and on the company itself. The research result of this thesis research is that the bankruptcy experienced by PT Asuransi Jiwa Kresna will further complicate the position of customers to receive their benefits because in bankruptcy, the company has no authority over its assets and the authority to manage these assets will be transferred to the curator. Generally, curators need a long time to be able to liquidate bankruptcy assets. In addition, after liquidation, the liquidation proceeds will be reduced by several costs such as curator fees and taxes. Therefore, the percentage of customer's income will be less. As a form of responsibility, debtors can submit a Financial Restructuring Plan (RPK) to OJK as a step to fulfill their obligations.
Summary Proof of Postponement of Debt Payment Obligations Through Act Number 37 of 2004 (Study of Decision Number 7/PDT.SUS-PKPU/2022/PN NIAGA MEDAN) Simbolon, Alum; Chandra, Catherine Aureulli
Law Review Volume XXII, No. 3 - March 2023
Publisher : Faculty of Law, Universitas Pelita Harapan | Lippo Village, Tangerang 15811 - Indonesia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.19166/lr.v22i3.6908

Abstract

Debt is a liability that arises through an agreement made between a debtor and a creditor. Debt is used as a basis for bankruptcy or for submitting a delay in payment of the debtor's debt. Summary Proof of Bankruptcy and Postponement of Debt Payment Obligations (PKPU) has actually been regulated in Article 8 paragraph (4) of Law Number 37 of 2004 and strengthened by Supreme Court Decision (MA) No.109/KMA/SK/IV/2020 concerning "Enforcement of the Handbook for Settlement of Bankruptcy Cases and PKPU". Summary Proof can be a reference for the Panel of Judges in granting PKPU applications by debtors or creditors to the Commercial Court. The PKPU application submitted through Decision Number 7/Pdt.Sus-PKPU/2022/PN Niaga was rejected by the Panel of Judges because the Panel of Judges considered that the non-fulfillment of the 'simple debt' requirement that had to be fulfilled was one of the burdens of proof in the application for PKPU.
Responsibility of the Directorate General of Intellectual Property regarding The Passing Off Case Between Starbucks Coffee & Starbucks Cigarettes (Case Study 836 K/PDT.SUS-HKI/2022) Simbolon, Alum; Vonny, Vonny
Law Development Journal Vol 6, No 1 (2024): March 2024
Publisher : Universitas Islam Sultan Agung

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.30659/ldj.6.1.94-110

Abstract

The aim of this research is to examine the responsibility of the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DJKI) and to examine the considerations of the Panel of Judges regarding the brand passing off case between Starbucks Coffee and Starbucks Cigarettes based on Decision Number 836 K/Pdt.Sus-HKI/2022. DJKI's responsibility in cases of passing off brands has not been specifically regulated and written in a statutory regulation. However, DJKI has an obligation to comply with court decisions that have permanent legal force in brand cancellation lawsuits. Therefore, DJKI's responsibility for the case of brand passing off between Starbucks Coffee and Starbucks Cigarettes based on Decision Number 836 K/Pdt.Sus-HKI/2022 is to cancel the registration of the Starbucks Cigarette Brand with registration number IDM000342818 in class 34 owned by the Defendant, PT STTC from the Register Brand General. Furthermore, the considerations of the Panel of Judges in Decision Number 836 K/Pdt.Sus-HKI/2022 are in accordance with and were guided by Law No. 20 of 2016 concerning Brands and Geographical Indications. The Panel of Judges has determined PT STTC as the party found guilty of violating Article 21 section (1) letter c and Article 21 section (3) of the MIG Law as well as the Panel of Judges has also determined that the Starbucks brand owned by Starbucks Corporation is a well-known brand based on the criteria regulated in the Regulation of the Minister of Law and Human Rights of the Republic of Indonesia No. 12 of 2021 concerning Trademark Registration.
Analysis of Solaria Brand Dispute Resolution with Solaris (Case Study No. 775 K/PDT.SUS-HKI/2021) Simbolon, Alum; Cindy, Cindy
Jurnal Daulat Hukum Vol 7, No 1 (2024): March 2024
Publisher : Magister of Law, Faculty of Law, Universitas Islam Sultan Agung

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.30659/jdh.v7i1.36565

Abstract

This research discusses the dispute between the SOLARIA and SOLARIS brands in Indonesia, focusing on Decision No. 775 K/Pdt.Sus-HKI/2021. It aims to analyze the considerations of the Panel of Judges in resolving the trademark dispute and determine the protection of the SOLARIA brand against the SOLARIS brand in the mentioned decision. The findings reveal that the Plaintiff, as the owner of the SOLARIA brand, is the registrant and first user of the brand under the first-to-file system. Consequently, the Plaintiff is the legal owner of the SOLARIA brand, which is recognized as a well-known brand based on registrations in various countries. The Defendant's registration of the SOLARIS mark is considered to be in bad faith due to significant similarities in terms of shape, sound, and pronunciation. This suggests that the Defendant registered the mark solely for their own business interests, misleading consumers and causing harm to other parties. Accordingly, the Directorate General of Intellectual Property should reject the Defendant's SOLARIS trademark application under Article 21 paragraph (1) letter a of the MIG Law. The Plaintiff, as the owner of the SOLARIA brand, obtains legal protection through the resolution of this case via a legal process. The Panel of Judges granted the Plaintiff's lawsuit and declared the SOLARIS brand invalid according to the law. The cassation request submitted by the Defendant was also rejected, providing repressive legal protection for the Plaintiff.
Penafsiran Hukum Oleh Hakim Terhadap Gugatan Lain-Lain Dalam Kepailitan Dan Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang Simbolon, Alum; Sinaga, Irene Puteri Alfani Sofia
Yuriska: Jurnal Ilmiah Hukum Vol. 14 No. 2 (2022): Agustus
Publisher : Law Department, University of Widya Gama Mahakam Samarinda

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.24903/yrs.v14i2.1617

Abstract

Semakin berkembangnya perekonomian dan perdagangan menyebabkan semakin tingginya angka pemasalahan yang timbul sehubungan dengan hal tersebut diantaranya muncul permasalahan utang piutang dalam masyarakat. Kegagalan membayar utang oleh seorang debitur terhadap satu atau lebih kreditur dapat menyebabkan kepailitan atau penundaan kewajiban pembayaran utang (PKPU) kepada debitur. Proses kepailitan terhadap debitur merupakan upaya yang dilakukan oleh kreditur untuk mengatasi dan menyelesaikan masalah hutang piutang secara efektif dan efisien. kepailitan merupakan kondisi dilakukannya sita umum terhadap seluruh harta kekayaan debitur untuk melindungi kepentingan kreditur pada saat debitur dinyatakan memiliki utang dan tidak mampu membayarnya. Selain pengurusan terkait harta pailit dan actio pauliana terdapat perbuatan-perbuatan hukum yang timbul akibat dari kepailitan dan PKPU sehingga menyebabkan munculnya perkara yang harus diputus dan diselesaikan secara sendiri-sendiri yang dikenal sebagai gugatan lain-lain. Penelitian ini ingin mengetahui penafsiran hukum oleh hakim terhadap gugatan lain-lain dalam kepailitan dan Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang (PKPU). Jenis penelitian yang digunakan dalam penulisan hukum ini adalah penelitian hukum normatif, yakni dengan pendekatan mengenai asas-asas, norma, kaidah dari peraturan perundang-undangan, putusan pengadilan, perjanjian,serta doktrin yang ada. Hasil dari penelitian ini adalah Hakim dalam memeriksa perkara yang diajukan kepadanya dan sebelum menyentuh pokok perkara, hakim wajib untuk memeriksa terlebih dahulu mengenai kewenangan absolut dan kewenangan relatif pengadilan tempat diajukannya gugatan oleh penggugat/pemohon. Dalam hal ini, hakim wajib untuk menolak perkara yang diberikan kepadanya dalam hal setelah diperiksa oleh hakim, perkara tersebut bukan merupakan kewenangan pengadilan terkait. Selain itu, hakim juga wajib untuk memastikan bahwa pada gugatan tidak terjadi error in persona dan obscuur libel. Gugatan lain-lain yang diperiksa oleh hakim dapat berupa actio pauliana, perlawanan pihak ketiga terhadap penyitaan, atau perkara di mana debitur, kreditur, kurator, atau pengurus menjadi salah satu pihak dalam perkara yang berkaitan dengan harta pailit, termasuk gugatan kurator terhadap direksi yang menyebabkan suatu perseroan dinyatakan pailit karena kelalaiannya. Untuk memutus perkara yang dimaksud dalam gugatan lain-lain, hakim wajib untuk meneliti dan mempertimbangkan dengan jelas, adil, dan terpercaya berdasarkan gugatan pemohon/penggugat, eksepsi termohon/tergugat, bukti-bukti yang diajukan oleh pemohon/penggugat maupun termohon/tergugat dan juga dasar hukum yang telah diatur dalam peraturan perundang-undangan maupun doktrin yang berlaku di Indonesia.
AKIBAT HUKUM PUTUSAN PAILIT TERHADAP PT. ASURANSI JIWA KRESNA (STUDI PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH AGUNG NOMOR : 647 K/PDT.SUS-PAILIT/2021) Simbolon, Alum; Leowardy, Cindy
Yuriska: Jurnal Ilmiah Hukum Vol. 16 No. 1 (2024): Februari
Publisher : Law Department, University of Widya Gama Mahakam Samarinda

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.24903/yrs.v16i1.2755

Abstract

Tujuan dari penelitian skripsi ini dilakukan oleh peneliti dengan judul Akibat Hukum Putusan Pailit Terhadap PT. Asuransi Jiwa Kresna (Studi Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 647 K/Pdt.Sus-Pailit/2021) ditujukan untuk mengetahui dan memahami tentang akibat hukum dapat ditimbulkan dari adanya putusan pailit terhadap suatu perusahaan asuransi yang berdampak terhadap nasabah dan terhadap perusahaan itu sendiri. Hasil penelitian dari penelitian skripsi ini adalah kepailitan yang dialami PT. Asuransi Jiwa Kresna akan semakin mempersulit posisi nasabah untuk menerima manfaatnya dikarenakan dalam kepailitan, perusahaan sudah tidak berwenang atas hartanya dan kewenangan atas pengurusan harta ini akan beralih kepada kurator. Umumnya, kurator memerlukan waktu yang lama untuk dapat melikuidasi harta pailit. Ditambah, setelah dilikuidasi, hasil likuidasi ini akan dikurangi dengan beberapa biaya seperti biaya kurator dan pajak. Sehingga persen penerimaan nasabah menjadi lebih sedikit. Sebagai bentuk tanggung jawab, debitur dapat mengajukan Rencana Penyehatan Keuangan (RPK) kepada OJK sebagai langkah untuk memenuhi kewajibannya
LAW ENFORCEMENT AGAINST TRANSACTION MODES INTERNATIONAL TRADE Widya Romasindah Aidy; Alum Simbolon; Rr. Dijan Widijowati
Bhayangkara Law Review ##issue.vol## 1 ##issue.no## 1 (2024): June 2024
Publisher : Faculty of Law, Universitas Bhayangkara Jakarta Raya

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.31599/c52v2f39

Abstract

In the era of globalization, transnational crime is an inevitable trend as the lines between nations become more unified. One form of transnational crime that is very disturbing to various countries is money laundering which has several modes and one of them is international trade transactions. This mode is done through a Letter of Credit (L/C) document as a means. The purpose of this study is to determine the form of regulation against money laundering in the mode of international trade transactions and understand its law enforcement against the mode of international trade transactions. The type of research used is normative juridical research with a statutory approach to find out the overall legal regulations governing the examination of documents in L/C, and a conceptual approach using a way of looking at legal principles in legal theory. The result of this study is that the Government has regulated the use of L/C through Permendag Nomor 94 Tahun 2018, especially for exports of minerals, coal, oil and gas, and palm oil. This regulation requires the use of L/C from domestic banks for certain types of exports and imposes sanctions for violators of this regulation and its enforcement against abuse of the authority of credit facilities by banks through L/C, must immediately prioritize the improvement, improvement, and renewal of the Banking Law accompanied by firm law enforcement and managerial improvement of banking.
Summary Proof of Postponement of Debt Payment Obligations Through Act Number 37 of 2004 (Study of Decision Number 7/PDT.SUS-PKPU/2022/PN NIAGA MEDAN) Simbolon, Alum; Chandra, Catherine Aureulli
Law Review Volume XXII, No. 3 - March 2023
Publisher : Faculty of Law, Universitas Pelita Harapan | Lippo Village, Tangerang 15811 - Indonesia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.19166/lr.v22i3.6908

Abstract

Debt is a liability that arises through an agreement made between a debtor and a creditor. Debt is used as a basis for bankruptcy or for submitting a delay in payment of the debtor's debt. Summary Proof of Bankruptcy and Postponement of Debt Payment Obligations (PKPU) has actually been regulated in Article 8 paragraph (4) of Law Number 37 of 2004 and strengthened by Supreme Court Decision (MA) No.109/KMA/SK/IV/2020 concerning "Enforcement of the Handbook for Settlement of Bankruptcy Cases and PKPU". Summary Proof can be a reference for the Panel of Judges in granting PKPU applications by debtors or creditors to the Commercial Court. The PKPU application submitted through Decision Number 7/Pdt.Sus-PKPU/2022/PN Niaga was rejected by the Panel of Judges because the Panel of Judges considered that the non-fulfillment of the 'simple debt' requirement that had to be fulfilled was one of the burdens of proof in the application for PKPU.
Co-Authors Aidy, Widya Romasindah Calvin Pramarta Chandra, Catherine Aureulli Christina N.M. Tobing Christina NM Tobing Christina NM. Tobing CINDY CINDY Cindy Leowardy Leowardy, Cindy Meilani Meilani Ricky Banke Rolib Sitorus Sinaga, Irene Puteri Alfani Sofia Sryani Br. Ginting Sryani Ginting Vonny Vonny, Vonny Widijowati, Rr. Dijan