Articles
<![CDATA[Juridical Analysis of Investor Default Cases with CV Business Entities Related to Cooperation Agreement Letters (Decision 55/Pdt Gs/2022/PN Sby) ]]>
<![CDATA[Deviana Axfelia]]>;
<![CDATA[Gunardi Lie]]>;
<![CDATA[Moody Rizqy Syailendra Putra]]>
<![CDATA[ QISTINA: Jurnal Multidisiplin Indonesia Vol 2, No 1 (2023): June 2023 ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[CV. Rayyan Dwi Bharata ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.57235/qistina.v2i1.514
<![CDATA[Basically an agreement is made based on negotiations by the parties, but using standard clauses. One of the default cases that occurred was decided by the Surabaya District Court at the First Level Court with case number 55/Pdt GS/2022/PN Sby. The lawsuit was filed because the Defendant, namely CV AL-FAYYADH, had defaulted on the Plaintiff who is an investor/financier. The method in this study uses normative juridical methods. defaults made by CV AL-FAYYADH did not carry out achievements in payment. The dispute resolution process between CV AL-FAYYADH and Investors used the negotiation route based on Article 6 paragraph (2) of Law Number 30 of 1999 concerning Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution by producing a new agreement or renegotiation and of course with a favorable agreement before going through the courts.]]>
<![CDATA[The Urgency of Good Faith Principles in Production Sharing Cooperation Contracts with the Gross Split System ]]>
<![CDATA[Szyva Silviana Putri]]>;
<![CDATA[Gunardi Lie]]>;
<![CDATA[Moody Rizqy Syailendra Putra]]>
<![CDATA[ QISTINA: Jurnal Multidisiplin Indonesia Vol 2, No 1 (2023): June 2023 ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[CV. Rayyan Dwi Bharata ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.57235/qistina.v2i1.519
<![CDATA[With the existence of a production sharing contract carried out by the Government with contractors, it is possible to realize equitable energy in Indonesia. Gross Split itself will not eliminate State control in controlling oil and gas. The urgency of applying the principle of good faith in production sharing contracts with the gross split system is very important, with the hope of creating justice for business actors, which is a reflection of the principle of good faith in production sharing contracts with the gross split system, which illustrates that the principle of good faith is very important. important in making agreements, and in making contracts or cooperation must be based on the good faith of both parties in achieving common goals. So it is hoped that the application of this principle in production sharing contracts will be able to have a good impact on the development of the investment world in Indonesia which is increasingly advanced, and avoid losses for both parties.]]>
<![CDATA[Analysis of Trademark Dispute Cases of PT. Gudang Garam and Gudang Baru ]]>
<![CDATA[Mishael Joshua]]>;
<![CDATA[Gunardi Lie]]>;
<![CDATA[Moody Rizqy Syailendra Putra]]>
<![CDATA[ QISTINA: Jurnal Multidisiplin Indonesia Vol 2, No 1 (2023): June 2023 ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[CV. Rayyan Dwi Bharata ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.57235/qistina.v2i1.536
<![CDATA[This writing aims to discuss trademark disputes between Gudang Garam and Gudang Baru regarding image names and logos. The problem that arises is a dispute over the brand name and image displayed on the new Warehouse product. Indonesian law regulates two ways to deal with Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) issues, either through a judicial process (litigation) or through a process outside the court (non-litigation). Laws relating specifically to intellectual property rights, viz. HaKi. Brand Law No. 20 of 2016, regulates trademark protection. What is studied in this study is related to the settlement of rights in trademark disputes between Gudang Garam and Gudang Baru, and on the other hand with substantive and legal considerations of judges in trademark disputes between Gudang Garam and Gudang Garam. New. The author of this study will examine in detail the trademark dispute between Gudang Garam and Gudang Baru.]]>
<![CDATA[Implementation of the Provisions of Laws and Regulations Concerning Bankruptcy in the PT Istaka Karya Case ]]>
<![CDATA[Febriana Irma]]>;
<![CDATA[Gunardi Lie]]>;
<![CDATA[Moody Rizqy Syailendra Putra]]>
<![CDATA[ QISTINA: Jurnal Multidisiplin Indonesia Vol 2, No 1 (2023): June 2023 ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[CV. Rayyan Dwi Bharata ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.57235/qistina.v2i1.515
<![CDATA[Bankruptcy according to Article 1 point 1 of the Bankruptcy Law No. 37 of 2004 is a general confiscation of all the assets of the Bankrupt Debtor which management and settlement are carried out by the Curator under the supervision of the Supervisory Judge as stipulated in this Law. The Bankruptcy and PKPU Laws have a wider reach both in terms of norms, scope of material, and the process of settling debts. This wider reach is necessary due to the emergence of legal developments and needs in society. PT Istaka Karya has been declared bankrupt by the Central Jakarta District Court. The formulation of the problem in this study is how to implement Law No. 37 of 2004 concerning Bankruptcy and PKPU in the bankruptcy case of PT Istaka Karya and whose authority has the right to bankrupt a State-Owned Enterprise. The reason for the bankruptcy of PT Istaka Karya is because it is unable to fulfill its obligations due at the end of 2021 on the Peace Decision Number 23/PKPU/2012/PN Niaga Central Jakarta dated January 22 2013 in accordance with the cancellation of homologation.]]>
<![CDATA[Analysis of the Case PT Metro Mini Sues the Limited Liability Company Law to the Constitutional Court ]]>
<![CDATA[Aimmatul Khoiroh]]>;
<![CDATA[Gunardi Lie]]>;
<![CDATA[Moody Rizqy Syailendra Putra]]>
<![CDATA[ QISTINA: Jurnal Multidisiplin Indonesia Vol 2, No 1 (2023): June 2023 ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[CV. Rayyan Dwi Bharata ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.57235/qistina.v2i1.507
<![CDATA[The General Meeting of Shareholders (GMS) is the highest institution and part of the Company as a place for shareholders to make important decisions whose authority is not given to the Board of Directors or the Board of Commissioners within the limits determined by law and/or the Articles of Association. The law is based on Article 1 paragraph 4 of the Limited Liability Company Law. Pursuant to Article 86 paragraph 1 of the Limited Liability Company Law, a GMS can be held if more than 1/2 of the total shares with voting rights are present or represented, unless the law and/or articles of association determine a larger quorum. In the second GMS as referred to in paragraph 2 is valid and a decision can be made if in the GMS at least 1/3 of the total shares are represented or represented, unless the articles of association determine a larger quorum based on the provisions of Article 86 paragraph 4 of the Limited Liability Company Law. If the quorum for the second GMS as referred to in Article 86 paragraph 4 is not reached, the Company may request the chairman of the district court whose jurisdiction covers the Company's position to determine a quorum for the third GMS based on the provisions of Article 86 paragraph 5. The GMS will have a grace period regarding the implementation of the second GMS and third, namely no later than 10 (ten) days and no later than 21 (twenty one) days after the GMS that preceded it was held, according to the provisions of Article 86 paragraph 9 of the Limited Liability Company Law it becomes a matter to be decided by the Constitutional Court. The problem caused by the Judicial Review of Article 86 paragraph 9 of Law Number 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Companies is due to the length of time in which the decision of the District Court was received in the implementation of the GMS made the results of the implementation of the Third GMS of PT. Metro Mini was blocked in the Ministry of Law and Human Rights system so that it became a loss in the legality of the Metro Mini company due to the holding of the Third GMS of PT. Metro Mini is carried out more than the time specified in Article 86 paragraph 9 of the Limited Liability Company Law. Therefore, the Government should immediately revise Law Number 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Companies, in particular Article 86 paragraph 9 which previously stated "The second and third GMS shall be held within a period of no sooner than 10 (ten) days and no later than 21 (twenty one) ) days after the GMS that precedes it is held” becomes “the second and third GMS is held within a period of no sooner than 10 (ten) days and no later than 21 (twenty one) days after the GMS that precedes it is held or in the event that the GMS is held based on a court order This is no later than 21 (twenty one) days after the district court's decision is obtained. Because of the Constitutional Court Decision No. 84/PUU-XI/2013, so that the meaning of the Constitutional Court's decision becomes a positive norm reference, because the Indonesian legal system adheres to the continental European legal system.]]>
<![CDATA[Analysis of Accountability of Securities to Investors in the Event of Embezzlement of Investment Funds by Securities ]]>
<![CDATA[Achmad Ricky Dwiandi Adam]]>;
<![CDATA[Gunardi Lie]]>;
<![CDATA[Moody Rizqy Syailendra Putra]]>
<![CDATA[ QISTINA: Jurnal Multidisiplin Indonesia Vol 2, No 1 (2023): June 2023 ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[CV. Rayyan Dwi Bharata ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.57235/qistina.v2i1.532
<![CDATA[Indonesian capital market laws are regulated in Law Number. 8 of 1995 explains the notion of the capital market is an activity related to securities trading and public offerings between actors and issuers. Securities are financial instruments with a certain value that reflect the ownership of a person or business entity in an asset. An alternative term for securities is securities. Ownership of securities or securities is required to generate a return for the owner, according to the percentage of ownership of the asset. The Financial Services Authority (OJK) released risk management rules for implementing risk management in securities companies that are members of the stock exchange (AB). If they do not comply with this risk management policy, the securities company will be subject to sanctions ranging from a warning to revocation of its business license by the OJK. These rules are contained in POJK Number 6/POJK.04/2021 Concerning the Implementation of Risk Management for Securities Companies Conducting Business Activities as Underwriters and Broker-Dealers of Securities who are Members of the Stock Exchange. Accountability in the event of embezzlement of securities to investors in the event of embezzlement of investment funds by securities based on Regulation NUMBER 6 /POJK.04/2021 will be subject to administrative sanctions and the Financial Services Authority can take certain actions against any party who violates the provisions of the Financial Services Authority Regulation This.]]>
<![CDATA[Brand Dispute Case at GoTo Company ]]>
<![CDATA[Alessandro Christian Max]]>;
<![CDATA[Gunardi Lie]]>;
<![CDATA[Moody Rizqy Syailendra Putra]]>
<![CDATA[ QISTINA: Jurnal Multidisiplin Indonesia Vol 2, No 1 (2023): June 2023 ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[CV. Rayyan Dwi Bharata ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.57235/qistina.v2i1.520
<![CDATA[This study aims to analyze the GoTo company's brand dispute resolution arrangements, which managed to escape a lawsuit of Rp. 2 trillion related to a brand dispute filed by PT Terbit Financial Technology on November 2, 2021. Trademark rights are special (exclusive) matters. The special rights consist of the right to use and the right to give permission to other people to use the trademark rights. If a person or other party uses the special rights without the permission of the brand owner, then there has been a violation of the trademark rights. If there is a violation of trademark rights, of course there will be laws that can provide sanctions or penalties for violators. In this GoTo case, GoTo was sued by PT Terbit Financial Technology because it was accused of violating brand rights or committing plagiarism. Of course, this has caused many parties to suffer losses, both from the company's and users' side, because GoTo is a company that is quite large and has an impact in Indonesia. Law No. 15 of 2001 concerning Mark is one of the legal remedies that can resolve and become a way out of trademark dispute cases like this. The content of the lawsuit is principally in the form of a claim for compensation and/or termination of all actions related to the use of the mark.]]>
<![CDATA[PT Merpati Nusantara Airlines Bankruptcy Case Study Under Law ]]>
<![CDATA[Metta Valoka]]>;
<![CDATA[Gunardi Lie]]>;
<![CDATA[Moody Rizqy Syailendra Putra]]>
<![CDATA[ QISTINA: Jurnal Multidisiplin Indonesia Vol 2, No 1 (2023): June 2023 ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[CV. Rayyan Dwi Bharata ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.57235/qistina.v2i1.505
<![CDATA[Bankruptcy is something that occurs when a company is unable to pay all its debts in any form and is no longer able to compete in the community. This case study discusses the bankruptcy of a company engaged in the aviation sector, namely PT Merpati Nusantara Airlines. In this journal, the author uses qualitative methods by taking data from books, internet news articles, and other sources related to this journal. Based on the journal made by the author, it will tell what caused Merpati Airlines to experience bankruptcy, bankruptcy which is reviewed based on the law on Bankruptcy and Suspension of Obligations for Payment of Debt Number 37 of 2004 and how solutions for other companies not to experience the same thing as Merpati Airlines .]]>
<![CDATA[Legal Analysis of the IKEA Trademark Removal Dispute Case (Study of Decision Number 165 PK/Pdt.Sus/2012) ]]>
<![CDATA[Maurend Benaya Immanuel Susanto]]>;
<![CDATA[Gunardi Lie]]>;
<![CDATA[Moody Rizqy Syailendra Putra]]>
<![CDATA[ QISTINA: Jurnal Multidisiplin Indonesia Vol 2, No 1 (2023): June 2023 ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[CV. Rayyan Dwi Bharata ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.57235/qistina.v2i1.537
<![CDATA[Brands have an important function for their owners, especially in the era of global trade. Trademarks provide an indication of the origin and quality of the goods or services traded. Trademark owners have the exclusive right to authorize or prohibit others from using the same or similar trademarks as theirs. Indonesia uses a constitutive registration system, in which exclusive rights are given to registered marks. Trademark applicants may not register the same mark as another well-known trademark. Registered trademark must be used. Trademark cancellation is carried out when the brand has not been used for three consecutive years. In general, trademark revocation occurs when a mark is not used in trade in goods and services. If the former owner still wants the same trademark rights, he/she must apply for trademark registration and go through the entire registration procedure. If the other party applies for the mark first, the old owner can object. If this effort fails, he can submit an annulment to the Commercial Court, cassation, and review.]]>
<![CDATA[Legal Analysis of Acts of Default in the Rental Agreement for Heavy Equipment (Case Study of PT Dayton Borneo Sukses) ]]>
<![CDATA[Zayyan Syafiqah Aggistri]]>;
<![CDATA[Gunardi Lie]]>;
<![CDATA[Moody Rizqy Syailendra Putra]]>
<![CDATA[ QISTINA: Jurnal Multidisiplin Indonesia Vol 2, No 1 (2023): June 2023 ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[CV. Rayyan Dwi Bharata ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.57235/qistina.v2i1.506
<![CDATA[The Civil Code explains that a lease agreement is an agreement in which one party will bind himself to provide the other party with the enjoyment of an item for a certain period of time by paying a price that both parties have mutually agreed upon in the agreement. However, in practice in the field, lessees often default in fulfilling lease agreements, such as defaults on delays in returning heavy equipment leased objects. The purpose of this study is to explain the forms of performance in heavy equipment rental agreements. In this study, in obtaining data, a literature study was carried out to obtain secondary data by studying the laws and regulations on books and theories related to lease agreements. The results of the study show that the forms of Default in heavy equipment leasing are delays in returning heavy equipment which is the object of leasing in an agreement. Settlements carried out as a result of a default in the lease agreement are pursued by litigation in accordance with the provisions of the applicable laws and regulations and the party committing the default must pay compensation.]]>
