Main Article Content

Abstract

This research contains the problem formulation as follow, first, what is the rationale behind the judge's consideration in deciding the share-mortgage case based on the Supreme Court Decision No. 240 PK/Pdt/2006 and the Supreme Court Decision No. 115 PK/Pdt/2007. Second, how the Supreme Court Decision No. 240 PK/Pdt/2006 and the Supreme Court Decision No. 115 PK/Pdt/2007 provide legal protection to the mortgaged share holders. This is a normative legal research with case and legislation approach. The results indicate that there are differences in the outcomes of the Supreme Court Decision No. 240 PK/Pdt/2006 and the Supreme Court decision No. 115 PK/Pdt /2007 in the substance of the similar case. Based on the Supreme Court No. 240 PK/Pdt/2006, the execution of share-mortgage by PT BFI Finance Indonesia Tbk is illegal, while in the Supreme Court Decision No. 115 PK/Pdt/2007 the execution by PT BFI Finance Indonesia Tbk is legal. The difference in the outcomes of the decisions in the substancially similar cases has created legal uncertainty over the protection of PT BFI Finance Indonesia Tbk's rights as a creditor as well as the mortgaged share holder.

Keywords

Legal protection share-mortgage security

Article Details

Author Biography

Annisa Oktaviananda Putri, Universitas Islam Indonesia

Pascasarjana Hukum
How to Cite
Putri, A. O. (2020). Perlindungan Hukum Terhadap Hak Pemegang Jaminan Gadai Saham. Lex Renaissance, 5(1), 108–123. https://doi.org/10.20885/JLR.vol5.iss1.art7

References

  1. Buku
  2. Badrulzaman, Mariam Darus, Aneka Hukum Bisnis, Cetakan Pertama, Alumni, Bandung, 1994.
  3. Harahap, Yahya, Segi-Segi Hukum Perjanjian, Cetakan Kedua, Alumni, Bandung, 1986.
  4. Supramono, Gatot, Transaksi Bisnis Saham & Penyelesaian Sengketa Melalui Pengadilan, Cetakan Pertama, Kencana, Jakarta, 2014.
  5. Usman, Rachmadi, Hukum Jaminan Keperdataan, Cetakan Pertama, Sinar Grafika, Jakarta, 2008
  6. Jurnal
  7. Kurniawan, Yuli dan Ninis Nugraheni, “Tinjauan Yuridis Lembaga Jaminan untuk Saham dalam Perdagangan Tanpa Warkat”, Perspektif Hukum, Vol. 12 No. 2, November 2012.
  8. Sitompul, Julianto Putra Hasudungan, et. al., “Analisis Perjanjian Utang Piutang dengan Jaminan Gadai Saham pada Kasus Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft Melawan Beckett, PTE. LTD”, Dipenogoro Law Journal, Vol. 5 No. 3, 2016.
  9. Widiati, Afani, et. al., “Analisis Yuridis Perlindungan Hukum atas Tindakan Gadai Saham yang Dilakukan oleh Manajer Investasi terhadap Efek Investor”, Dipenogoro Law Journal, Vol. 6 No. 2, 2017.
  10. Hasil Penelitian/Tugas Akhir
  11. Abdi, Aulia, Pelaksanaan Gadai Saham Dalam Sistem Perdagangan Tanpa Warkat, Tesis, Magister Kenotariatan Fakultas Hukum Universitas Dipenogoro, Semarang, 2008.
  12. Peraturan Perundang-Undangan
  13. Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Perdata. Diterjemahkan oleh R. Subekti dan R. Tjitrosudibio, Cetakan Keempat Puluh Satu, Balai Pustaka, Jakarta, 2014.
  14. Undang-Undang Nomor 40 Tahun 2007 tentang Perseroan Terbatas, Lembara Negara Republik Indonesia Nomor 106 Tahun 2007, Tambahan Lembaran Negara RI Nomor 4756.
  15. Peraturan Otoritas Jasa Keuangan Nomor 40/POJK.03/2017 tentang Kredit atau Pembiayaan kepada Perusahaan Efek dan Kredit atau Pembiayaan dengan Agunan Saham, Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Nomor 146 Tahun 2017, Tambahan Lembaran Negara RI Nomor 6089.
  16. Putusan Pengadilan
  17. PT Aryaputra Teguharta v. PT BFI Finance Indonesia Tbk., dkk, Putusan Mahkamah Agung Republik Indonesia pada tingkat Peninjauan Kembali Nomor 240 PK/Pdt/2006.
  18. PT Ongko Multicorpora v. PT BFI Finance Indonesia Tbk., dkk, Putusan Mahkamah Agung Republik Indonesia pada tingkat Peninjauan Kembali Nomor 115 PK/Pdt/2007.