English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The present study discussed the legal consequence of the creditor's name change and the consideration used by the Supreme Court Judge no. 1300 K/Pdt/2013. The present study was categorized as doctrinal legal study using case study approach. The data were collected through library research. Syllogism was employed as the analysis technique of this legal writing. The change of creditor's name in a syndicated loan, as it happens to "PT. Bank Finconesia” that changes its name to “PT. Bank Agris" cause problems since the new name "PT. Bank Agris" is not mentioned in the loan agreement no. 8 dated 28 November 1995. The making of syndicated loan agreement should be based on article 1320 and 1338 of the Indonesian Civil Code.  The Supreme Court no. 1300/K/Pdt/2013, the supreme court has made an incorrect decision by granting the plaintiff's lawsuit as the syndicated creditor. It is incorrect because, in the syndicated loan agreement, the creditors had agreed to appoint a facilitating agent who acts legally as representative of the creditors, it makes the facilitating agent is authorized to have a direct relation with the debtors, especially in filing a lawsuit to the court.

Legal Consequences of Creditor's Name Change in Syndicated Loan Agreement