This study focuses on discussing the validity of information technology-based loan contracts and the use of third party personal data for company activities in the event of default. This study uses a normative juridical method with a legislative approach and a case approach. Loan contracts use legitimate electronic transactions if there is a contract of the parties that bind themselves. An information technology-based loan contracts to borrow money using third party personal data without permission will not cancel the contract. A third party can apply to the court to cancel himself as a party involved in the agreement.

Tujuan penelitian ini adalah untuk menguji: (1) perbedaan perolehan hasil belajar (mengingat dan memahami konsep dan fakta) mahasiswa yang dibelajarkan dengan strategi pembelajaran blended learning dan strategi pembelajaran face to face (tatap muka secara langsung), (2) perbedaan hasil belajar (mengingat dan memahami konsep dan fakta) mahasiswa yang memiliki internal locus of control dan mahasiswa yang memiliki external locus of control, (3) interaksi antara penggunaan strategi pembelajaran blended learning dan face to face dengan locus of control terhadap hasil belajar (mengingat dan memahami konsep dan fakta) mata kuliah Sejarah Pendidikan Islam. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode a factorial (2x2) version of non equivalent control group design dengan mengambil tempat penelitian di UIN Sunan Ampel Surabaya yang dilaksanakan pada semester ganjil 2015/2016. Subjek penelitian sebanyak 124 orang pada semester 3 Fakultas Tarbiyah dan Keguruan Program Studi Pendidikan Agama Islam (PAI) dan Program Studi Pendidikan Guru MI (PGMI) yang tersebar dari 4 rombongan belajar (rombel) yang terbagi dalam 2 kelompok kelas eksperimen dan 2 kelompok kelas kontrol. Penetapan kelas eksperimen dan kelas kontrol dilakukan dengan teknik acak. Instrumen pengumpulan data menggunakan teknik angket dan tes. Subjek yang dianalisis berjumlah 84 pebelajar berdasarkan pada 33% kelompok internal locus of control dan 33% external locus of control, dengan menggunakan Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) 2 x 2. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan, bahwa: 1) Perolehan hasil belajar (mengingat dan memahami konsep dan fakta) mata kuliah Sejarah Pendidikan Islam antara kelompok mahasiswa yang dibelajarkan dengan strategi pembelajaran blended learning (face to face, online dan offline) dan strategi pembelajaran face to face (tatap muka secara langsung) menunjukkan adanya perbedaan yang signifikan. Hal ini dapat dibuktikan dengan nilai Fhitung = 98,880 dengan nilai probabilitas (p) = 0,000. 2) Perolehan hasil belajar (mengingat dan memahami konsep dan fakta) mata kuliah Sejarah Pendidikan Islam antara kelompok mahasiswa yang memiliki internal locus of control dan kelompok mahasiswa yang memiliki external locus of control menunjukkan adanya perbedaan yang signifikan, yang ditunjukkan dengan nilai Fhitung = 36,950 dengan nilai probabilitas (p) = 0,000, 3) Tidak terdapat pengaruh interaksi antara strategi pembelajaran blended learning (Face to face, online dan offline), strategi pembelajaran face to face (tatap muka secara langsung), dan locus of control terhadap hasil belajar (mengingat dan memahami konsep dan fakta) Sejarah Pendidikan Islam, yang dibuktikan dengan perolehan nilai Fhitung = 2,955 dengan nilai probabilitas (p) = 0,089. Kata Kunci: strategi pembelajaran blended learning, locus of control, perolehan hasil belajar.

<p>Pembubaran adalah tindakan yang mengakibatkan Perseroan berhenti eksistensinya  dan tidak lagi menjalankan kegiatan bisnis untuk selama-lamanya. Kemudian, diikuti dengan proses administrasi berupa pemberitahuan, pengumuman, dan pemutusan hubungan kerja dengan karyawannya. Permohonan pembubaran Perseroan Terbatas kepada Pengadilan diatur dalam Pasal 146 ayat(1) huruf c Undang-undang Nomor 40 Tahun 2007 tentang Perseroan Terbatas (selanjutnya disebut dengan UUPT). Permohonan pembubaran Perseroan Terbatas kepada Pengadilan adalah cara yang dapat ditempuh oleh pemegang saham jika terdapat perimbangan kepemilikan saham pada Perseroan masing-masing sebesar 50% (lima puluh persen) dimana Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham (RUPS) tidak dapat mengambil keputusan yang sah karena perimbangan kepemilikan saham tersebut. Oleh karena itu, tujuan penulisan ini adalah untuk menganalisis perlindungan hukum para pemegang saham dalam proses pembubaran Perseroan Terbatas kepada Pengadilan. Metode yang digunakan dalam penulisan ini adalah yuridis normatif, metode penelitian ini digunakan oleh penulis untuk menganalisis perlindungan hukum pemegang saham dalam permohonan pembubaran Perseroan Terbatas (Studi Putusan Nomor: 534 K/Pdt/2014) dikaitkan dengan Pasal 146 ayat (1) huruf c UUPT.</p><p>The dissolution is an act which causing company has no existence and unable to continue its business activities forever. Then, followed by an administration process such as notification, announcement, and downsizing with the employees. The dissolution application of Limited Liability Company to court is regulated in Article 146 Clause (1) Part c Law Number 40 the year 2007 about Limited Liability Company. The dissolution of Limited Liability Company to the court is an option which can be done by shareholders if there is a 50% (fifty percents) balance where Annual Shareholders Meeting unable to take a decision because of its shareholder's balance. Thus, the aim of this paper is to analyze the law protection of shareholders in Limited Liability Company’s dissolution application to the court. The method used in this paper is normative juridical, which used by the researcher to analyze the law protection for a shareholder in dissolution application of Limited Liability Company (Final Judgement Number: 534 K/Pdt/2014) related to Article 146 Clause (1) Part c Law of Limited Liability Company.</p>

Business is a risk. There is no guarantee the business is run By the board of Directors who will always bring profit. One day profit, no profit, and another time can lose. When business decisions are taken by the board of Directors losses especially in significant amounts can be ascertained will happen nervousness on the board of Directors of the Company. State-Owned Enterprises established for business purposes in the full operation of risk. Law No. 19 of 2003 concerning State-Owned Enterprises does not regulate the protection of the Board of Directors of the Company, meanwhile, Law No. 40 of 2007 on Limited Liability Companies regulation of the protection of the Board of Directors of its implementation gives rise to multi-interpretation. Business decisions made by the Board of Directors of the Company in accordance with the principles of Business Judgement Rule are business risk, should get legal protection. The purpose of this research is to find out the weaknesses of this legal protection. This research includes normative legal research with a statutory approach with The analysis technique in this research is investigation strategy. The results show that there is no legal certainty regarding business decisions taken by Directors who experience losses in business transactions so that the Government / DPR must amend the BUMN Law by adding articles on the legal protection of the Directors of Persero.

One of the stages in delaying payment of receivables obligations (PKPU) is the verification of receivables. There may be a possibility that the claim for receivables being rejected at the verification stage may occur, but there is no legal remedy that can be taken by the creditor, either ordinary or extraordinary legal remedies. This article aims to analyze the legal protection of creditors' receivables which are rejected at the receivables verification stage by administrators in the PKPU process and the authority of the supervisory judge in terms of the creditor's bill being rejected at the receivables verification stage. This normative research uses a statutory approach. The results show that Law Number 37 of 2004 does not regulate legal remedies if receivables are rejected in the accounts receivable verification. Efforts are made when this happens, the supervisory judge has the authority to reconcile creditors and debtors in determining. Thus, the debtor does not need to wait for the emergence of a settlement homologation if the bill is rejected in the verification of receivables to submit an appeal to the Supreme Court.