This study aims to analyze the legal consequences of non-registration or late registration of receivables owned by creditors in the bankruptcy process. Law Number 37 of 2004 concerning Bankruptcy and Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations (PKPU) stipulates that in bankruptcy proceedings, the fulfillment of rights over the bankrupt estate can only be obtained if the creditor registers their receivables for verification. However, there are no specific provisions that explicitly regulate the legal consequences of receivables that are not registered at all or those registered late and thus cannot be verified. This legal uncertainty creates problems in practice, particularly regarding legal protection for creditors and legal certainty in the resolution of bankruptcy cases. Using a normative juridical approach and analyzing relevant legislation and court decisions, this research finds that creditors who fail to register their receivables or register them late lose their rights to receive payments from the bankrupt estate. In other words, receivables that are not verified—either due to non-registration or late registration—are not recognized in the bankruptcy process. This conclusion highlights the importance of creditors understanding the procedures for registering receivables in bankruptcy in order to protect their rights. The study also recommends that existing legal regulations provide clearer guidance regarding the consequences of delayed or unregistered receivables to ensure legal certainty and fair protection for all parties involved in bankruptcy proceedings.

Directors have a crucial role in the company, with the potential for actions that are not in accordance with corporate governance that can be detrimental and cause conflicts of interest, threatening the company's growth. In this context, Good Corporate Governance becomes crucial as a supervision to prevent detrimental actions. This article discusses Directors' Transactions involving Conflicts of Interest and legal certainty of director actions. The research uses normative juridical methods, with a statutory regulatory approach as the basis. Actions or transactions with a conflict of interest are considered not to be a legal problem if they are carried out in good faith, in accordance with KEP-412/BL/2009. However, a different view emerges from the principles of good corporate governance which suggest avoiding transactions with conflicts of interest. The research conclusion confirms that directors, as holders of trust, cannot be held responsible for losses if they act in good faith. Although the law allows transactions with conflicts of interest, the principles of good corporate governance emphasize the importance of avoiding actions that involve conflicts of interest in order to maintain the principles of good corporate governance.

With reference to the Civil Code and the type of legal protection available to holders of local e-wallets that store cryptocurrency, this paper examines the legality of trading transactions involving digital currency, in this case crypto coins, as a form of payment. The urgency of this study is the occurrence of a legal vacuum (rechtsvacuum) of the existence of crypto coins that creates legal uncertainty. Normative juridical is the research method used in this study. The conclusion that can be drawn from the results of the discussion is that trade transactions using crypto coins as a means of payment in terms of the Civil Code are not prohibited if they are related to Article 1320 jo 1541 of the Civil Code, payments using crypto coins can be equated with legal exchange relationships. This form of legal protection for crypto coin users can be preventive and repressive. Preventive is carried out through consistent regulation. Repressively, now BAPPEBTI as a supervisor can provide administrative sanctions, in the form of warnings to license revocation for companies that organize e-wallets. Penelitian ini bertujuan menganalisis keabsahan transaksi perdagangan menggunakan koin kripto sebagai alat pembayaran, ditinjau dari Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Perdata dan bentuk perlindungan hukum terhadap pengguna koin kripto yang tersimpan dalam e-wallet lokal. Urgensi dari penelitian ini adalah terjadinya kekosongan hukum (rechtsvacuum) keberadaan koin kripto yang menimbulkan ketidakpastian hukum. Dalam penyusunan artikel ini digunakan metode penelitian hukum yuridis normatif yang dilakukan melalui penelaahan bahan pustaka sebagai bahan dasarnya. Dari hasil pembahasan dapat diambil kesimpulan bahwa Transaksi perdagangan yang menggunakan koin kripto sebagai alat pembayaran ditinjau dari Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Perdata bukan sesuatu hal yang dilarang, jika dikaitkan dengan Pasal 1320 jo 1541 Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Perdata, maka pembayaran melalui penggunaan koin kripto dapat dipersamakan dengan hubungan hukum tukar-menukar. Bentuk perlindungan hukum bagi pengguna koin kripto dapat  dilakukan secara preventif dan represif. Secara preventif dilakukan melalui regulasi yang konsisten. Secara represif, sekarang ini BAPPEBTI sebagai pengawas dapat memberikan sanksi administratif, berupa peringatan hingga pencabutan izin bagi perusahaan yang menyelenggarakan e-wallet.