Publication Search

This research aims to analyze the juridical mechanism and implementation of canceling unilateral actions by bankrupt debtors through the actio pauliana lawsuit, providing legal protection for creditors. Debtors often transfer assets before bankruptcy, reducing the value of the bankruptcy estate and harming creditors. Using a normative legal research method with statutory and conceptual approaches, this study explores the legal basis of Article 1341 of the Indonesian Civil Code, as elaborated by Articles 41 to 50 of Law Number 37 of 2004 concerning Bankruptcy and Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations (UUKPKPU). The analysis shows that canceling unilateral actions, such as asset transfers, grants, or debt waivers, requires evidence of bad faith and awareness of potential losses by both debtors and third parties. This lawsuit serves as a claw-back provision to retrieve assets that were wrongfully removed from the bankruptcy estate, ensuring the pari passu pro rata parte principle. The main obstacle is proving the subjective element of "knowledge" and the conflict of interest with protecting third parties acting in good faith. In conclusion, strengthening the curator’s role and aligning the interpretation of commercial court judges is crucial to protect creditors' economic rights from manipulative actions by debtors.

Bankruptcy is a legal mechanism used to resolve a debtor's inability to fulfill debt obligations collectively, orderly, and fairly through a court decision. In the Indonesian bankruptcy system, the curator has a central role in managing and settling bankrupt assets to protect the interests of creditors while providing legal certainty for debtors. This study aims to analyze the regulation of the curator's authority in managing and settling bankrupt assets and to examine its implications for the protection of creditors’ and debtors’ rights from a business law perspective. The research method employed is normative legal research with statutory and conceptual approaches, conducted through a literature review of various relevant primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials. The results indicate that the curator’s authority is expressly regulated in Law Number 37 of 2004 concerning Bankruptcy and Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations, which provides a legal basis for the curator to manage, secure, sell, and distribute bankrupt assets to creditors in accordance with legal provisions. However, in practice, several obstacles remain, such as difficulties in tracking assets, potential conflicts of interest, and a lack of transparency, which may affect the effectiveness of legal protection. Therefore, the professionalism of the curator and the supervision of the supervising judge are crucial factors in ensuring legal certainty, fairness, and efficiency in the bankruptcy process.

Debt disputes often occur in business relationships. Sometimes debtors do not pay their debts, causing problems regarding debt repayment. One of the legal steps taken by creditors is to file a petition for bankruptcy with the Commercial Court. The requirements for bankruptcy in Indonesia are relatively straightforward, making it easy for debtors to be declared bankrupt. This is detrimental to debtors, as bankruptcy has significant implications for the sustainability of their businesses. This situation raises questions about how debtors can obtain justice in bankruptcy cases. Supreme Court Decision No. 1714 K/Pdt.Sus-Pailit/2022 serves as the case study for this research. In that decision, the judge rejected the bankruptcy petition despite it meeting the requirements of Article 2(1) of the Bankruptcy Law, as the judge believed there were still options for a simple lawsuit and the impact of bankruptcy was not proportional to the value of the debt in question. This paper was written using the normative legal research method. This study will use a regulatory approach, a conceptual approach, and a case approach. The results of this study show that debtors who are petitioned for bankruptcy

One of the organs of a Limited Liability Company that often becomes a guarantor of a company’s debt is the Board of Directors. In practice, when a company can no longer carry out its obligations to pay debts, the guarantor is often bankrupted together with the debtor. Article 2 paragraph (1) jo. Article 8 paragraph (4) of the Bankruptcy and PKPU Law states that if the Debtor has two or more Creditors and has debts that are due and collectible, then the request for a bankruptcy statement must be granted if there are facts or circumstances that are proven simply. This research was conducted to examine the legal considerations of judges regarding the application of simple proof in Decision Number 20/Pdt.Sus-Bankruptcy/2022/PN.Niaga.Smg and what the implications are for the Directors of the company who act as a personal guarantee for their company’s debt. The results showed that the legal consideration of the majority of the Panel of Judges examining the case are not entirely in accordance with the Bankruptcy and PKPU Law, as the panel of judges only focused on fulfilling formal requirements without considering the principles of bankruptcy, which will have a broad impact on the parties involved. In addition, the juridical implications arising from the decision are that the Directors of the company as a personal guarantee remains personally responsible for the company’s debt, thus causing bankruptcy for him and the company.

Indonesia is a country with a high level of labor-related issues, particularly in relation to the protection and fulfillment of workers’ rights. Common problems include termination of employment, unpaid wages, and inadequate severance payments. One such case is the bankruptcy petition filed against PT. Setiaji Mandiri, which serves as the focus of this study. The objective of this research is to analyze the legal considerations behind the Commercial Court’s decision to grant the bankruptcy request and its implications for labor rights. This study employs a normative juridical method by analyzing relevant legislation and court rulings, particularly referring to Law No. 37 of 2004 on Bankruptcy and Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations, and Law No. 2 of 2004 on Industrial Relations Dispute Settlement. The findings show that PT. Setiaji Mandiri had indeed made efforts to settle its financial obligations, but these efforts were deemed insufficient by the court, leading to the acceptance of the bankruptcy petition. However, a key issue that emerged was the absence of debt registration with the Industrial Relations Court (PHI), which is mandated by law in cases involving employment disputes. According to the prevailing labor laws, the PHI must first determine the amount of severance pay owed to employees, which can then be used as a reference in bankruptcy proceedings. The study concludes that there was a procedural oversight in the handling of labor claims in this bankruptcy case. It emphasizes the importance of adhering to legal mechanisms that protect workers’ rights and recommends stricter coordination between commercial and labor courts to prevent similar issues in the future.

value of the bankruptcy estate (boedel pailit) through the going concern principle. Law No. 37 of 2004 concerning Bankruptcy and Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations (UUK-PKPU) allows curators to continue the debtor’s business, particularly under Article 179 paragraph (1). However, the absence of clear normative parameters creates legal uncertainty and inconsistent practices. This study analyzes the application of the going concern principle in the settlement of bankruptcy estates following the annulment of homologated composition agreements and examines the urgency of technical implementing regulations. Using a normative juridical method supported by statutory analysis, court decisions, legal doctrines, and interviews, the research focuses on the cases of PT Sri Rejeki Isman Tbk. (Sritex) and PT Texmaco Perkasa Engineering Tbk. The findings reveal that going concern implementation depends not only on legal provisions but also on non-legal factors, such as transparency, asset control, capital availability, management credibility, and creditor support. Texmaco’s case shows approval when these conditions are met, while Sritex demonstrates rejection due to lack of transparency and unlawful activities. The study underscores the need for a Supreme Court Regulation (PERMA) that establishes eligibility parameters, approval mechanisms, reporting obligations, and curator protection to ensure consistency, legal certainty, creditor protection, and greater economic benefits in Indonesian bankruptcy practice.

This study examines legal deviations in the implementation of the Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations (PKPU) mechanism, specifically regarding the approval of a peace settlement submitted for the second time after the debtor is declared bankrupt. The study highlights the Supreme Court Decision No. 648K/Pdt.Sus-Pailit/2021, which ratified the second peace settlement in the case of PT Prospek Duta Sukses. This decision is deemed contradictory to the principle of a single peace settlement, as stipulated in Articles 289 and 292 of Law No. 37 of 2004 on Bankruptcy and PKPU, and further reinforced by Supreme Court Circular Letter (SEMA) No. 5 of 2021, which states that a peace settlement in bankruptcy can only be conducted once. Using a normative juridical method, this research analyzes the legal reasoning used by the panel of judges in approving the second peace settlement and evaluates its impact on legal certainty and protection for creditors, who are the affected parties in the bankruptcy process. The approval of a second peace settlement after the debtor is declared bankrupt creates legal uncertainty, as the existing provisions do not provide for more than one peace settlement. Additionally, this decision potentially harms creditors by prolonging the settlement of debts, which should have been clear, thus allowing room for misuse of legal procedures. The findings of the study show that the approval of this second peace settlement not only contradicts the fundamental principles of law but also risks harming creditors, who should be protected by the bankruptcy system to ensure their rights are fairly met. Therefore, this research suggests that consistent application of the law, in line with existing provisions, is necessary to uphold the principles of justice, legal certainty, and the credibility of the national bankruptcy system. Furthermore, reforms in regulations or law enforcement are needed to ensure that legal practices operate in accordance with principles that are fair and transparent.

This study examines the legal liability of a Limited Liability Company (LLC) before and after bankruptcy, with a focus on the roles of the board of directors, board of commissioners, and the curator appointed by the Commercial Court. Prior to bankruptcy, the liability for the company's obligations rests primarily with the board of directors and the board of commissioners, especially when debts arising from binding agreements remain unpaid. In situations where the company is unable to fulfill its payment obligations, and such inability is confirmed by a final court ruling, responsibility for managing and settling the company’s debts and assets is transferred to a court-appointed curator. The research analyzes the legal framework governing the curator’s authority, which operates under the supervision of a supervisory judge from the Commercial Court. The curator acts as the sole party responsible for handling the bankrupt entity’s obligations to creditors, ensuring compliance with applicable bankruptcy laws. This study uses a normative juridical approach, relying on legislation, case law, and legal doctrine to examine the extent of responsibility at each stage of the bankruptcy process. Special attention is given to the legal considerations of the Central Jakarta Commercial Court in Decisions Number 34/Pdt.Sus-Pailit/2024/PN Niaga Jkt.Pst and Number 38/Pdt.Sus-Pailit/2024/PN Niaga Jkt.Pst. Both rulings are found to be appropriate, as they meet the legal requirements for declaring an LLC bankrupt based on verified facts and circumstances. The findings underscore the importance of distinguishing between pre-bankruptcy liabilities—borne by company management—and post-bankruptcy responsibilities, which are entirely managed by the appointed curator. This clear allocation of responsibility ensures creditor protection, maintains judicial oversight, and upholds the principles of fairness and legal certainty in bankruptcy proceedings

Receivable disputes may be resolved through bankruptcy mechanisms that culminate in a bankruptcy ruling. However, legal issues may still arise post-verdict, such as in Commercial Court Decision Number 18/Pdt.Sus-Renvoi/2023/PN Niaga Mdn, where the receivable claim filed by the Ministry of Environment and Forestry was rejected due to late submission. In resolving the case, the judge considered two legal principles: erga omnes and promulgatie. This paper aims to examine the position of these principles in bankruptcy cases and analyze the judge’s legal reasoning regarding the late submission of receivables under Indonesian bankruptcy law. This study uses a normative juridical approach, with the research specification being analytical-descriptive in nature. The data are secondary in form and are collected through literature review. The method of data analysis employed is qualitative normative analysis. The findings of this study show that the erga omnes and promulgatie principles hold a significant position within Indonesian bankruptcy law. These principles are implicitly reflected in Article 15 paragraph (4) and Article 24 paragraph (1) of the Bankruptcy Law (UUKPKPU). These principles apply insofar as there are no specific provisions limiting their application. In this case, the judge's legal reasoning in deciding the renvoi procedure is deemed inaccurate because there is a specific provision that governs the late submission of receivable claims. Therefore, the application of the erga omnes and promulgatie principles should have been subject to such limitation.

Postponement of Debt Payment Obligations (PKPU) is a legal mechanism that provides an opportunity for creditors and debtors to submit a debt reschedule plan to avoid bankruptcy. In the PKPU process, creditors have a role in determining the success of the agreement. In this case, concurrent creditors are more advantaged, because their position can be equal to that of separatist creditors who have collateral. This study examines how the existence of concurrent creditor sovereignty in the agreement process through PKPU, and to what extent the regulations regarding concurrent creditors and their rights are benefited in the cassation decision, especially in the Supreme Court Decision Number 751 K /Pdt.Sus-Pailit/2024. This research is a normative legal research, with prescriptive legal approach and conceptual approach. The types of data used include primary and secondary legal materials, which are collected through literature studies. The legal material analysis technique uses the syllogism and interpretation methods. The results of the analysis, this study identifies how the protection of concurrent creditor sovereignty in peace through PKPU. And how the Supreme Court Decision in Decision No. 751 K/Pdt.Sus-Pailit/2024 pays more attention to concurrent creditors. In this discussion, shows how the regulations and legal protection of concurrent creditors, while discussing the Supreme Court Decision No. 751 K/Pdt.Sus-Pailit/2024 which gave rise to polemics in the interpretation of the provisions of Article 281 paragraph 1. However, it is likely to reflect the judiciary in considering all creditors and debtors, to achieve equal justice for all parties.

The legal mechanism of bankruptcy relies on the concept of debt, because the absence of debt undermines the fundamental purpose of bankruptcy as a legal institution to liquidate the debtor's assets to satisfy creditors' claims. Debt is the main criterion that must be met in order to be able to apply for bankruptcy, along with additional provisions such as having two or more creditors, as stipulated in Article 2, paragraph (1) of Law Number 37 of 2004 concerning Bankruptcy and Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations (Bankruptcy Law). Notaries who have completed the bankruptcy process and are undergoing rehabilitation to improve their good name cannot re-apply to become Notaries. Here, the Notary will lose his/her right to work to carry out his/her position simply because the Notary has or has been sentenced to bankruptcy by the court. This bankruptcy is simply the notary's inability to pay the debt owed to the creditor, not a criminal act. If associated with the provisions contained in the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, namely Article 28 letter d concerning Human Rights which explains that everyone has the right to work and receive fair and proper compensation and treatment in employment relations, the efforts made in this problem are handled in accordance with the law and will be a substantial obligation for the curator. Based on Article 1 number 5 (Law Number 37 of 2004 concerning Bankruptcy and Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations), it states that a curator is an individual or an estate office appointed by the court to resolve and manage all problems of the bankrupt debtor's assets under the supervision of a supervising judge based on applicable laws. The citation of the law shows the clear jurisdiction of the curator over the debtor's property and assets.

This study examines the issue of cross-border insolvency in the context of Indonesian bankruptcy law, particularly the limitations of national law in handling cases involving foreign elements such as assets or creditors outside Indonesia. Although Law Number 37 of 2004 contains universal principles, its implementation is hindered by Indonesia's adherence to the principle of territoriality and the absence of international agreements on mutual recognition and enforcement of foreign bankruptcy decisions. This normative legal research employs statutory and conceptual approaches to analyze the legal framework and principles relevant to cross-border insolvency. The findings show that Indonesian bankruptcy rulings currently have limited extraterritorial effect and cannot be directly enforced abroad without proper international legal instruments. To overcome these limitations, the adoption of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency is deemed necessary, along with efforts to establish bilateral or multilateral agreements. Such steps are expected to enhance legal certainty, protect creditors’ rights, and improve Indonesia’s insolvency regime in the context of global commerce.

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.

This study examines the legal basis used by judges in granting the cassation request in Mahkamah Agung Decision Number 647 K/PDT.SUS-PAILIT/2021 and its implications for the legal protection of the insured. This research is a normative legal study using a statutory and case approach, utilizing primary and secondary legal materials collected through literature studies. The analysis is conducted using a syllogistic method and a deductive reasoning pattern. The findings indicate that if the insured does not agree with the homologation agreement or if there is a counterproductive element, there is a legal basis for filing a cassation under Article 286 of Law Number 37 of 2004.

In bankruptcy proceedings, the presence of third parties whose assets are made part of the bankruptcy estate often leads to legal conflicts. The bankruptcy estate is a collection of assets managed by the curator to pay off the debtor's obligations to creditors. Problems arise when third-party assets, which should not be included in the bankruptcy estate, are included without a clear legal basis. This research aims to analyze the legal remedies that can be taken by third parties to protect their rights and interests. By reviewing the provisions in the Bankruptcy Law, as well as the prevailing practice, this study demonstrates the importance of verification of assets by the curator prior to inclusion in the bankruptcy estate. Legal procedures such as opposition (verzet) can be taken by third parties to challenge the curator's decision in the commercial court. The findings of this study highlight the need for a better understanding of third party rights and the legal mechanisms in place to prevent abuse of curator authority. It is hoped that this study will provide guidance to third parties in taking appropriate legal steps and strengthening legal protection in the bankruptcy process.

Putusan pailit dianggap sebagai solusi terbaik bagi para debitor khususnya bagi pengembang dalam melunasi hutang-hutangnya, akan tetapi dapat dikatakan upaya tersebut merugikan para pembeli satuan rumah susun atau apartemen yang telah membayar lunas sebelum pembangunan selesai dengan hanya diikat dengan ppjb sebagai bentuk kesepakatan jual beli antara pengembang dengan pembeli tanpa adanya proses levering. Hal tersebut tentu menimbulkan ketidak pastian hukum terkait dengan kepemilikan unit rumah susun yang telah dibeli. Penelitian ini ditujukan untuk mengetahui akibat hukum kepailitan bagi pengembang terhadap pembeli (konsumen) satuan rumah perumahan. Metode penelitian ini adalah metode yuridis normatif yaitu menelaah teori dan konsep hukum serta peraturannperundang-undangan yang berlaku. Hasil penelitian ini dapat disimpulkan bahwa uu kepailitan dan pkpu, uupk, serta kuhperdata belum mengatur secara detail terkait perlindungan hukum bagi pembeli satuan rumah perumahan yang pengembangnya dinyatakan pailit. Oleh karena itu, akibat hukum dari adanya permasalahn tersebut yaitu pembeli dapat mengupayakan serta menuntut ganti rugi pelunasan piutang kepada pengembang atas dasar gugatan wanprestasi, dan terkait pelunasan piutang dapat berupa pembayaran tunai atau angsur atau tetap dengan proses pembangunan unit apabila dalam pelunasan kreditor terdapat sisa dana dalam melanjutkan proyeknya.

Bankruptcy is a legal process in which the assets of an insolvent debtor are managed and settled by a curator under the supervision of a judge. This research discusses the legal certainty for workers when the company goes bankrupt, as well as the legal protection for their rights. It employs normative legal research methods and qualitative analysis of secondary data, which includes primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials. The results of this study indicate that workers' rights must be prioritized in cases of company bankruptcy, in accordance with Constitutional Court Decision No. 67/PUU-XI/2013. In such instances, unpaid workers' wages must take precedence over other creditors, including the state and government agencies. Curators play an important role in protecting workers' rights during the insolvency process, and workers have the right to sue if their rights are not met.

In the Bankruptcy Law and PKPU, there are two steps in proposing a going concern, namely after the bankruptcy decision (solvent), which is regulated in Article 104 of the Bankruptcy Law and PKPU, and after insolvency, which is regulated in Article 179 paragraph (1) of the Bankruptcy Law and PKPU. This research uses an empirical juridical approach. Empirical juridical research is data that is first examined, namely secondary data, followed by research on primary data in the field or in the community. This research is descriptive empirical normative legal research. Types and sources of research data include primary data and secondary data consisting of primary and secondary legal materials. The approaches used in this research are the statute and case approaches. The research results show that the implementation of going concern carried out by the PT Star Prima Curator Team (in bankruptcy) is by the Bankruptcy Law and PKPU, namely 1) obtaining approval/permission from the supervisory judge and the creditors accepted, 2) proposed when the debtor is in a state of insolvency, 3) regularly 3 (three) months once reported to the supervising judge.    

Pemberi Sewa yang mengalami kepailitan menimbulkan masalah serius bagi Penyewa, karena harta kekayaan, termasuk objek sewa, berada di bawah pengurusan dan pemberesan kurator setelah debitor pailit. Permasalahan utama adalah keabsahan Perjanjian Sewa Menyewa yang telah dibuat sebelum kepailitan. Mahkamah Agung memberikan putusan berbeda, di mana pada Nomor 658 K/Pdt.Sus-Pailit/2014, Penyewa diizinkan memanfaatkan objek sewa hingga perjanjian berakhir, namun putusan terbalik terjadi pada Nomor 78 PK/Pdt.Sus-Pailit/2015 yang menetapkan bahwa kurator memiliki kewenangan dalam pemberhentian dan perpanjangan perjanjian. Perlindungan hukum untuk Penyewa yang dirugikan perlu dipertimbangkan setelah Pemberi Sewa dinyatakan pailit. Penelitian menggunakan metode yuridis normatif dengan mengacu pada data sekunder, primer, dan tersier, serta pendekatan studi pustaka dan analisis kualitatif. Tujuan penelitian adalah untuk mengkaji keabsahan perjanjian sewa-menyewa setelah kepailitan Pemberi Sewa, menganalisis pertimbangan hakim dalam penyelesaian sewa menyewa pasca-kepailitan, dan menilai perlindungan hukum bagi Penyewa. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa kepailitan Pemberi Sewa mengakibatkan syarat subjektif perjanjian tidak terpenuhi, memungkinkan pembatalan perjanjian. Perbedaan putusan Mahkamah Agung menimbulkan ketidakpastian hukum, namun Perlindungan Hukum kepada Penyewa tetap ada berdasarkan Undang-Undang No 37 Tahun 2004 tentang Kepailitan dan PKPU. Mereka diakui sebagai Kreditur Konkuren dengan hak pendaftaran tagihan dan keistimewaan tertentu, tanpa terikat jangka waktu pendaftaran tagihan secara umum.

The responsibility of shareholders, known as the piercing the corporate veil doctrine, in the bankruptcy of a limited company based on Law Number 40 of 2007 is only limited to the share capital paid by shareholders to the company. The shareholder's responsibility for the shares paid up does not apply if proven; shareholders, whether directly or indirectly, in bad faith, use the limited liability company for personal interests, shareholders who are involved in unlawful behavior use the assets of the limited liability company for personal gain, which results in the assets of the limited liability company being reduced and insufficient to pay off the debts of the limited liability company. The General Meeting of Shareholders, hereinafter referred to as (GMS), is an organ of a limited liability company which has authority that is not delegated to the Board of Directors or the Board of Commissioners in carrying out its duties and authority. The duties and authorities of the GMS organs in the UUPT are; making changes to the articles of association, increasing the company's capital, reducing the company's capital, appointing directors, determining the amount of allowances for members of the board of directors, dismissing directors, appointing commissioners, determining the amount of honorarium salaries and allowances for commissioners, as well as appointing independent commissioners and dissolving the company.