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.

The financial crisis experienced by PT Garuda Indonesia Tbk prompted the company to enter into a Debt Payment Suspension (PKPU) process as a legal measure to avoid bankruptcy and restructure its finances. The complexity of debt, liquidity pressures, and post-pandemic operational challenges have made PKPU a strategic instrument for obtaining debt payment deferrals and formulating a settlement plan that is acceptable to creditors. This study aims to analyze how the implementation of PKPU affects Garuda's rescue efforts from the threat of bankruptcy and assess the extent to which the debt restructuring resulting from PKPU in 2021–2023 effectively improves the company's financial condition. The method used is normative legal research with a legislative, conceptual, and case study approach to the homologation decision and Garuda Indonesia's official financial reports. The results of the study show that PKPU provides legal certainty for debtors and creditors through a collective postponement mechanism, and debt restructuring has been proven to significantly reduce the company's liabilities from around US$10.1 billion to around US$4.6 billion, while improving financial and operational stability in the short to medium term. In conclusion, PKPU serves as an effective corporate rescue instrument, while post-PKPU debt restructuring provides a strong foundation for Garuda Indonesia's financial recovery, although long-term sustainability still depends on the consistent implementation of the peace plan and the company's operational performance.

the duties and authorities of the Balai harta peninggalan as regulated in law Number 37 of 2004 concerning bankrupty and the civil code are to carry out a settlement of the debtor’s bankrupty assets. The main problem and this research is How the duties and authority of the Balai Harta Peninggalan in carrying out bankrupty astate clearance and what are the obstacles faced when carrying out bankrupty estate clearance?. The method used is the normative juridical-empirical method, where the data and also the information studied in this study are based on laws, books and also based on the results and discussions obtained are where the duties and authority of the Balai harta peninggalan in center in carrying out bankrupty assets are by dividing the proceeds from the sale of bankrupty assets that have been sold and distributed to creditors bassed on the possition of the creditors starting from highest to lowest, and also the obstacles faced in dealing with debtor bankrupty assets.

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.

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.

The bankruptcy of a major company like PT Sri Rejeki Isman Tbk (Sritex) not only reflects a financial crisis but also opens a significant debate about legal fairness for stakeholders, particularly laborers and company owners. This research examines the impact of the bankruptcy on the fulfillment of laborers' normative rights and the legal protection afforded to company owners. Using a juridical-normative approach and a case study method, the findings reveal that the bankruptcy process still presents imbalances in legal protection, especially for laborers who, despite being legally recognized as preferential creditors, are often disregarded in practice. This article recommends regulatory reform and strengthening the state's role in ensuring justice throughout the bankruptcy proceedings.

This study discusses the liability of directors for unlawful acts in the form of merging personal assets with corporate assets in the context of bankruptcy of limited liability companies. Although the principle of separation of assets protects the personal assets of directors, there are conditions in which this principle can be revealed through the principle of piercing the corporate veil. The merging of personal assets by directors, which causes losses or bankruptcy of the company, can be held accountable. The Limited Liability Company Law and the Civil Code emphasize that if proven to have committed unlawful acts or negligence in carrying out their duties, directors can be sued in civil court and their assets confiscated as part of the bankruptcy estate. This study applies a normative legal approach and a literature study method to analyze legal norms and the liability of directors for losses due to bankruptcy. The aim is to provide an understanding of the legal liability mechanism for directors who abuse their authority in managing corporate assets. By applying the principle of justice, directors can be held personally responsible for the protection of creditors and fair law enforcement.

Economic development in today's world has grown rapidly, leading to numerous changes in human life. By investing in the capital market, it becomes one of the alternatives for financing the community's economy and is easily accessible to the public. One of them is to invest in bond securities in issuer companies. However, by purchasing bonds in the capital market with the issuer company, in addition to providing benefits through interest rates, there are risks, including if the issuer company goes bankrupt. Under these conditions, the holder of the unsecured bond will be positioned as a concurrent creditor, whose repayment is made after the separatist and preferred creditor. Although not guaranteed collateral, bondholders still obtain legal guarantees of their rights through information disclosure, the role of trustees, and arrangements within the applicable legal framework.

A separatist creditor are those holding proprietary security rights over a debtor’s assets, granting them preferential claims in the satisfaction of debts through the execution of the collateral. Article 59 of the Indonesian Bankruptcy and Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations Law (UU KPKPU) restricts the exercise of such execution rights to a period of two months following the declaration of bankruptcy. This limitation raises issues of fairness, as it treats all creditors equally without regard to the legal priority attached to secured creditors. The provision risks undermining the absolute nature of proprietary security rights and deviates from the principle of proportional justice as articulated by Aristoteles. This article adopts a normative legal approach, examining statutory provisions, legal principles, and relevant doctrinal opinions. The findings suggest that the uniform treatment of secured and unsecured creditors after the expiry of the execution period is inconsistent with the fundamental characteristics of secured rights, namely their priority and enforceability against third parties. Accordingly, a revision of the existing legal framework is necessary to ensure the proper and equitable enforcement of secured creditors' rights in bankruptcy proceedings.

Bankruptcy petitions in Indonesia are regulated under Article 2 paragraph (1) of Law No. 37 of 2004 concerning Bankruptcy and Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations (PKPU), which stipulates that a debtor may be declared bankrupt if they have at least two debts, one of which is due and collectible. However, this provision does not specify a minimum debt threshold as a requirement for bankruptcy, thereby creating a legal loophole that creditors may exploit by using bankruptcy as a mere debt collection tool. This raises concerns regarding the legal protection of debtors. This study aims to compare the bankruptcy laws of Indonesia and Malaysia, particularly with regard to the minimum debt amount requirement, and to evaluate whether the conditions for bankruptcy under the Indonesian Bankruptcy Law and PKPU provide legal certainty and adequate protection for debtors. The research employs a normative juridical method using statutory, conceptual, and comparative approaches. The findings indicate that the current provisions in Indonesia are no longer aligned with present-day needs and are prone to abuse. Unlike Malaysia, which stipulates a minimum debt amount, Indonesia has yet to regulate this matter explicitly. Therefore, a reformulation of Indonesia's bankruptcy law is necessary to ensure fairness, prevent misuse, and provide balanced legal protection for all parties, especially debtors.

This article discusses the comparative law between Indonesia and Malaysia regarding bankruptcy of inheritance left by a deceased testator. In Indonesia, Bankruptcy of Inheritance and Responsibility of Heirs Based on the "Burgerlijk Wetboek", with 2 (two) main issues, namely bankruptcy petitions based on debts from the testator and the responsibility of heirs who have received inheritances from deceased debtors. The main focus of this discussion is how each country regulates the possibility of inheritance being declared bankrupt, as well as the position of the heirs in the bankruptcy process. The method used in this study is normative juridical with a comparative law approach. The results of the analysis show that although Indonesia and Malaysia have similar legal system roots (civil law influenced by the Netherlands and England), there are differences in principle in the treatment of bankruptcy of inheritance. Indonesia allows bankrupt inheritance assets to be subject to bankruptcy under certain conditions, while Malaysia emphasizes the inheritance administration process without a formal bankruptcy approach. This study is important to provide an understanding for legal practitioners in dealing with inheritance dispute cases burdened with debt.

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.

Bankruptcy regulations in Indonesia, particularly in Law No. 37 of 2004 on Bankruptcy and Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations, are often contentious due to the absence of strict limitations on the filing of bankruptcy petitions. This has the potential to ensnare debtors who are still financially solvent, overriding the principle that bankruptcy should be the last resort in debt settlement.  Law Number 37 Year 2004 on Bankruptcy and Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations only requires the existence of two creditors with debts that are due and collectible through simple proof. This study aims to analyze in depth the legal arrangements and determination of insolvency in Law Number 37 of 2004. By using a normative juridical research method, as well as a statute approach that focuses on Law Number 37 of 2004 concerning Bankruptcy and Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations and other related regulations, secondary data will be collected through literature studies. Insolvency is defined as a condition where the debtor's total debt to all creditors exceeds the value of all its assets, otherwise known as a state of inability to pay. In Law No. 37 of 2004 on Bankruptcy and Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations, the term "insolvency" differs from commonly used terms, such as balance sheet insolvency, which means debts exceeding assets, or cash flow insolvency, which means the inability to pay debts due to liquidity.  Unlike the practice in the common law system, the determination of insolvency in Indonesia does not involve mandatory financial audits or court decisions based on independent financial analysis.

Peace agreements serve as an alternative solution for resolving debts between debtors and creditors, aiming to enable debtors to restructure their debts and maintain business continuity. The peace agreement process is governed by strict procedures, including the submission of a peace plan by the debtor, approval by concurrent creditors through voting, and ratification by the Commercial Court through a homologation hearing. A ratified peace agreement is binding on all concurrent creditors but can be annulled if the debtor fails to fulfill their obligations, as illustrated in the case of PT Perindustrian Njonja Meneer. This study employs a normative legal method with a statutory approach and qualitative data analysis. The findings indicate that the success of a peace agreement depends on the debtor’s compliance and the creditors’ approval.  

Bankruptcy as a debt settlement mechanism in Indonesia has a significant impact on all debtors' assets, including intellectual property rights such as trademarks. In practice, many companies have licensed trademarks to third parties before being declared bankrupt, resulting in legal uncertainty regarding the validity of the license agreement and protection for the licensee. This study aims to examine the implications of bankruptcy on the validity of trademark licenses and analyze the legal position of licensees according to the Bankruptcy Law. The research method used is normative juridical with statutory and conceptual approaches, as well as qualitative analysis of primary and secondary legal materials. The results show that the rights to the licensed trademark remain part of the bankruptcy estate and are under the management of the curator. The license agreement can be continued if it benefits the bankruptcy estate, but can be terminated by the curator if it is considered burdensome. The legal position of the licensee is highly dependent on the recording of the agreement at the DJKI and the policy of the curator. The implications of this research emphasize the need for clearer regulations to provide legal certainty and balanced protection for all parties involved in bankruptcy.