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.

Business entities often face bankruptcy risks due to various factors, including accounting errors, limited experience, or small-cap transactions. The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated financial conditions for many companies, such as PT Garuda Indonesia (Persero) Tbk., which experienced a significant revenue decline. Additionally, individuals may face bankruptcy due to reasons like job termination or business failures. The primary cause of bankruptcy lies in the imbalance between debt and income, often worsened by poor financial planning. Government regulations can help mitigate bankruptcy risks, such as through health insurance and credit restrictions. The bankruptcy process aims to provide fair resolutions between debtors and creditors while safeguarding public interests. Bankruptcy can also offer debtors the opportunity to restructure their debt, maintain economic stability, and prevent social loss. In practice, bankruptcy involves the management of the debtor's assets by a trustee and the proportional distribution of proceeds to creditors. The application of freedom of contract and legal certainty principles in debtor-creditor relationships is crucial to ensuring a transparent, efficient, and equitable process.

This study aims to analyze the implementation of internal control in the receivables audit process and evaluate its effectiveness in minimizing the risk of bad debts in a health center environment. Receivables, especially those originating from health services to JKN participants and general patients, can cause problematic receivables if not managed effectively. This study uses a descriptive qualitative approach with data collection through observation, interviews and documentation review during the audit by a public accounting firm. The results of the study indicate that there are still weaknesses in the internal control structure such as suboptimal separation of duties, an unintegrated receivables information system and a weak bad debt reserve policy. In addition, late payments by third parties and poor patient administration knowledge are also external factors that influence the high risk of bad debts. Therefore, improving the internal control system, implementing information technology and strengthening coordination with the guarantor are very important to reduce the risk of bad debts and increase accountability for financial management in the health center environment.

Qanun of Banda Aceh City Number 4 of 2022 emphasizes that the Tirta Daroy Regional Public Company of Drinking Water aims to provide fair and sustainable drinking water services. The legal relationship between the customer and the company is regulated through the Decree of the Board of Directors PEG Number. III/10/PDAM/2020. However, there are still many customers who are in default in the form of late payments that cause losses to the company and are contrary to Article 1243 of the Civil Code regarding the obligation of debtors to compensate for losses due to negligence. This study aims to analyze the default settings in the customer connection agreement at  the Tirta Taroy Regional Public Drinking Water Company  , identify the factors causing defaults, and explain the form of applying civil sanctions to customers who commit defaults. This study uses an empirical juridical method with qualitative descriptive analysis based on legal and field data. The results of the study show that the most dominant forms of default in customers of the Tirta Daroy Regional Drinking Water Public Company are late and arrears of payments, not paying at all and misuse of water connections. The main causative factors include economic conditions, administrative negligence, and intentional elements. Legally, this default causes financial losses and disrupts the sustainability of public services. Sanctions are applied in stages through notices, warnings, summonses, to fines, compensation, or disconnection. The Tirta Daroy Regional Public Company is advised to follow up on customer complaints, improve the billing system, adjust the sanction clause proportionately, and increase legal awareness through socialization.

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

A fiduciary guarantee agreement is a formal agreement that must be stated in a notarial deed as regulated in Article 4 of the Fiduciary Guarantee Law. This provision states that a fiduciary guarantee is a subsidiary agreement of the main agreement that creates an obligation for the parties to fulfill a performance. Execution, in this context, is a legal action carried out based on a legally binding decision. Article 15 paragraph (2) of the Fiduciary Law explains that the executorial power of a fiduciary guarantee certificate allows for direct implementation without going through a court, is final, and binds the parties. This research uses an empirical normative method, namely combining library studies with field research. Primary data was obtained through interviews with Judges of the Yogyakarta District Court, Judges of the Sleman District Court, the Yogyakarta State Assets and Auction Service Office (KPKNL), and the Yogyakarta Regional Office of the Ministry of Law and Human Rights. Secondary data comes from primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials. The analysis was conducted qualitatively. The research results indicate that following Constitutional Court Decision No. 18/PUU-XVII/2019, the execution of fiduciary collateral objects can no longer be carried out unilaterally by creditors, but must instead be filed through the District Court. This provision balances the legal standing between debtors and creditors and prevents potential arbitrariness. Nevertheless, execution through the courts is an alternative if there is no agreement between the parties regarding a default. The court's role following the Constitutional Court decision includes resolving disputes between creditors and debtors and ensuring that execution procedures are carried out in accordance with the HIR (Regional Regulations for the Protection of Creditors), RBG (Regional Regulations for the Protection of Creditors), and the Supreme Court's technical instructions. In general, the execution mechanism through the courts is considered quite effective in ensuring legal protection for both parties.

Agreement is one of the most important sources of engagement in civil law. In practice, agreements become the legal basis for parties to regulate mutual rights and obligations. As in credit agreements where credit agreements are one of the most common forms of agreements in banking practices and financing activities in Indonesia. This agreement becomes the legal basis for the relationship between creditors and debtors in the context of providing loan facilities. This article discusses the juridical aspects of credit agreements, starting from the elements of a valid agreement, the principles that underlie it, to the legal consequences that arise in the event of default or unlawful acts by one of the parties. The research was conducted using a normative juridical method that focuses on analyzing laws and regulations, especially the Civil Code and the Banking Law. The results of the study show that credit agreements are not only civilly binding, but also contain potential criminal law consequences in the event of misuse. Therefore, it is important for the parties to understand the contents and legal consequences of the credit agreement thoroughly.

People's Business Credit (KUR) is a financing program distributed by the government through banking institutions, including Bank Rakyat Indonesia (BRI), to support Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) and cooperatives. In its implementation, KUR credit is not free from various problems, one of which is non-performing loans. This study aims to determine the factors causing non-performing loans and efforts to resolve them in KUR loans at Bank BRI Karanganyar Branch, Tasikmadu Unit. The method used in this study is qualitative research, with data sources derived from primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials. Data collection techniques were conducted through direct interviews with relevant parties. The results show that the main causes of non-performing loans are divided into two major factors. First, external factors, namely those originating from the customer. This problem is generally related to the customer's inability to pay installments due to business failure. Second, internal factors, such as the failure of creditworthiness analysis by bank officers, resulting in prospective debtors who are actually unworthy actually receiving loans. In resolving non-performing loans, BRI Bank's Karanganyar Branch, Tasikmadu Unit, applies five main methods: (1) changing the loan interest rate, (2) reducing fines or penalties, (3) reducing the outstanding principal, (4) extending the loan term, and (5) selling collateral. Additionally, there are also settlement methods that involve a combination of these five methods, depending on the debtor's circumstances and the agreement between the two parties.

This study explores the legal consequences of bankruptcy on reciprocal agreements made prior to the debtor’s declaration of bankruptcy, as governed by Law Number 37 of 2004 on Bankruptcy and Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations. In the event of bankruptcy, control and management of the debtor's assets are transferred to a curator, which can alter the implementation of reciprocal agreements that have not been fully or partially fulfilled. According to Article 36 of Law No. 37/2004, parties who have agreements with the debtor can request confirmation regarding the continuation of the agreement from the curator within a specified period. If the curator decides not to continue, the agreement is terminated, and the other party has the right to claim compensation and will be recognized as a concurrent creditor. This study also examines the legal protection available to the parties involved, as well as the practical implications for legal and business relationships after a bankruptcy decision is made. The findings demonstrate that bankruptcy significantly affects the performance of reciprocal agreements, necessitating adjustments to the rights and obligations of all parties based on the provisions of the Bankruptcy Law. These adjustments are essential to ensuring justice and legal certainty for all parties involved in such agreements, balancing the interests of creditors, debtors, and other stakeholders. Ultimately, the study emphasizes the importance of understanding the legal framework surrounding bankruptcy and its consequences on ongoing contractual relationships, as well as the need for a fair and transparent process in dealing with claims and obligations post-bankruptcy.

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 development of financing practices with fiduciary guarantees in Indonesia often raises legal issues, especially regarding the unilateral withdrawal of credit objects by creditors against defaulting debtors. This action is often carried out without the consent of the debtor or a court decision, thus potentially violating the principles of justice and the principle of due process of law. This research aims to analyze the form of legal protection for debtors in a fiduciary financing agreement. The type of research used is normative juridical with an approach to legislation and court decisions. The results showed that the act of unilateral withdrawal can be categorized as a civil and criminal tort. Therefore, regulatory reform, increased legal literacy, and a fair and humanist dispute resolution mechanism are needed. It is recommended that fiduciary execution be carried out in accordance with legal procedures to protect the debtor's constitutional rights and ensure fairness in contractual relationships.

This research examines the legal responsibility of corporate guarantors declared bankrupt for their obligations to creditors in loan agreements, analyzing Court Decision No. 318/Pdt.Sus-PKPU/2022/PN Commercial Court Jakarta Central. The study addresses the legal complexities arising when a corporate guarantee becomes insolvent before the principal debtor defaults, creating jurisdictional conflicts between bankruptcy law and guarantee obligations. Using normative legal research methodology with a juridical normative approach, this study analyzes the application of Article 229(2) in conjunction with Article 278(6) of Law No. 37/2004 on Bankruptcy and Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations (K-PKPU) and Article 1381 of the Civil Code. The research reveals that the curator's action in obstructing and rejecting PT KawanCicil Teknologi Utama's claim registration against the bankrupt guarantor without proper judicial determination constitutes conduct not based on applicable laws and regulations. The findings demonstrate that when a guarantor is declared bankrupt and the debtor is in default, the Supervisory Judge and Curator must accept PT KawanCicil Teknologi Utama as a creditor with rights to the debtor's assets during asset liquidation proceedings. The study concludes that bankruptcy declaration of a guarantor does not automatically terminate guarantee obligations under Article 1381 of the Civil Code, as bankruptcy is not enumerated among the causes of contract termination. This research contributes to legal certainty in corporate guarantee enforcement within Indonesia's bankruptcy framework and provides recommendations for legislative harmonization between conflicting provisions in bankruptcy law.

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 aims to examine the aspect of justice in the administration and settlement of bankrupt assets by the Curator, particularly concerning the repayment of receivables to creditors in the context of auction minutes issued by the KPKNL Samarinda. The research adopts a normative juridical method, legislation approach and conceptual approach, and is connected to a case study approach focusing on the auction process in the bankruptcy case of PT Karebet Mas Indonesia (in bankruptcy). The results of this study indicate that the Curator, in administering and settling unsold bankrupt assets, may proceed with a private sale (underhand sale) with the approval of the supervising judge, based on a limit value obtained from an independent appraiser’s valuation, provided that at least two public auctions have been conducted without success. The distribution of assets to creditors must observe the principle of pari passu pro rata, which ensures equal treatment according to their respective priorities.In the event that the settlement process of the bankrupt estate has been declared completed, yet the creditors have not received full repayment of their claims, the general provisions under Article 1131 of the Indonesian Civil Code shall apply, namely that all of the debtor’s assets constitute collateral for the fulfillment of their debts. This study recommends an amendment to Law Number 37 of 2004 concerning Bankruptcy and Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations, to regulate in a detailed, specific, and comprehensive manner the requirements for the underhand sale of bankrupt assets by the Curator. Such regulation is necessary to ensure justice and legal certainty for bankrupt debtors and creditors, particularly regarding the repayment of claims for concurrent creditors.

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.  

Creditors are parties who have receivables based on agreements or legal provisions that can be collected through legal channels. In the practice of lending, collateral is very important to provide legal certainty and a sense of security for both parties, both creditors and debtors. This study discusses two main problem formulations, namely the position of the guarantee of dependents against creditors when the debtor defaults, and the form of legal protection for creditors if the right of dependency cannot be executed. The method used is normative juridical research that examines the applicable positive legal provisions. The results of the study show that if the debtor defaults, the creditor has the right to execute the collateral object through sale to cover his receivables. However, under certain conditions the right of dependency cannot be executed, so a legal mechanism is needed that provides protection to creditors. This protection is regulated in Law Number 4 of 1996 concerning Dependent Rights, especially in the articles that regulate the definition of dependent rights, the execution process, and the principle of droit de suite which guarantees the rights of creditors to the collateral object even if they change hands. Thus, the legal system of dependent rights is an important instrument in ensuring certainty and legal protection for creditors.