Abstract
Objective: This paper aims to analyze (1) simply proving the elements for bankruptcy under Article 2(1) jo. 8(4) Law No. 37 of 2004 (“Bankruptcy Law”), and (2) its effectiveness in comparison to bankruptcy in the US. This paper assesses also distinctive judgement between the bankruptcy system of Indonesia and the US even when relying on the same forms of evidence. Legal experts and advocates recognize Indonesia’s Simple Proof Test for bankruptcy as ineffective and ‘too simple’ where Courts turn a blind eye to rule out matters requiring a thorough legal and factual assessment, hence the current Bankruptcy Bill basing future revisions on United States (“US”) practices. However, the simple proof test remains. Methods: This research is a normative legal research with applying the statutory and comparatives approach to analyze the research questions concerned with descriptive qualitative. Conclusions: The result of this research found that applying the same standards in an entirely different regime would not reap the benefits intended. Therefore, a thorough assessment should replace the simple proof test entirely.
Published Version (
Free)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
