Debt Payment Obligations Research Articles

Unfair Business Competition in Bankruptcy Institutions and Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations in Indonesia

Unfair business competition in the business world is not uncommon even though there has been a law on the prohibition of monopolistic practices and unfair business competition, namely Law Number 5 of 1999. Basically, in carrying out business activities, it is natural for business actors to compete with other business actors, but must comply with legal signs governing such competition. Along with the increasingly complex development of the business world and the ever older anti-monopoly and unfair business competition laws, unfair business competition practices are also developing. On this occasion, unfair business competition practices will be discussed by bankrupting competing business actors. The study in this paper uses the normative juridical research method which prioritizes literature studies through the applicable laws and regulations in Indonesia as well as several related book references and uses an analytical descriptive approach. Based on the studies carried out, along with the results of his research, competition for market share control for business actors is a very strategic matter as a result of which business actors often use unhealthy methods as stipulated in the anti-monopoly and unfair business competition law. Unfair business competition in the perspective of bankruptcy law as mentioned above can occur due to weaknesses in regulatory patterns regarding bankruptcy requirements as stated in Article 2 paragraph (1) UUK & PKPU.
 Keywords: unfair business competition practices, bankruptcy

Legal Position of Syndicated Creditors in Submitting Claims on Debtors in the Application Process for Postponement of Debt Payment Obligations (PKPU) and the Legal Impact

The arrangement of parties who can file claims in the process of suspension debt payment obligations has been regulated in Article 270 of Law number 37 of 2004 concerning Bankruptcy and Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations. The arrangement of parties who can file bills in the suspension of debt payment process still causes several problems in its implementation. This occurs in the suspension of debt payment process against debtors in syndicated loans which still creates uncertainty in its implementation because the suspension of debt payment Law does not specifically regulate it but only provides an explanation, so it is important to raise the issue regarding the party authorized to file claims against debtors in credit. Syndication. Meanwhile, the method used in this research is normative juridical research by examining library materials, namely the Civil Code and the suspension of debt payment Law. The suspension of debt payment Law has definitively determined the parties who can file claims, but to file claims in syndicated loans still creates dualism that arises due to the distinctive characteristics of syndicated loans, namely that there are agents who act as attorneys for syndicated participants to represent their interests. In principle, there is only one creditor in a syndicated credit agreement, namely a credit syndicate represented by an agent. Because the agent represents the interests of the syndicated participants, the agent has strong authority to take legal actions including submitting and registering claims to the Management in suspention of debt payment with the approval of the majority creditors.

GUGATAN ACTIO PAULIANA TERHADAP DIREKSI DAN KOMISARIS ATAS PENOLAKAN PENGEMBALIAN DIVIDEN INTERIM PEMEGANG SAHAM PERSEROAN TERBATAS

Distribution of interim dividends distributed before the end of the financial year by the Director with the approval of the Commissioner. This distribution can be made if the company's finances are in a profitable condition based on the year-end audit carried out by a Public Accountant. Companies that experience losses in their reports at the end of the year, shareholders are obliged to return interim dividends based on Law Number: 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Companies. Likewise, companies experiencing bankruptcy based on Law Number: 37 of 2004 concerning Bankruptcy and Postponement of Debt Payment Obligations. The curator in bankruptcy based on Auctio Pauliana with other claims can request the return of the company's interim dividends in the Commercial Court. However, the Curator can only ask for responsibility for the return of interim dividends to the Director and Commissioner jointly and severally. The obligation of the Directors, whose authority has been taken over by the Curator, is to sue the shareholders in the District Court based on Law Number: 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Companies. The problem is, cases in District Court are complicated cases, not simple cases. This research uses normative juridical methods. In the discussion, the Director whose authority has been taken over by the Curator, if the shareholders reject the return of the interim dividend, will file a lawsuit in the District Court. However, a case at the District Court will take a long time, therefore the dividend return case must be submitted to the Commercial Court. In conclusion, to make it easier for the Director to file a lawsuit for the return of interim shareholder dividends in the Commercial Court, the Curator will provide a power of attorney and the case for the return of interim dividends will be made simple.

The Authority of the Commercial Court in Bankruptcy Disputes

<p><em>The purpose of this study is to find out and understand the authority of the commercial court based on the application of Law Number 37 of 2004 in resolving bankruptcy disputes. This study uses descriptive analysis research techniques supported by a normative juridical approach. The results of the study show that legal considerations in a decision must be juridical and become the basis of a decision. Court decisions must contain certain articles of the relevant regulations and unwritten legal sources that are used as the basis for adjudicating, therefore the Commercial Court Decision at the Central Jakarta District Court Number 04/Pdt.Sus-Pailit/2016/PN.Niaga.Jkt. Pst is in accordance with Law Number 37 of 2004 concerning Bankruptcy and Postponement of Debt Payment Obligations.</em></p>

Juridical Review of Actio Pauliana Against Bankrupt Boedal Becoming The Object Of Liability

The Bankruptcy and Postponement of Debt Payment Obligations Act of 2004 regulates the bankruptcy process, which involves the conversion of a debtor's personal assets into bankrupt assets. The court appoints a curator and a supervising judge to oversee all of the insolvent estate's assets. The curator may come across legal measures initiated by the debtor against the bankrupt assets during this procedure that might be harmful to creditors. Paulina's action is what the curator can do in these circumstances to ask the court to dismiss these legal actions. The purpose of this study is to comprehend how Paulina's intervention supports the rights of creditors, particularly with regard to mortgage rights.The study used normative legal research and conducted descriptive and qualitative analyses of both primary and secondary data. The findings revealed that Paulina's action can be used to protect the mortgage rights of creditors, provided that certain dejure elements are met. The study highlights the importance of consistency and synchronization of decisions based on the principles and norms of bankruptcy law to achieve legal harmonization.In conclusion, Paulina's action plays a critical role in safeguarding the interests of creditors in bankruptcy cases, particularly regarding mortgage rights. It empowers the curator to cancel legal actions that could harm the creditors and promotes legal harmonization. This study underscores the need for consistent and coherent application of bankruptcy laws to ensure the equitable treatment of all parties involved. Keywords : Actio Paulina, Legal Action, Bankruptcy Law

Legal Analysis of Corporate Insolvency: A Case Study of the Insolvency Resolution Process

Bankruptcy is a situation that can be experienced by all who run their business, bankruptcy is a debtor who is in an unfavorable state because all his assets are not enough to meet his needs to pay all his debts. So that legal problems arise when a company experiences financial difficulties, in Indonesia bankruptcy law is regulated in Law number 37 of 2004. The purpose of the study is to analyze bankruptcy law, especially the bankruptcy settlement process. The research method used in this study is the descriptive qualitative method. Data collection is carried out through literature studies (library research), then the collected data is analyzed through three stages, namely data reduction, data presentation, and conclusions. The results showed that Law Number 37 of 2004 can provide legal protection to creditors, debtors, and the public fairly and equitably. The bankruptcy settlement process can be carried out through two stages, namely the PKPU stage or postponement of debt payment obligations and the bankruptcy settlement process. The bankruptcy settlement process consists of several stages, namely the first bankruptcy application, the examination of the bankruptcy application, the bankruptcy statement decision, the appointment of a receiver, the distribution of debtor's assets, and then the last stage of the bankruptcy closing decision.

REHABILITASI PEMULIHAN NAMA BAIK DEBITOR PAILIT DI INDONESIA

This research aims to find out the debtor can restore his good name in order to restore his good name so that the debtor can still apply for credit again and the process that can be done to restore the good name of a debtor declared Bankrupt by the Court will lose reputation in the eyes of the public. The research method used is normative juridical, with a statutory approach (statue approach), historical approach (historical approach), and case approach (case approach).Based on the analysis and research results that first, the existing bankruptcy regulations are considered unreliable, namely the Civil Code, and Law No.37 of 2004 concerning Bankruptcy and Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations. Because bankruptcy can end with a peace. This peace is carried out by means of an agreement between the bankrupt debtor and the creditors to pay some of their debts first. However, in reality, not all settlements are acceptable. When reconciliation is not acceptable, insolvency becomes the way to end the bankruptcy. The second way to end a bankruptcy is through rehabilitation. Rehabilitation can be accepted if the creditor has received full payment of the debt. Then bankruptcy can be ended by a judge's decision in a higher court level. The judge's decision at a higher court level can revoke the bankruptcy declaration. In addition to these things, there are also things that can make bankruptcy end, namely the revocation of bankruptcy at the suggestion of the supervisory judge. The supervisory judge can give a recommendation to revoke the bankruptcy declaration decision because he knows the financial condition or assets of the bankrupt debtor.

Analysis Of Facts or Circumstances That Are Proven Simply In The Context Of Proving Other Creditors In Bankruptcy Applications

In filing a bankruptcy petition, the petitioner must fulfill the requirements for the petition to be granted by the panel of judges. These requirements are stipulated in Article 2 paragraph (1) in conjunction with Article 8 paragraph (2) of Law No. 37 of 2004 concerning Bankruptcy and Postponement of Debt Payment Obligations. According to these requirements, the bankruptcy petitioner must provide evidence that there are other creditors, either by presenting these other creditors as witnesses or by the debtor's acknowledgment in the form of promissory notes or other documents. However, in its implementation, it turns out that the method of proving this is subject to multiple interpretations, leading to legal uncertainty, namely whether other creditors need to be present in the hearing or if the debtor's acknowledgment is sufficient. This research will be conducted using a normative research method, which involves studying legislation with an approach to bankruptcy cases in Indonesia

KONSEKUENSI BAGI DEBITOR YANG TIDAK MENGAJUKAN RENCANA PERDAMAIAN DALAM PROSES PENUNDAAN KEWAJIBAN PEMBAYARAN UTANG

A settlement offer in the process of suspension of debt payment obligation is in principle given to convince creditors that the debtor has the desire to settle their debts. When the debtor is in an unstable condition and feels unable to pay his debts, the law provides the debtor with the opportunity for the debt payment obligation to be suspended and provide a settlement offer for their creditors, which is regulated in Article 222 paragraph (2) of the Law No. 37 of 2004. However, in practice, it turns out some debtors do not use this opportunity to provide a settlement offer, in which case the Law No. 37 of 2004 does not explicitly regulate the legal consequences. This is the focus of this research by reviewing and discussing several jurisprudence/judge decisions with different legal considerations to see what the legal consequences are if the Debtor does not submit a settlement offer.

Tanggung Jawab PT. First Anugerah Karya Wisata First Travel Terhadap Korban

The fraud case was carried out by First Travel officials Andika Surachman and Anniesa Deavitasari Hasibuan who succeeded in defrauding 63.310 prospective Hajj pilgrims with a total loss of Rp. 905.330.000.000,- who been sentenced to 20 years and 18 years in prison respectively where criminal liability has been imposed on the defendants but civil liability still cannot be borne out even though the panel of judges in the trial for postponing debt payment obligation has agreed to a settlement with peace proposal which contains the debtor's obligation to dispatch the Hajj pilgrims and return money for those who do not wish to depart because first travel's assets no longer exists and first travel is no longer operating

Pertanggungjawaban Negara Atas Keadaan Persero BUMN Yang Pailit

Bankruptcy is a situation that could occur in a state-owned company. Istaka Karya is one of several state-owned companies. After going through several years with financial conditions that never improved, various news reports about this company with various active participation in the world of construction, finally officially closed due to bankruptcy in 2023, with a series of debts to creditors as well as arrears in salary payments to its employees. This research aims to analyze the legal certainty obtained by creditors, as well as the state's responsibility in the event of the bankruptcy of a state-owned company. The results of this research show the weak position of creditors in obtaining their rights. Therefore, to provide legal certainty, not only based on Law Number 37 of 2004 concerning Bankruptcy and Postponement of Debt Payment Obligations, but the directors must also be fully responsible for all debts to creditors using personal assets owned, but not including assets that have been declared bankrupt by the Commercial Court.

Problems Resulting from Filing an Effort for Judicial Review of the Cancellation of a Bankruptcy Decision which was preceded by an Application for Postponement of Debt Payment Obligations (Analysis of Supreme Court Decision No. 96 PK/PDT.SUS-PAILIT/2014)

The method used in writing this thesis is a normative juridical research method. The nature of this research is prescriptive, using data collection techniques, namely library research and interview guides to complete secondary data. The results of the research found that legal certainty regarding the cancellation of a bankruptcy decision which was preceded by a PKPU application caused legal uncertainty because it was in conflict with the Bankruptcy Law and SEMA Number 4 of 2014. The Supreme Court's decision gave rise to legal consequences, namely the resolution of the case took longer because it was not certain when the case would end. , cases are piling up at the Supreme Court, with legal action being filed, the costs of the proceedings will become more expensive

Kewenangan Kurator atas Implementasi Business Going Concern Principle dalam Pengurusan Boedel Pailit

Law Number 37 of 2004 on Bankruptcy and Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations was formed to distribute the debtor's bankruptcy debt to creditors proportionally and fairly. A company that has been declared bankrupt but does not yet have insolvent status is not considered to have ended so bankruptcy will not stop business operations or can be called a business going concern. According to this law, companies can continue their operations even though they are deemed unable to pay their debts. This is different from what is explained in the Limited Liability Company Law which requires the dissolution of the company after it reaches a level of inability to pay debts. This raises questions that are formulated in the problem formulation, namely first, how to implement the principle of business continuity (Business Going Concern) in bankruptcy cases, second, what is the responsibility of the Curator due to the implementation of a going concern which fails in its implementation due to the company's stock valuation decreasing. This research uses a normative legal method supported by a statutory approach. The results of this research conclude that, firstly, if the curator assesses that there is potential to increase the valuation value of the bankrupt debtor, then going concerned is the right way as proven by analysis from the auditor to fulfill the debtor's achievements. Second, if after carrying out a business going concern the company's value continues to decline, then the curator should stop business activities and immediately settle the bankruptcy assets.

Practice of Applying Affidavits in Bankruptcy Law and Postponement of Debt Payment Obligations

Civil law regulates the means of evidence as outlined in Article 1866 of the Civil Code/Article 164 HIR/Article 284 RBg which consists of written evidence, witness evidence, allegations, confessions and oaths. The existence of an Affidavit certainly makes it easier to resolve a Civil Case, especially in cases regarding Bankruptcy and Postponement of Debt Payment Obligations. The existence of an Affidavit is one aspect that confirms that the process of proving a legal problem in Indonesia is undergoing adjustments in line with the very rapid development of law in this Era of Globalization. The application of Affidavits in Bankruptcy and PKPU legal processes is important in their development. This research uses Normative Legal Research using the method of the Statute Approach. Article 299 of Law Number 37 of 2004 concerning Bankruptcy and Postponement of Debt Payment Obligations explains that the procedural law that applies in resolving Bankruptcy cases and Postponement of Debt Payment Obligations is Civil Procedure Law. Written evidence is significant in the Bankruptcy Law and PKPU process, although the process still prioritizes simple evidence. Affidavit is a written statement by someone who is considered an expert containing an explanation of a particular event object, which is then signed and submitted as written evidence in the trial. In Indonesia, an Affidavit cannot be classified as an Authentic Deed and does not have perfect evidentiary properties, but an Affidavit can be used as ordinary documentary evidence to support other evidence and help judges decide Bankruptcy & PKPU cases efficiently in order to support a simple evidentiary process and considering the short examination time.

CURATORS ARE VULNERABLE TO BE CRIMINALIZED AND CRIMINATED IN BANKRUPTCY AND PKPU PROCESSES

<p>The Curator is one of the important organs in the debt settlement process between debtors and their creditors through bankruptcy law instruments. Based on Law Number 37 of 2004 concerning Bankruptcy and Postponement of Debt Payment Obligations (PKPU), the Curator is given broad and broad duties and powers in managing and settling the assets of a bankrupt debtor. Because since being declared bankrupt by the court, the debtor has lost his right to manage his business and assets. The duties and authorities to administer the business and assets of the bankrupt debtor rest in the hands of the Curator, who works under the supervision of the Supervisory Judge. In carrying out its duties and authorities, the Curator must adhere to the provisions of the Law and the Professional Code of Ethics, namely being independent, having no conflict of interest and not handling more than 3 (three) Bankruptcy and PKPU cases. If in carrying out its duties and authorities it causes damage to the bankrupt assets, then the Curator must be legally responsible. That means, the Curator does not have the right of immunity or impunity in carrying out his duties and authorities to manage and settle bankruptcy assets in accordance with the provisions of the law. The Curator is not a public official. The Curator may be punished if his actions and decisions in administering and settling the bankrupt assets cause harm to the bankrupt assets. However, Law Number 37 of 2004 concerning Bankruptcy and PKPU does not include criteria for criminal acts and criminal sanctions for Curators. Because of this, Curators are vulnerable to being criminalized and punished.</p><p>The Curator is one of the important organs in the debt settlement process between debtors and their creditors through bankruptcy law instruments. Based on Law Number 37 of 2004 concerning Bankruptcy and Postponement of Debt Payment Obligations (PKPU), the Curator is given broad and broad duties and powers in managing and settling the assets of a bankrupt debtor. Because since being declared bankrupt by the court, the debtor has lost his right to manage his business and assets. The duties and authorities to administer the business and assets of the bankrupt debtor rest in the hands of the Curator, who works under the supervision of the Supervisory Judge. In carrying out its duties and authorities, the Curator must adhere to the provisions of the Law and the Professional Code of Ethics, namely being independent, having no conflict of interest and not handling more than 3 (three) Bankruptcy and PKPU cases. If in carrying out its duties and authorities it causes damage to the bankrupt assets, then the Curator must be legally responsible. That means, the Curator does not have the right of immunity or impunity in carrying out his duties and authorities to manage and settle bankruptcy assets in accordance with the provisions of the law. The Curator is not a public official. The Curator may be punished if his actions and decisions in administering and settling the bankrupt assets cause harm to the bankrupt assets. However, Law Number 37 of 2004 concerning Bankruptcy and PKPU does not include criteria for criminal acts and criminal sanctions for Curators. Because of this, Curators are vulnerable to being criminalized and punished.</p><p><strong><br /></strong></p>

Requirements for Application for Cancellation of Peace and Analysis of Decision Concerning Cancellation of Peace

This writing intends to examine the judge’s ruling on the terms of the peace annulment application. The key focus and main objective of the Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations revolves around the Settlement process, aiming to achieve a peace proposal in accordance with Article 281 of the Bankruptcy and Postponement of Debt Payment Obligations Law, commonly referred to as Law Number 37 of 2004. This occurs within the framework of the Commercial Court's management of the Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations case. If the debtor fails to keep their promise or fulfill the terms of the peace agreement, there is a legal solution to request the annulment of the peace. This research employs a normative juridical method with a descriptive-analytical approach to comprehensively and deeply describe the circumstances or symptoms studied in relation to the conditions for peace annulment applications and the application of these conditions to Decision Number 2/Pdt.Sus-Cancellation of Peace/2023/PN.Niaga Sby Jo. Number 69/Pdt.Sus-PKPU/2020/PN.Niaga Sby. It can be analyzed from the research that the regulations for requesting the annulment of a peace agreement are already established in Law Number 37 of The Year 2004. Article 170, along with Article 171 and Article 291 of the same law, forms the legal basis for the request, specifically addressing issues related to bankruptcy and the postponement of debt payment obligations.

Implementasi UU Perlindungan Konsumen dan UU Kepailitan terhadap Konsumen Properti Pemegang PPJB

The growth of the property business in Indonesia is increasing from year to year. This is evident from people's interest in investing their income in the property sector, whether in the form of housing, shophouses, apartments or other types. Unfortunately, the desire for profit is not always as expected. This happens to some consumers where the hope of making a profit through purchasing a property ends up making a loss when the developer is declared bankrupt. How is the implementation of Law Number 8 of 1999 concerning Consumer Protection (UUPK) linked to Law Number 37 of 2004 concerning Bankruptcy and Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations (UUK) in protecting consumer rights? This writing uses normative research methods with prescriptive - evaluative specifications, with the aim of obtaining advice and evaluating how the law is applied to cases that occur. The conclusion shows that the implementation of the UUPK in protecting property consumers holding PPJB is still weak and unclear because it does not explicitly explain protection in terms of compensation for losses for property consumers. The implementation of UUK is in accordance with statutory regulations, although it cannot be avoided that the developer's bankruptcy process will result in losses for consumers holding PPJB, where consumers holding PPJB are included in the status of concurrent creditors.

Analysis of The Commercial Court’s Decision on The Postponement of Debt Payment Obligations to Life Insurance Companies Without The Approval of The Financial Service Authority

The Financial Services Authority (hereinafter referred to as "OJK") is an institution that has the authority to attribution has been established and appointed by the government to carry out regulatory and supervisory functions for Financial Service Institutions, one of which is in the case of requests for Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations (hereinafter referred to as "PKPU") at life insurance companies. This research was motivated by the issuance of a PKPU ruling against PT. Kresna Life Insurance (hereinafter referred to as "PT. AJK) by the Commercial Court based on the application of Lukman Wibowo as one of PT AJK's customers and creditors. The problem that arises is that OJK as an institution that has the authority does not respond to the application submitted by the customer in question within the period prescribed by law. This study examines and analyzes the Commercial Court Decision against PKPU at PT. AJK (Case Study Number 389/Pdt.Sus PKPU/2020/PN Niaga Jkt.Pst). The research method used in this study is normative or doctrinal legal research. The results of the study found that the PKPU was not in accordance with applicable laws in Indonesia, because legally the authority to apply for PKPU is absolutely in the hands of the OJK.

Suspension of Payment Decision Cassation: Due Process of Law VS Legal Certainty

Purpose: This research aims to provide solutions related to the debate between due process of law and legal certainty in the Debt Payment Obligation Suspension process. Theoretical reference: This research is based on Decision Number 23/PUU-XIX/2021 of the Constitutional Court of Indonesia, which opens the opportunity for debtors to appeal against non-voluntary decisions on Debt Payment Obligation Suspension. Method: This research uses a qualitative approach with the use of positive law and a comparative approach. Results and Conclusion: The research results indicate that granting debtors the right to file a cassation effort against Debt Payment Obligation Suspension decisions is wise but can create legal uncertainty in its implementation. Therefore, it is recommended that cassation efforts against Debt Payment Obligation Suspension decisions be accompanied by some additional regulations. This is important to maintain legal certainty in the Debt Payment Obligation Suspension process in Indonesia while respecting due process of law for all parties involved in Debt Payment Obligation Suspension cases. Implications of research: This research has implications for addressing the debate between due process of law and legal certainty in the Debt Payment Obligation Suspension process. Originality/value: This research has value in providing solutions to the existing debate surrounding the Debt Payment Obligation Suspension process, thus preserving legal certainty in the process.

TINJAUAN YURIDIS PERJANJIAN PERDAMAIAN PADA PROSES PENUNDAAN KEWAJIBAN PEMBAYARAN UTANG

Peace agreements are crucial to PKPU's goal of helping creditors restructure their debts. This research addresses how to arrange the peace agreement as a debt restructuring step in the Postponement of Debt Payment Obligations (PKPU), how it is used in the Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations process in Decision Number 90/Pdt.PKPU/2020/PN Niaga.Jkt.Pst, and how the ratification of the peace agreement is related to the absence of a Compensation for Services for the Management Team agreement. This thesis uses normative legal descriptive analysis—literature-based data collecting. Data analysis was qualitative. Peace agreements as debt restructuring in PKPU are regulated under Articles 265-294 of the Civil Code in Chapter III of the PKPU UUK. The debt restructuring and receivables collection allowed the Debtor to enhance his business conditions under the peace agreement. The judge granted the peace agreement in the PKPU process in Decision Number 90/Pdt.PKPU/ 2020/Pn.Jkt.Pst based on legal considerations based on Article 281 paragraph (1) letters a and b UUK PKPU. There is no reason to reject the debtor's peace plan despite criticism from one creditor. The peace agreement was ratified without a Management Team compensation agreement in the PKPU procedure in Decision Number 90/Pdt. The judge, PKPU/2020/Pn.Jkt.Pst, stated that the Management Team's pay could be established separately after the Homologation Decision. Therefore, the Ratification of the Peace should be accepted.