Ivan Kurniawan, Sihabudin, Reka Dewantara Fakultas Hukum Universitas Brawijaya Jl. MT. Haryono No. 169 Malang e-mail: ivkurr@student.ub.ac.id Abstrak Berawal dari isu hukum adanya miss konsepsi antara UUK-PKPU dengan UU PT dalam memahami perseroan pailit dan insolven, yang akibatnya merugikan kepentingan perseroan yang cash flow insolvency dan viable. Menarik untuk mengetahui dan menganalisis perlindungan bagi debitor perseroan pailit dan insolven yang hanya mengalami cash flow insolvency dari ancaman pembubaran perseroan dan mendeskripsikan serta menemukan implikasi yang ditimbulkan dari tidak adanya perlindungan bagi debitor perseroan pailit dan insolven yang hanya mengalami cash flow insolvency dari ancaman pembubaran perseroan. Merupakan penelitian yuridis normatif, menggunakan statute approach dan analytical approach, bahan hukum primer dan sekunder diperoleh melalui penelusuran kepustakaan dan menggunakan akses internet, akan dianalisis menggunakan interpretasi sistematis dan gramatikal. Perlindungan internal melalui restrukturisasi, belum menjadi premium remidium, karena restrukturisasi kerap kali gagal. Perlindungan eksternal melalui upaya perdamaian, on going concern, rehabilitasi, tidak dapat diimplementasikan, karena sejak perseroan pailit dan insolven, maka perseroan berada dalam keadaan pembubaran, yang berakibat wajib dilikuidasi, dan berakhir dicabut status badan hukumnya. Solusinya merevisi ketentuan UU PT, dengan membuat ketentuan khusus terkait pembubaran bagi perseroan pailit dan insolven. Conflict of norms diselesaikan melalui asas lex specialis derogat legi generali, dengan UUK-PKPU bersifat khusus dapat menyimpangi UU PT. Tidak adanya perlindungan, merugikan kepentingan stakeholder, kepailitan bertujuan untuk memusnahkan perseroan yang masih efisien, pembayaran piutang konkuren tidak maksimal, dan mencederai asas keseimbangan serta urgensi diaturnya secara khusus terkait kepailitan korporasi dan mekanisme penghentian eksitensi, yang terintegrasi dalam satu undang-undang. Kata Kunci: Insolven, Bubarnya Perseroan Terbatas, On Going Concern, dan Likuidasi Abstract This research topic departed from the misconception between UUK-PKPU and UU PT in understanding bankrupt and insolvent company that harms the interest of viable company experiencing cash flow insolvency. It is always intriguing to investigate and analyze the protection of the bankrupt and insolvent company as a debtor as well as describe and investigate the implication raised from the absence of protection of the debtor concerned from the potential of dismissal. This research employed a normative-juridical method and statutory and analytical approaches. The primary and secondary data were gained from library research using internet access and analyzed using systematic and grammatical interpretations. The internal protection through the restructuring measure has not served as the premium remidium, considering that the restructuring has often failed. The external protection that involves reconciliation, going concern, and rehabilitation could not be implemented because the company has been in the state of dismissal since the company started to be bankrupt and insolvent, bringing the company to liquidation and the revocation of the legal status. This issue may be recovered by revising the provision of UU PT by setting a particular provision regarding the dismissal of the bankrupt and insolvent company. Conflict of norms can be settled with lex specialis derogate legi generali, while particular UUK-PKPU can deviate UU PT. The absence of protection disadvantages the interest of stakeholders. Bankruptcy is intended to dismiss an efficient company, concurrent debt payment is not maximum, and it injures the principle of balance. It is essential to specifically regulate corporate bankruptcy and the mechanism of dismissal in an integrated way with the statute concerned. Keywords: insolvent, dismissal of limited liability company, going concern, liquidation