Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 2 Documents
Search

PERLINDUNGAN HUKUM TERHADAP KURATOR TERKAIT FEE/IMBALAN JASA DALAM MELAKSANAKAN PROSES GOING CONCERN KEPAILITAN Irwandi Husni; Nur Hakim; Roni Pandiangan
SINERGI : Jurnal Riset Ilmiah Vol. 2 No. 8 (2025): SINERGI : Jurnal Riset Ilmiah, Agustus 2025
Publisher : Lembaga Pendidikan dan Penelitian Manggala Institute

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.62335/sinergi.v2i8.1739

Abstract

In bankruptcy practice, not all bankrupt assets can be immediately liquidated, because Law Number 37 of 2004 opens opportunities for debtors who are still economically prospective to continue their business (going concern ). The purpose of going concern  is to maintain asset value, maximize debt payments, and reduce socio-economic impacts, with judge supervision and creditor approval. However, there is still a legal vacuum regarding the protection of curator service Fees for additional risks and workloads. The formulation of the research problem is: how is the legal regulation of the implementation of going concern  in bankruptcy, and how is the legal protection for curators related to Fees/service Fees in carrying out the process of continuing the debtor's business (going concern ) in bankruptcy. The theory used is Satjipto Rahardjo's legal protection and M. Hadi Shubhan's bankruptcy theory. The method used in this research is a normative juridical research, namely library legal research or secondary data with primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials as sources. The research approach used is a legislative approach, a conceptual approach, and legal material collection techniques are carried out by identifying and inventorying positive legal regulations, literature books, journals, and other legal material sources. The legal material analysis technique is carried out using grammatical legal interpretation, systematic interpretation, teleological interpretation, and functional interpretation. The results of the study indicate that legal protection for curators in going concern  cases is inadequate. Clear legal regulations are needed regarding the mechanism for implementing going concern  cases, including the regulation of compensation for curators in carrying out going concern  cases. It is recommended that Law Number 37 of 2004 be revised, as well as the Regulation of the Minister of Law concerning Guidelines for the Amount of Remuneration for Curators and Administrators, and that intensive training related to the implementation of going concern  cases be conducted by the Ministry of Law of the Republic of Indonesia to improve the capacity of curators in managerial, financial, and business governance aspects
Debtor's Right of Cassation in PKPU Following Constitutional Court Decision 23/PUU-XIX/2021: Consequences for the Protection of Banks as Separate Creditors Roni Pandiangan
Journal of Law and Social Politics Vol. 4 No. 2 (2026): Journal of Law and Social Politics
Publisher : Politeknik Siber Cerdika Internasional

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.59261/jlsp.v4i2.92

Abstract

Background: Banks as financial institutions that perform the function of collecting and distributing public funds often face the problem of bad credit or Non-Performing Loans (NPL). In an effort to provide legal protection, the state has regulated the collateral mechanism through mortgage rights as stipulated in Law Number 4 of 1996. However, in practice, the execution of collateral often encounters obstacles, especially when the debtor is undergoing a Suspension of Debt Payment Obligation (PKPU) process based on Law Number 37 of 2004. Objective: This study aims to analyze the legal position of banks as separate creditors in the PKPU process and evaluate the quantitative impact of cassation-induced execution delays on bank NPL ratios. Methods: This research uses normative legal methods with a normative juridical approach as its primary approach. The prescriptive nature of the research is directed toward formulating PERMA/SEMA recommendations that balance debtor constitutional rights with bank legal certainty. Results: The results show that separate creditors have a strong position in the PKPU process. However, the decision causes the bankruptcy status to not be inracht, thereby delaying the execution of collateral by banks. This delay results in hindered asset recovery and an increased risk of NPL, which can affect bank health according to Bank Indonesia Regulation Number 15/2/PBI/2013. Therefore, further regulations are needed to ensure legal certainty and protection. Conclusion: Constitutional Court Decision 23/PUU-XIX/2021 structurally weakens the legal protection of banks as separate creditors by introducing a non-suspensive cassation mechanism that delays execution of mortgage rights.