<![CDATA[Law Number 37 of 2004 does not expressly distinguish between creditors and debts arising before and after the court approval of a composition agreement under the Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang (PKPU, Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations) procedure, creating legal uncertainty when a debtor incurs new obligations following homologation. This normative juridical study examines the legal consequences for debtors and post-homologation creditors, the procedural consistency of subsequent PKPU petitions, and an appropriate legal framework for protecting all parties. The study employs statutory, conceptual, case-based, and functional comparative approaches, using the principles of legal certainty, bankruptcy law, and legal protection as its analytical framework. The findings indicate that homologation should bind creditors with claims arising from legal relationships established before homologation, whereas genuinely independent obligations incurred thereafter should not automatically be subject to the previously approved composition agreement. Accordingly, a subsequent PKPU petition may be considered only after the Commercial Court examines the origin, timing, independence, and evidentiary basis of the alleged debt and verifies compliance with the requirements stipulated in Article 222 of Law Number 37 of 2004. The proposed legal framework establishes temporal and substantive limitations on the binding effects of homologation, provides clear definitions of post-homologation creditors and debts, introduces judicial screening mechanisms, specifies the conditions governing subsequent PKPU petitions, and distinguishes the legal consequences of the initial composition agreement from those of any subsequent agreement. This framework safeguards the legal finality and binding force of homologation while ensuring access to appropriate legal remedies for legitimate post-homologation creditors.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
