Preliminary Examination in the Process of Filing a Bankruptcy Case (Comparison of Hong Kong with Indonesia)

Gatot Hadi Purwanto, Cristovao Adao Da Silva

Abstract


Each country has different mechanisms and requirements for filing bankruptcy cases against debtors. Indonesia, through Law Number 37 of 2004 concerning Bankruptcy and Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations, sets relatively simple requirements: the presence of two or more creditors and the failure to pay a debt that is due and collectible. However, this system does not recognize a preliminary examination mechanism to assess whether the debtor is truly insolvent or still solvent. This condition differs from the legal system in Hong Kong, which adheres to the common law tradition, where before a bankruptcy case is submitted to court, a preliminary examination is first conducted through the statutory demand mechanism. Creditors are required to file a legal demand against the debtor to pay the debt within 21 days. If the debtor can prove to the court that they are still solvent, the statutory demand can be rejected, preventing the bankruptcy petition from proceeding to trial.


Keywords


Bankruptcy; Insolvency; Preliminary Examination.

Full Text:

PDF

References


Ahmad Yani & Gunawan Widjaja. (1999). Seri Hukum Bisnis: Kepailitan. Jakarta: PT Raja Grafindo Persada.

Amir Abadi Jusuf. (2004). Tanggung Jawab Direksi dan Komisaris Perusahaan Pailit. Jakarta: Salemba Empat.

Arief, Barda Nawawi. (2003). Beberapa Masalah Perbandingan Hukum Pidana. Jakarta: PT. Raja Grafindo Persada.

Bauw, E. A., & Nurkhaerani, E. (2024). Keterbatasan Kekuatan Eksekutorial Putusan Pailit Indonesia dalam Perkara Kepailitan Lintas Negara. Amandemen: Jurnal Ilmu Pertahanan, Politik dan Hukum Indonesia, 2(3). https://doi.org/10.62383/amandemen.v2i3.966

Berkowitz, Daniel., Pistor, Katharina., & Richard, Jean-Francois. (2001). Economic Development, Legality, and the Transplant Effect. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh.

Bisnis.com. (2012, September 15). Telkomsel Pailit, BRTI Kecolongan. Retrieved from https://teknologi.bisnis.com/read/20120915/101/95716/telkomsel-pailit-brti-kecolongan

Desril Yalid, Raja . 2021. Comparison of Bankruptcy Requirements According to Indonesia–Malaysia Bankruptcy Law,” Rigeo. 11 (7).

Fahamsyah, E., Taniady, V., Saputra, R. D., Rachim, K. V., & Wijaya, G. (2024). The Problem of Filing for Bankruptcy in Indonesian Law: Should the Insolvency Test Mechanism be Applied? Volksgeist: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum dan Konstitusi, 7(1), 199–218. https://doi.org/10.24090/volksgeist.v7i1.10079

Fletcher, I. F. (2017). The Law of Insolvency (5th ed.). London: Sweet & Maxwell.

Fred, B. (2001). Pokok-pokok Undang Tentang Kepailitan Sebagaimana Diubah oleh PERPU No. 1 Tahun 1998. Bandung: Alumni.

Fuady, M. (2005). Hukum Pailit dalam Teori dan Praktek (Edisi Revisi, disesuaikan dengan UU Nomor 37 Tahun 2004). Bandung: Citra Aditya Bakti.

Goode, R. (2011). Principles of Corporate Insolvency Law (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hadi Shubhan. (2008). Hukum Kepailitan: Prinsip, Norma, dan Praktik di Peradilan. Jakarta: Kencana Prenada Media Group.

Hukumonline.com. (2006). Perlindungan terhadap Perusahaan Solven dari Ancaman Kepailitan. Retrieved from https://www.hukumonline.com/berita/baca/hol13887/perlindungan-terhadap-perusahaan-solven-dari-ancaman-kepailitan

Hs, F., Manangin, S. A., Nasirun, I. O., & Pasla, D. M. (2024). Urgensi Pembaharuan Undang-Undang Kepailitan Demi Efisiensi dan Keadilan dalam Penyelesaian Kepailitan dan PKPU. Zaaken: Journal of Civil and Business Law, 5(2), 277–288. https://doi.org/10.22437/zaaken.v5i2.33099

Imran Nating. (2004). Peranan dan Tanggung Jawab Kurator dalam Pengurusan dan Pemberesan Harta Pailit. Jakarta: PT Raja Grafindo Persada.

J. Pinakunary, Fredrik “Perlindungan Terhadap Perusahaan Solven dari Ancaman Kepailitan,” Hukumonline, November 2005, https://www.hukumonline.com/berita/a/perlindungan-terhadap-perusahaan-solven-dari-ancaman-kepailitan-hol13887/

Kartono. (1985). Kepailitan dan Pengunduran Pembayaran. Jakarta: Pradnya Paramita.

Kusumawardani, D. (2022). “Analisis Perlindungan Hukum terhadap Debitor Solven dalam Sistem Kepailitan di Indonesia.” Jurnal Rechts Vinding, 11(3), 275–290.

Lau, C. (2020). Bankruptcy Law and Practice in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Sweet & Maxwell Asia.

Mahfud, F. (2022). “Tinjauan Yuridis terhadap Mekanisme Pengajuan Permohonan Pailit di Indonesia.” Jurnal Hukum dan Keadilan, 17(1), 45–61.

Marzuki, Peter Mahmud. (2013). Penelitian Hukum (Edisi Revisi). Jakarta: Kencana Prenada Media Group.

Mc. Kenzie, Baker. (2022). Global Financial Services Regulatory Guide. https://resourcehub.bakermckenzie.com/en/resources/global-financial-services-regulatory-guide

Sembiring, S. (2021). Hukum Kepailitan dan Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang di Indonesia. Bandung: Alumni.

Silalahi, Udin dan Louise Kalista Iskandar,. 2024. Effectiveness of Indonesia’s Simple Proof Test in Comparison to the US Code. Journal of Law and Sustainable Development 12 (1).

Siswanto, S., Achmad, A. D., Qotadah, H. A., & Ramli, M. A. (2024). Conflict Resolution in Sharia Business Bankruptcies in Indonesia: Ethical and Legal Challenges. Az-Zarqa’: Jurnal Hukum Bisnis Islam, 15(2), 149–173. https://doi.org/10.14421/azzarqa.v15i2.3182

Stefanie, Clarita , R. Kartikasari, dan Artaji (2022). Keabsahan Keadaan Solven Debitor sebagai Dasar Pertimbangan dalam Perkara Kepailitan, Media Iuris 5, (1).

Subhan, M. H. (2008). Prinsip, Norma, dan Praktik di Peradilan. Jakarta: Kencana Prenadamedia Group.

Sudikno Mertokusumo. (2002). Hukum Acara Perdata Indonesia (Edisi keenam). Yogyakarta: Liberty.

Surayatin, R. (1983). Hukum Dagang I dan II. Jakarta: Pradnya Paramita.

Sutan Remy Sjahdeini. (2002). Hukum Kepailitan: Memahami Faillissementsverordening Juncto Undang-Undang Nomor 4 Tahun 1998. Jakarta: Pustaka Utama Grafiti.

Sutan Remy Sjahdeini. (2009). Hukum Kepailitan: Memahami Undang-Undang Nomor 37 Tahun 2004 tentang Kepailitan. Jakarta: Pustaka Utama Grafiti.

Tan, C. W. (2018). “The Role of the Court in Bankruptcy Petitions: A Comparative Study Between Hong Kong and Singapore.” Hong Kong Law Journal, 48(2), 233–260.

Trias, R. (2019). “Penerapan Prinsip Insolvensi dalam Sistem Kepailitan di Indonesia.” Jurnal Hukum dan Pembangunan, 49(2),321–340.

Warsito, L. (2024). Urgensi Pembuktian Syarat Kepailitan dan Tes Insolvensi Dalam Permohonan Kepailitan. Jurnal USM Law Review, 7(2), 822–834. https://doi.org/10.26623/julr.v7i2.9018

Wijayanti, A. (2020). “Perbandingan Mekanisme Kepailitan antara Sistem Common Law dan Civil Law.” Jurnal Ilmu Hukum Lex Renaissance, 5(1), 45–60.

Wong, K. (2021). “Judicial Control in Bankruptcy Proceedings: Lessons from Hong Kong.” Asian Business Law Review, 13(3), 112–129.

Wood, P. R. (2007). Principles of International Insolvency (2nd ed.). London: Sweet & Maxwell.

Yani, A. (2004). Seri Hukum Bisnis: Kepailitan. Jakarta: PT Raja Grafindo Persada.

Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945.

Peraturan Menteri Hukum dan HAM Nomor 18 Tahun 2013 tentang Syarat dan Tata Cara Pendaftaran Kurator dan Pengurus.

Surat Edaran Mahkamah Agung (SEMA) Nomor 2 Tahun 2016 tentang Peningkatan Efisiensi dan Transparansi Penanganan Perkara Kepailitan dan Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang di Pengadilan.

Undang-Undang Nomor 8 Tahun 1999 tentang Perlindungan Konsumen.

Undang-Undang Nomor 37 Tahun 2004 tentang Kepailitan dan Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang.

The Government of Hong Kong. (1996). Bankruptcy Ordinance (Cap. 6). Hong Kong e-Legislation. Retrieved from https://www.elegislation.gov.hk/hk/cap6




DOI: https://doi.org/10.21107/ri.v20i2.10800

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Creative Commons License
Rechtidee is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

 

Indexing and Abstracting: