SRIL and PBRX Issue Global Bond

Textile Stakeholders Request Strengthening Industrial Integration

Parliament Asks to Control Illegal Importation of Textiles

IKATSI Reveals Details of Import Violations

MOI Optimizes Sustainable Resources For Industrial Production

Britain Will Ban Imports From China

RPP on Industry and Trade is Less Favorable to Local

Textile Industry Optimistic Could Recover This Year

Trade Surplus, Textiles Industry Still in the Red Zone

APR Encourages Supply Chains as the Focus of the Road Map

Pakistan's Exports to Indonesia Supported by Textile Products

ARGO Optimistic Will Improve Performance in 2021

APSyFI : PLB Threatens to Eliminate US $ 8.3 Million Yarn Exports

Stake Holder : Textile Industry Needs Fundamental Changes

The Indonesian Employers Association or Apindo considers Law Number 37 of 2004 concerning Bankruptcy and PKPU to have loopholes that have the potential to create moral hazard and cause no legal certainty for the business world.

PKPU is often considered to be an opportunity to collect debts that end up bankrupting the company due to exceeding commitments in the agreement.

“We want to talk about any agreement, if there is a dispute, it can be defined by expanding the debt so that everything goes to PKPU. Finally, PKPU can become a weapon for people to force debtors to pay their debts, even in difficult conditions,” said member of the Bankruptcy Task Force and PKPU Apindo Ekawahyu Kasih.

Applications for PKPU and bankruptcy can also be repeated and without time lag. One of the repeated PKPU submissions was experienced by PT Pan Brothers Tbk. The company experienced PKPU applications and bankruptcy twice from the same creditor, namely Maybank Indonesia.

On May 24, 2021, said Eka, Maybank filed for a PKPU at the Central Jakarta District Court, then it was rejected on July 26, 2021. Nine days after the decision was rejected, Maybank again filed an application for bankruptcy to Pan Brothers.

Pan Brothers or a company engaged in the textile sector has a total debt of US$ 306 million. The company was filed for bankruptcy by Maybank with a lawsuit of US$ 4.5 million or 1.46 percent of the company's total debt.

Eka saw that the requirements for applying for a PKPU were too easy. There is no limit on the value of debt as a basis for bankruptcy petition, causing even a healthy company to be declared bankrupt.

“So this will cause legal uncertainty in the business world related to business disputes, one achievement, and this is very dangerous. This must be corrected so that everything goes on the right track and provides legal certainty, benefit, and justice for all parties," he said.

Apindo has urged the government to immediately issue a government regulation in lieu of the law or perpu on PKPU and bankruptcy. Chairman of Apindo Haryadi Sukamdani said that the PKPU application was no longer intended to make the company healthy, but to cause the corporation to go bankrupt.

“This PKPU application is already at the stage of bankruptcy. Whereas the purpose and objective of this PKPU is to give rights to debtors who are experiencing difficulties to be able to request a postponement of debt payment obligations in the context of restructuring the company," said Haryadi.

Haryadi explained, during the Covid-19 pandemic, many companies experienced financial pressure or cashflow. In the midst of the difficulties experienced, the company often gets additional problems because it was declared bankrupt due to not being able to pay its debts.

In the 2020-2021 period, Apindo recorded 1,298 PKPU and bankruptcy cases. The bankruptcy of the company is said to have caused the number of unemployed to increase and efforts to recover the economy to falter.