This also means that discussions on the planned moratorium on petitions under the Bankruptcy and Suspension of Debt Payment Obligation (KPKU) Law is still relevant in view of the devastating impact of the pandemic. There are two main arguments taking place surrounding demands for the moratorium.

The first relates to the moratorium on the filing of bankruptcy and PKPU, and the second (more fundamental than the first) on how businesses can survive bankruptcy during the pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted businesses all over the world. In Indonesia, though hundreds of bankruptcy and PKPU petitions have been filed to the commercial court, most of them are still under deliberation. To fix this, the plan for the moratorium is still needed, especially after the relaxation of credit restructuring extension by the OJK.

The government, however, should be careful when deciding on the moratorium. They could use the Netherlands as an example. There, the government has issued a moratorium wherein the court does not hear bankruptcy filings if the borrowers are able to present prima facie evidence that they were unable to continue repayments primarily because of COVID-19. The prima facie evidence should prove that borrowers were able to make repayments pre-pandemic, but during the pandemic their turnover declined by at least 20 percent compared to the average turnover three months prior to the pandemic. In terms of the moratorium period, it is restricted to two months, which is extendable to six months in total.

Another important issue is the bankruptcy survival kit for businesses during the pandemic.  

In Indonesia, a bankruptcy application only requires that the borrower has two or more creditors, and at least one debt is due and payable. Such easy requirements result in many bankruptcy petitions.

Popular

Essay competition: ‘Rethinking work: Driving sustainable growth in the digital age’

Hotels demand crackdown on unlicensed rentals in Bali

Indonesia seizes ship carrying narcotics worth $426 million