PKPU Legal Credit Meeting PT Krama Yudha, Defendant Considers Forced

UNSPLASH ILLUSTRATION

JAKARTA - The Commercial Court at the Central Jakarta District Court held a Bankruptcy Law Credit Meeting and Postponement of Debt Payment Obligations (PKPU) experienced by Singaporean foreign nationals (WNA) as heirs of PT Krama Yudha, Rozita and Ery.

The attorney for the heirs of PT Krama Yudha, Damian Renjaan, said the meeting held to match debts seemed forced. This is because the meeting should have been postponed because his client was sick.

However, it was still held with the results of the submission of a statement letter containing the response to the Rp1.2 trillion bill submitted by the plaintiff.

However, his party rejected the value of the debt because Deed 78, which became the basis of the bill, was the awarding of bonuses from the late. Sjarnoebi Said for the welfare of his three brothers and one friend, all of whom had died, so his client was only willing to give the discretion of around 21 billion.

"A statement containing a response to the proposed bill amounted to IDR 1.2 trillion. He only wants to give around 21 billion," said Damian, Friday, August 16.

The amount of Rp21 billion was given on the basis of the wisdom given by his client because in fact there was no debt. The statement letter signed by Ery and Rozita as the heirs of PT Krama Yudha has been submitted to the forum at the creditor meeting.

"The point is that Mrs. Rozita and Mr. Ery denied the bill of 1.2 trillion. Then on the basis of wisdom, she only wanted to give Rp. 21 billion earlier. That's the point," he explained.

Damian said that due to this bankruptcy decision, his client finally fell ill due to the mental burden experienced so he hoped that this process would run according to the applicable law.

"Maybe our hope in the future is that this process goes well. It's a pity that this mother and child really feel very persecuted. Mental burden on bills that are this big really drains his mentality until he falls ill," he explained.

In this case, Rozita and Ery are people who do not know anything about the agreement before SP notary Henny Singgih on April 20, 1998, which resulted in a notary deed number 78 (akta 78).

The two clients did not know about the 78 deed because they were only heirs.

"The incident was signed by Mr. Ery's grandfather (Debitor 2) or Mrs. Rosita's mother-in-law (Debitor 1). So they don't know this agreement (akta 78) at all." he explained.

Then on the bankruptcy status, both of his clients filed an appeal because the two of them felt they did not sign the agreement. In addition, there is no general meeting of shareholders (GMS) containing the provision of net profit from PT Krama Yudha to the company.

"Akt 78 is written that the awarding of the bonus is given as long as the late Mr. Sjarnobi is still the majority shareholder. Meanwhile, he has died from 2001. The agreement should have ended," he explained. The meeting which was also attended by the President Director of PT Krama Yudha, who had just been elected on August 6, 2024, Ferdinandus. Through the GMS process, Ferdinandus was appointed to carry out the responsibility of the Company's operations. However, this step was hindered by the curator against the law as if it were bankrupt, namely PT Krama Yudha.

"So today's meeting process relates to the bankruptcy decision number 266 related to the assets of the heirs or Mrs. Rozita and Mr. Ery. That should have nothing to do with the company's operations because this is something different. A different thing," said Ferdi Nandus' attorney, Rahdityanto Regowo.

He considered that if the company's assets were confiscated it would cause the company's operations. Whereas the company should still run because it is not PT Krama Yudha who is bankrupt.

Based on the PKPU's decision to decide on the bankruptcy of foreign debtors, many people were then called to analyze the course of the case, one of which was Legal Observer Christian Delvis Rettob.

This is done so that the law in Indonesia can be upright and cannot be deflected by anyone.

"We were summoned after the PKPU decision of the Commercial Court at the Central Jakarta District Court Number 226. Where it is interesting that foreign nationals are being tried in Indonesia," he explained.

He considered that the debtor who is a foreign citizen should not be subject to law enforcement. He considered, with this decision, Indonesia would eventually be avoided by foreign investors.

"Basically, when analyzed, it turns out that the debtors Mrs. Rozita and Mr. Ery should not be held legally responsible because they are not subjects responsible for the agreement," he said.

"When the Supreme Court Decree experienced a shift in the value of justice and legal certainty. This process is ongoing and we are overseeing this process until it continues to reach the legal process properly," continued Ferdi.