REPORT ON JUDICIAL REVIEW Of BANKRUPTCY LAWSUIT OF PT TELEVISI PENDIDIKAN INDONESIA (TPI)

By: FABIANUS PRIJO SAMBODO

2013

BUSINESS LAW & ETHICS – LEGAL BANKRUPTCY ANALYSIS

BACKGROUND Bankruptcy is a legal status of a person or organization that cannot repay their debts to creditors. In most jurisdictions, bankruptcy is imposed by a court order, often initiated by the creditor. Bankruptcy is not the only legal status that an insolvent person or organization may have, and the term bankruptcy is therefore not a synonym for insolvency. Bankruptcy lawsuit sometimes happens to many companies, when they can not pay their overdue debt or can not re-structure their liabilities to at least two of their debitor. In Indonesia, there are many of bankruptcy lawsuits, and one of the interesting bankruptcy cases happened at PT. Cipta Televisi Indonesia that ussualy known as a company who owned the Indonesian Educational Television (TPI). Bankruptcy as a means of debt settlement certainly has some direct and indirect effects on all parties that have an interest in the assets of the debtor declared bankrupt. Generally, if the debtor is a legal entity, the interests of the debtor, creditor and shareholders will be affected. For example, the declaration of bankruptcy by a company will negatively affect its shareholders' position in the liquidation process. Pursuant to Indonesia's Private Law, secured, preferred and unsecured creditors have different privileges against the assets of the debtor. Article 1132 of the Private Law states that a creditor's precedence over other creditors derives from privilege rights and security titles. A security title can be held by hak tanggungan, or the holder of security rights, in accordance with Law No. 4 of 1996, by hipotek, or the mortgage holder, in accordance with Articles 1162 to 1232 of the Private Law, by fidusia, or the holder of the fiduciary transfer of security rights, in accordance with Law No. 42 of 1999, or by the pawn holder, in accordance with Articles 1150 to 1160 of Indonesia's Private Law. Article 124 of Law No. 1 of 1995 states that at the end of liquidation process, shareholders are entitled to the remainder of the liquidated assets. Does bankruptcy mean insolvency? Unlike in other jurisdictions, this is not the case in Indonesia. Bankruptcy is a simple declaration pursuant to Article 2 that a debtor with two or more creditors has not fully paid a debt which is due and payable. It is a separate

BUSINESS LAW & ETHICS – LEGAL BANKRUPTCY ANALYSIS

issue from insolvency. Insolvency may follow. Formal insolvency does not occur until a composition (plan of action) is either not presented or is rejected. Bankruptcy was a difficult declaration to achieve previously. The old repealed law provided that bankruptcy (still not insolvency) would be pronounced “if it appears… that the debtor’s condition is such that he has stopped making payments”. So, judges previously held that if a debtor paid even a small fraction of an agreed payment, he could not be declared bankrupt. This confusion has now been cleared away. The case that happened to PT CPTI is very interesting and worth to be analized on the Business Law lecture. So, the detail excavation on the chronologies and detail evidences can be used to gain knowledge on Industrial Business Dispute analysis. The case was started when the Crown capital Global Limited (CCGL), a corporate that was registered at British Virgin Island, put a bankruptcy petition lawsuit against PT CPTI/TPI in a legal documents that gotten from the Indonesian court. The lawsuit was registered by Crown capital Global Limited, through their Indonesian Lawyer Ibrahim Senen, with the registered number of letter No. 31/PAILIT/2009/PN.NIAGA JKT PST, on 19 Juni 2009. The lawyer as corporate plaintiff on his bankruptcy lawsuit, have claimed that PT Cipta Televisi Indonesia have an obligation that have been overdue and can be claimed US$53 millions exclude loan interest, fine and other expenses. The plaintiff lawyer was also invite other creditor, Asian Venture Finance Limited with total debt claimed US$ 10.325 Millions exclude interest and other expenses. Having read the report from PT Crown Capital Global Limited, the Commercial Justice of Central of Jakarta District Court of Justice upholds the claim to put PT Cipta Televisi Indonesia under bankruptcy state condition. And on the finding decision by the Commercial Justice of Central of Jakarta District Court of Justice with legal document no. 52/Pailit/2009/PN.NIAGA.JKT.PST, granting the decision to put the PT. Cipta Televisi Indonesia on bankcrupt condition. Soon then proffed that this decision was premature, as the Commercial justice court did not perform the validation and verification of debt transaction / liabilities of PT. Cipta Televisi Indonesia accurately, made public saw as look as if there were deliberateness from the Commercial Justice to failed PT. Cipta

BUSINESS LAW & ETHICS – LEGAL BANKRUPTCY ANALYSIS

Televisi Indonesia into bankruptcy. People saw that the Commercial Justice did not gave time to PT. Cipta Televisi Indonesia to defend themselves. This strange decision than suspected caused by what we called “Makelar Kasus” or “Markus” or the court ilegal lobyist, who silently directing and affecting the court final decision on their own purposes. This suspicion then brought by PT. Cipta Televisi Indonesia to the cassation at Indonesian Highest Court of Justice review. Then at the Indonesian Highest Court, they review the final decision of previous court justice and giving a different decision. Under review by lead judge Y.H. Abdul Kadir Moppong, with other judge member Zaharuddin Utama and M Hatta Ali, the Highest Court decide to reject the previous decision made by Commercial Court of Jakarta Distric Court. This made the bankruptcy claim that proposed by PT Crown capital Global Limited was failed immediately. The reasons of this decision were, the claim on debt were not that simple, as the existences of the debt it self was in conflict of determination among debitor and creditor.

BASIC THEORY The Law on Bankruptcy of June 1905, as amended in 1998 during Indonesia’s economic crisis, has been fully replaced. The new Indonesian Bankruptcy Law (Law Number 37 of 2004 on Bankruptcy and Suspension of Payment) was promulgated on 18 October 2004. But, the new law has yet to obtain legitimacy due to inadequacies in the amendments made in 1998 and some fundamental problems in the judiciary itself, which are now being addressed by a Judicial Commission that was established on 2 August 2005. The following important provisions have been made in the new law: 1) definitions; 2) more detailed limitations on who may file bankruptcy petitions; 3) procedures and time frames involved in the process of bankruptcy and suspension of payment of companies in Indonesia. 1) Definitions To avoid different interpretations, the new law contains clearer definitions of the legal principles, concepts and words used in the law. A loan is defined as

BUSINESS LAW & ETHICS – LEGAL BANKRUPTCY ANALYSIS

an obligation that: can be measured/stated in the form of money; can be either in Indonesian currency or any foreign currency; will mature directly or contingently; is based on an agreement or laws; and will entitle the creditor to be compensated from the debtor’s assets in the event of default. Maturity (due and payable) is defined as the obligation to repay a loan that is due in accordance with an agreement, or is due based on a sanction or fine imposed by an authorised government agency, or based on a decision of a court or arbitrator. Banckruptcy lawsuit tends to a debtor condition, who has two or more creditors and does not repay in full at least one debt which is due and payable. They can be declared bankrupt by the court. The requirement that the loan be repaid in full was not in the old bankruptcy law. If the above conditions are met, then a petition for bankruptcy may be filed with the relevant commercial court. So when there is a condition a debitor, which have difficulties to pay its debt, sued by one or more creditors to the Commercial court and then given penalties decision on bankruptcy. Then the liquidated assets belong to the debitor will be distributed among creditors to pay its debts. From the Indonesian regulation “Undang-Undang No. 37 Tahun 2004, chapter 1, verse 1; about the bankruptcy and the delay of payment, the bankruptcy will form a liquidation on all debitor asset, which managed and administered by curators under supervision of Indonesian Commercial judge. 2) Petitions A bankruptcy petition or suspension of payment submission may be based on the debtor’s own application or an application by one or more of its creditors. Specific procedures and limitations apply for the following legal entities: 1) Bank Indonesia is the only institution authorised to file a bankruptcy petition (or suspension of payment petition) relating to a bank; 2) The Capital Market Supervisory Board is the only institution authorised to file a bankruptcy petition (or suspension of payment petition) relating to a security company, the stock exchange, a guarantee clearing institution, or a central securities depository; and 3) The Ministry of Finance is the only institution authorized to file a bankruptcy petition (or suspension of payment petition) relating to an insurance or re-insurance company, pension funds, and state-owned enterprises that operate in the public interest. (State-owned enterprises

BUSINESS LAW & ETHICS – LEGAL BANKRUPTCY ANALYSIS

that operate in the public interest are those whose capital is entirely owned by the government of the Republic of Indonesia). Public prosecutors may also submit bankruptcy petitions in the event that: a company (debtor) has two or more creditors and fails to repay at least one due and payable loan, and no bankruptcy petition has been filed against such debtor, and the reason for filing the bankruptcy petition is to protect the public interest. “Public interest” refers to the following: 1) the debtor has absconded; 2) the debtor has embezzled part of its assets; 3) the debtor owes money to state-owned enterprises or another entity which collects money from the public; 4) the debtor has obtained a loan which is derived from the accumulation of public money; 5) the debtor does not show good faith or is uncooperative in solving its matured debts; or 6) other reasons that according to the public prosecutor are within the scope of the public interest. 3) Procedures and time frame The following are the relevant procedures and time frame for a bankruptcy proceeding: 1) A bankruptcy petition will be submitted by the court registrar to the chairman of the commercial court within two days after the date of registration (extended from the previous 24 hours); 2) Within three days after the date on which the bankruptcy petition was registered, the court will review the application and determine the date of hearing (the previous time frame was two days); 3) The bankruptcy decision must be felled within 60 days from the date the bankruptcy petition was registered (previously 30 days); 4) The bankruptcy decision must be sent by express registered mail to: the debtor, the applicant, the receiver, and the supervisory judge, within three days of the date on which the decision was read (previously within two days by registered mail or via courier); 5) A petition for cassation (appeal to the Supreme Court) or civil review (by the Supreme Court of its decision), can be submitted only to the court registrar who will forward it to the counterparty within two days of the date the petition was registered (previously the party who filed the

BUSINESS LAW & ETHICS – LEGAL BANKRUPTCY ANALYSIS

6) 7) 8) 9)

petition had to also distribute it to the other counterparty on the date of registration, and the time frame for the court register to send the application was 24 hours); The counterappeal must also be distributed by the court registrar to the applicant within two days of the date on which it was received; The appeal hearing must be conducted within 20 days of the date the application was received (as before); The decision must be made within 60 days from the date the application was received (previously 30 days); A copy of the decision must be delivered by the registrar of the Supreme Court to the registrar of the district court within three days after the date on which the decision was read (previously the Supreme Court had to deliver copies to the registrar, applicant, counterparty, receiver and supervisory judge within two days);

In bankruptcy proceedings, a summons issued by the court registrar will be deemed to be validly received by the debtor if the summons has been issued by registered express mail at least seven days before the first hearing is to be conducted. CHRONOLOGIES The Chronology of PT CPTI bankruptcy Process are as follows: 1991. The TPI or Televisi Pendidikan Indonesia, was firstly broadcasting its programme on 1st January 1991. The television was broadcasting on air for 2 hours a day from the TVRI studio 2. The TPI was owned by the first doughter of Indonesian third president Mr. H Suharto, Siti Hardijanti Rukmana alias Mbak Tutut. Most of the shares belong to PT Cipta Lamtoro Gung Persada. At the first time, the television that was very popular among the Indonesian middle structure society was having a “not” very good financial performance and management system. Especially; when TPI decide to split out its operation from TVRI; and become a dangdut genre television on the mid of 1990. This situation was not surprised as the nepotism and the usage of unfair government facilities on its operational are not giving positive revenue for the company. From time to time of its operation, the company was accumulating its debt, with negative revenues, causing a bad financial performance of the company.

BUSINESS LAW & ETHICS – LEGAL BANKRUPTCY ANALYSIS

On the 1996. On this year TPI that was managed by mbak Tutut as owner, sell the Subordinated Bonds (Sub Bonds) at the amount of USD53 juta. These Sub Bonds then bought by Peregrine Fixed Income Ltd on 26 December 1996. But on the other day 27 December 1996, the sub bond was backed paid by TPI with sending back the amount of USD53 Millions to Peregrine Fixed Income Ltd. Then the original documents of sub bonds kept by the owner. There was an accusation the the sub bonds documents was taken illegally by Shadik Wahono. On the 2002, the debt of this company was reaching the amount of Rp 1,634 triliun, a very significant amount. On the other hand, Mbak Tutut as a business woman was also entwined by her own business debt. So, as the owner of this television, she was on a brink of dillema, on one side she faced with her own business debt, but on the other side she saw that the TPI was also in big danger caused by its debt. In this circumstance, mbak Tutut then asking for help from her friend Henry Tanoe to pay some of her debt. Hary Tanoe at that time was the general director of PT Bimantara Citra Tbk (BMTR), which now have change its name to be PT Global Mediacom Tbk. PT Bimantara Citra was also a joint share of Bambang Trihatmojo, the little brother of mbak Tutut with Hary Tanoe and friends. The BMTR agreed to pay the debts US$ 55 Millions with take compensation 75% shares of TPI. Then on 23 August 2002, both mbak Tutut and Hary Tanoe using PT Berkah Karya Bersama (BKB) sign the agreement of investment and also sign the the adendum of the take over of TPI 75% shares to PT BKB on February 2003. 2004. On 27 December 2004, without knowing publicly, these sub bonds that have been paid back by TPI; was trade over by Filago Ltd to PT Crown Capital Global Limited. For public interest, this means that the original documents of sub bond have been trade over by the old owner. It also found that the sub bond was trade over between Filago Ltd and CCGL using only the promissory note, so there were no real payments on this transaction. 2009. On the mid of 2009, as told before; PT Cipta Televisi Pendidikan Indonesia (TPI) was put on bankruptcy petition on Commercial Court of Jakarta District Court of Justice, on the accusation of debt delinquent with amount of US$53 Millions to PT Crown Capital Global Limited as debt owner

BUSINESS LAW & ETHICS – LEGAL BANKRUPTCY ANALYSIS

with registered case number No.31/PAILIT/2009/PN.NIAGA.JKT.PST, at 19 June 2009. The plaintiff claimed that PT Cipta Televisi Pendidikan Indonesia have an obligation debt that have been overdue. The plaintiff was also accompanied by Asian Venture Finance Limited, in order to fulfill the ordnance on Indonesian bankruptcy law chapter 2 (1) UU No.37/2004 (Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang (PKPU)). The Asian Venture Finance Limited sued for the debt payment of US$10,325 Millions, exclude the interest, fines and other expenses. PT Crown Capital Global Limited stated that TPI had declared and issued a sub bond on 1996 with the tenure of 10 years, so it will be overdued on 24 December 2006. PT Crown Capital Global Limited become TPI’s creditor by having bought the sub bond from its previous owner; PT Fillago Limited on 2004. Because they have the right of the sub bond, so they have the right to claim the debt from TPI at the overdue date. On the producing of the obligation, PT Bhakti Investama act as placement agent and bond arranger. 14 October 2009, the Commercial court have made decision to put the TPI to bankcrupt condition, and giving a legal rights to all creditors to claim the assets. This decisision got many protest and commented by many Business Law & Ethic practitioner, Indonesian People Representative Council (DPR), Indonesian Broadcasting Commisioner, TPI worker, and many Indonesian people / TPI audiences. The acusation of the existence of MARKUS was so high, so the public opinions were “How can the Commercial Court be easily decided to put the bankcrupt lawsuit to TPI without having a detail validation and verification on the case”. As told by Sang Nyoman, the CEO of TPI, the existence of the “MARKUS” was very obvious, because there were many evidences being presented but did not getting the judges attention, and did not giving any considerations to judges when they made the final decision. But he did not want to boldly tell who are the MARKUS. Instead of he gives an initial “RB” as the MARKUS for this case. This initial name was firstly mentioned when there was a meeting between judges, the curators, and the directors of TPI at 4 November 2009. This situation was feel ridiculuos as TPI thought they have no debt from CCGL. The opinion from Commercial Court, the bankruptcy decision was granted due to the judges assumptions that TPI have no willingness and did not pay their

BUSINESS LAW & ETHICS – LEGAL BANKRUPTCY ANALYSIS

obligation on the long-term liabilities debt/sub-ordinated bond to Crown Capital Global Limited (CCGL). But the evidences and facts that given by TPI are as follows: 1) On 1996, when TPI that was managed by Siti Hardiyanti Rukmana alias Mbak Tutut, issued sub ordinated bond (Sub Bond) on amount US$53 millions. This debt actually was a false debt that was hidden from public in the form of long term liabilities, to cover the actual debt from PT Bruney Investment Agency. The original documents that was kept by the owner then accused taken illegaly by Shadik Wahono. 2) The transaction between Filago Ltd with CCGL was using promissory note (a promises in writing to pay sum of money), so there were no money involved. All of the transaction was beyond knowledge and control of TPI, so if CCGL asking TPI to pay the debts, than it was obviously illegal petition. 3) The reasons that can not be accepted by Indonesian Broadcasting Commisioner were this case have taken the portion of public mass media attention, so the case can not be simplified by Commercial judges, because many parties will be affected. 4) The lawyers of TPI have tried to clarifying the evidences with many othentical facts and circumstantial evidences, include the ATM transaction. And there were no transaction between TPI with Filago or CCGL. 5) On company public liquidated balance sheet 2009, was also no debt in form of sub ordinate bonds with amount of US$53 millions. Also on the 2007 – 2008 publicly balance sheet, there were no transaction between TPI and CCGL as well. 21 Oktober 2009, PT Media Nusantara Citra (MNC), a company belong Hary Tanoesoedibjo involved on the cassation process against the final decision from Commercial Court, because they afraid of getting less on the asset distribution. 16 November 2009, PT Cipta Televisi Pendidikan Indonesia (TPI) put a casation on an accusation of Law & Ethic violation and also report on misbehave of the Commercial judges, to Indonesian Judicial Commisioner. 12 Desember 2009, the Indonesian Suppreme Court (MA) decided to grant PT Cipta Televisi Pendidikan Indonesia (PT CTPI) the request to reject the bankcrupt lawsuit by cassation letter No. 834 K/Pdt.Sus/2009. The judges on this case proffed that it was not as simple as the decision from Jakarta Commer court, because the existence of the debt was so complicated.

BUSINESS LAW & ETHICS – LEGAL BANKRUPTCY ANALYSIS

Also, to make this case complicated, on the Indonesian Bankruptcy law, it is noted that the conditions that can be accepted and presented to court to file bankruptcy petitions are if the transaction takes place with simple, not complex like this on TPI alleged problem. And there should be more than one creditor that have the debt dispute with the company. But in this case, the debt existence was so complex to define, and also there is only one / CCGL who have the debt problem with TPI. Having proven with these two errors, on December 15, 2009 the suppreme court that led by Chief judges Abdul Kadir Moppong with other judges member M. Zaharuddin, Hatta Ali decided that this case was failed and TPI can not put on bankrupt state. This decsion was celebrated by PT TPI; especially PT. Media Nusantara Citra owned Henry Tanoe as a new owner of 75% shares of PT TPI. This decision was rejected by CCGL attorney, and instead of accepting the high supreme court of Indonesia, the lawyer of CCGL Ibrahim Senen put another lawsuit on the accusation of PT TPI directors to Capital Market Supervisory Agency and Financial Institution (Badan Pengawas Pasar Modal and Lembaga Keuangan / Bapepam dan LK) on the manipulation of public finance report. 25 March 2010, the high supreme court / Mahkamah Agung (MA) reject again the bankruptcy petition submitted by Crown Capital Global Limited to fail PT TPI. Instead, the high Supreme Court was giving a sanctioned to CCGL to pay Rp. 10 million on court expenses.

ANALYSIS The Overview of Petition Filing Bankruptcy terms Based on the content of Article 2, paragraph 1, which states that "debtors who have two or more creditors and not pay in full at least one of their debt that has matured and can be billed; declared bankrupt by the Court's decision, either on its own or upon petition of one or more creditors petition ". Under the provisions of the above, then the terms of the jurisdical order that a company be declared bankrupt is as: 1. The existence of the debt; at least one debt is due / mature and payable 2. The existence of more than one lender/creditors 3. Bankruptcy declaration made by a special court called the "Commercial Court" should be “Simple Definition”

BUSINESS LAW & ETHICS – LEGAL BANKRUPTCY ANALYSIS

4. Other juridical terms specified in the Bankruptcy Act. Content of Article 2 paragraph (1) is the cumulative, which means that the terms of the debtor to be declared bankrupt must meet all of the above elements. If the conditions are met, the judge "must declare bankruptcy," not "may declare bankruptcy", so in this case the judges are not given the space to provide a "judgment" as broad as in other cases. TPI bankruptcy analysis, especially regarding whether or not fulfilled the requirements stated in Article 2 paragraph (1) Labor Law in 2004 as well as Article 8, paragraph (4) of the proof of principle is simple. The description of the elements of article 2, paragraph (1) are as follows: 1) The existence of debt. Due to the exact explanation on the existence of debt was still unclear, we will omit this analysis on this part. 2) The existence of the debt is due and can be billed Under the Bankruptcy Law 2004 Article 1 paragraph 6, Debt is an obligation stated or can be expressed as a sum of money in the currency of both Indonesian and foreign currency, either directly or that will arise in the future or contingent, arising from treaties / agreement that must be met by the debtor and, if not met entitles creditors to receive its fulfillment of the Debtor's assets. Debt is an obligation that must be performed or paid by another party, where liability can be born of laws and treaties (Article 1233 KUHPerdata). So it basically means the debt can arise from legislation or treaties. if it is associated with this bankruptcy case, Global Crown Capital Limited (CCGL), which registered in the British Virgin Islands has claimed that have subordinated bond (debt) worth 53 million U.S. dollars, and the Asian Venture Finance Limited (AVFL) registered in the British Virgin Islands, are also claimed to has account receivables amount to U.S. $ 10,350,000. Subordinated Obligation Bonds of USD 53 million was due and can be billed exclude interest, penalties, and other charges. PT Crown became creditors of TPI for having bought the debt from the previous holder, PT Fillago Limited in 2004. Due to they already have the bonds, they claimed to have the right to collect it, TPI should pay the debt, since the due date ends. Debt securities issued in 1996 with a validity period of 10 years that is due on December 24, 2006. Also

BUSINESS LAW & ETHICS – LEGAL BANKRUPTCY ANALYSIS

debts from other creditors, the Asian Venture Finance Limited, billed for U.S. $ 10.325 million, excluding interest, penalties, and other charges. From the results of the investigation, TPI found that CCGL got the sub bond from Filago in 2004, the company which stands in the British Virgin Islands but uses addresses in Wijaya Graha Puri Block A No. 3-4 Jalan Wijaya 2 South Jakarta. Filago Ltd. obtains the sub bond from AVFL Benmall Ltd. The company which is also incorporated in the British Virgin Islands, but it was already liquidated in 1998. Thus, all claims and bills CCGL - AVFL to TPI is invalid. The validation of debt-to-PT Crown found that the Sub Bond documents that have been paid by TPI; been traded from the Filago Ltd to CCGL on December 27, 2004. This indicates that the original Sub Bonds documents taken by previous owner have been traded. Buying and selling Sub Bonds between Filago Ltd with CCGL just using promissory note so there is no payment process. Filago is later revealed that the company is located in Wijaya Graha Puri Block A No. 3-4, Jalan Wijaya 2 South Jakarta, which is also the office of one of the former owners. All transactions diversion Sub Bond; never known and reported to the TPI. Thus it can be concluded that the transaction was illegal. Based on TPI AGM dated July 21, 2006, in the financial statements of PT Media Nusantara Citra (MNC) as a new shareholder of TPI by 75 percent shares; there were never any record that TPI have debt in the form of Sub Bonds valued at USD53 million. Based on the data and information obtained, the CCGL have not a clear legal standing because the plaintiff of CCGL give unclear information about the owner and from the reccord there is only a statement of a capital of USD. 50,000; so it is highly unlikely that the company, which is not having a clear information on its business, was having a capability to giving a loan of business receivables of USD. 53,000,000. The company domicile is in the British Virgin Island, but ride at Camelot Trust Pte address. Ltd., At 14 Ann Siang Rd Unit 02-01 Singapore and all of the companies’ board directors were nominee (not clear identity). 3) The existence of more than one lender/creditors In the Indonesian Bankruptcy Law Article 1, point 2, 2004, the creditor is a person who has a claim for treaty or law that can be billed upfront court. In the case of TPI bankruptcy, bankruptcy petition filed by Crown Capital Global

BUSINESS LAW & ETHICS – LEGAL BANKRUPTCY ANALYSIS

Limited, represented by its legal counsel Ibrahim Senen. To fulfill the elements of article 2 (1) of Law No.37/2004 on Bankruptcy and Suspension of Payment (PKPU), the applicant also include other creditors that is Asian Venture Finance Limited. Thus the above description is clear that the existence of at least two terms or more creditors have been fullfiled. But after proceedings the evidences, the court find out a valid data about the mistakes committed by the judges of the Commercial Court that a provision requiring the number of creditors who filed for bankruptcy must be more than two. But, found there is only one lender, PT Global Crown Capital Limited (CCGL). Meanwhile, the other creditors who mentioned the Asian Venture Finance Limited, assessed companies as 'artificial' or fictitious company, which could not be included in the category of creditors. Asian Venture Limited (AVL) which is clearly no longer has a claim to the TPI, but nonetheless accepted by the judges in the Commercial Court, led by Maryana as one of the creditors. In summary, the CCGL should not be able to file for bankruptcy petition to commercial court. 4) The definition of “simple proof” principle On the completion of a bankruptcy case, the adoption of a simple proof principle should be defined accurately. From the authors opinion, it should be consistent with the terms of bankruptcy law on the simple proof principle in order to support the business world in solving their debts problem in a fair, fast, transparent and effective ways. With the principles of simple proof, the speed in completing the bankruptcy case is very important, given the time constraints from Court ruling to a maximum of 60 days from the date a bankruptcy petition filed. The principle of simple proof is met when a bankruptcy petition or the fact that brought to the court are prerequisite following the bankruptcy declaration in Article 2 paragraph (1) Bankruptcy Law 2004 are met. So it can be concluded, to cut off a bankruptcy petition does not only have to meet the prerequisites of bankruptcy declaration in Article 2 paragraph (1) Labor Law in 2004, but should have also fulfilled a simple proof of principle in article 8, paragraph (4) Bankruptcy Law 2004 (UUK2004). The Mistakes Made by Commercial Court Judges

BUSINESS LAW & ETHICS – LEGAL BANKRUPTCY ANALYSIS

Several obvious mistakes made by previous Commercial Court judges, are 1. The provision that requiring the number of creditors who filed for bankruptcy must be more than two. But, in this issue, there is only one lender, PT Global Crown Capital Limited (CCGL). Meanwhile, the other creditors who mentioned the Asian Venture Finance Limited, assessed companies 'artificial' or fictitious, which could not be included in the category of creditors. 2. It was explained that if the transaction is carried out on the form of longterm bonds (sub-ordinated bonds), especially worth USD53 million is not a simple transaction. While the rules of bankruptcy clearly revealed that the proposed transaction should be simple proof. 3. The plaintiff company CCGL, was not a clear identity, as on the statement are clearly state, that the claimer should be a clear body or organization. After the verification process by the Supreme Court, the mistakes that have not been identified by the Commercial Court began appears, little by little appear in the cassation court. In the statements say that the debt securities (bonds) owned by TPI of U.S. $ 53 million which matures on December 24, 2006 have been successfully paid. Moreover, there are other, more complex problem of the existence of the debt securities. By reviewing these errors, the Supreme Court finally decided the case and stated that the TPI is not bankrupt. Because of the national law, the position of the Supreme Court is the highest court, then this decision can not be contested and PT TPI does not officially bankrupt. THE CONSEQUENCES OF BANKRUPT LAWSUIT Declaration of bankruptcy of a debtor by the Commercial Court Judge with a decision (verdict), not by a statute (beschikking). TPI was sued bankrupt by the Commercial Court judges jakarta Center on October 14, 2009, led by Maryana as the chief judge with two members, Sugeng Riyono and Syarifuddin. With the bankrupt decision at the level of the commercial court, then in accordance with article 15, paragraph 1 of the Bankruptcy Law, 2004, shall be appointed a judge Curator and Supervisor. In this case, the bankruptcy court appointed curator Safitri Hariani, William Edward Daniel, and his assistant through an application to the Central Jakarta Commercial Court cq. supervisory judge Nani Indrawati. Under Article 16 of Law No. 37 of 2004 on Bankruptcy

BUSINESS LAW & ETHICS – LEGAL BANKRUPTCY ANALYSIS

and Suspension of Payment (KPKPU Act) Receivers authorities carry out the validation and verification tasks on the debitor companies assets, soon after the decision was made by the commercial court, even the cassation process are in progress. Based on this request, the team of curators asked the court to set the company's bankruptcy cost calculation which reached Rp537, 479 million, as well as curator and assistant fee totaling Rp3, 743 billion. Determining that the application for insolvency of TPI has ended after the declaration of bankruptcy on TPI rejected by Suppreme Court. The curators has received the decision of the Supreme Court No.834/Pdt.Sus/2009 jo/NO.S2/PAHJT 2009 / PN.NIAGA.JKT.PST at December 15, 2009. CONCLUSION The conclusions about the legal process of bankruptcy case settlement proceeds by Indonesian bankruptcy law is not so easy as the process required a tense investigation on identity of the companies, the existence of debts, and other valid evidences that sometimes are hardly to get. From this case, we can see that how law in Indonesia should be maintained and practiced fairly in order to give a justice to the conflict parties. The most fundamental thing in my opinion is one of the special natures of Indonesian commercial law court proceedings; is a “simple proof” principle, which is not considered by the commercial judge. It was intriguing to analyze how the judge can decide the bankruptcy only by seeing the sub bonds of debt that has matured and is considered to have simple evidentiary criteria. I think this argument was irrational and should be studied more deeply. In these circumstances my opinion is the Jakarta Central Commercial Court judges does not have capability in understanding the meaning of grammatically “simple proof principles: in the article 8, paragraph 4 of Law 37 of 2004 on Bankruptcy and Suspension of Payments kewajiaban Debt (PKPU). Supreme Court decision that has received in this case in my opinion; is correct and has demonstrated a sense of justice. The reasons used to cut deals with evidence that should be verified is not simple and too complicated; are already

BUSINESS LAW & ETHICS – LEGAL BANKRUPTCY ANALYSIS

completely in accordance with Article 8, paragraph 4 of Law 37 of 2004 on Bankruptcy and Suspension of Debt Payments (PKPU) proof must be simple. Refferences • • • • • • • • Indonesian bankruptcy Law, Article 8, paragraph 42, 2004 Lecture documents, at ITB-SBM class; Jesse Ambuwaru 2013 http://putusan.mahkamahagung.go.id/ http://www.scribd.com/doc/30056518/ARTIKEL-KEPAILITAN http://bisnistrategi.blogspot.com/2010/07/kronologi-sengketa-sahamtpi.html http://mnctv.com http://finance.detik.com/read/2010/10/20/114224/1469810/6/tpi-gantibaju-jadi-mnc-tv-per-21-oktober http://www.maverick.co.id/media/2010/10/dibalik-pergantian-nama-tpimenjadi-mnc-tv/