Reexamination of the Curator’s Authority in Convening a General Meeting of Shareholders (GMS) for the Liquidation Bankrupt Estate Assets
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.46799/ijssr.v6i7.1454Keywords:
Curator, General Meeting of Shareholders (GMS), Bankrupt Estate, Legal Reconstruction, Legal CertaintyAbstract
This study examines the authority of the curator in convening or facilitating a General Meeting of Shareholders (GMS) in a Limited Liability Company (LLC) declared bankrupt, with a particular focus on the curator’s role in the settlement of the bankrupt estate. This research employed a normative juridical approach using statutory, case, and conceptual approaches, with secondary legal materials obtained through library research. Three core issues were analyzed: first, the normative conflict between bankruptcy law (Law No. 37 of 2004) and company law (Law No. 40 of 2007) concerning the position of the GMS in bankrupt LLCs; second, the appropriate legal construction for addressing the normative gap regarding the curator’s authority to convene a GMS based on authority theory and the principle of legal certainty; and third, a future model for the curator’s authority in implementing a GMS for the settlement of bankrupt estate assets. The findings reveal the existence of a normative conflict and legal vacuum regarding the relationship between the curator’s authority and the GMS in bankrupt LLCs, resulting in legal uncertainty in practice. This study proposes a legal reconstruction model that positions the curator as the party authorized to convene a GMS under specific circumstances related to the settlement of bankrupt estate assets, subject to approval from the supervisory judge and compliance with the GMS mechanisms established under company law. It concludes that reconstructing the curator’s authority through harmonization between Law No. 37 of 2004 and Law No. 40 of 2007 is necessary to achieve legal certainty, strengthen creditor protection, and ensure the effective settlement of bankrupt estate assets.
References
Abdul Manan. (2018). Aspek-aspek pengurusan dan pemberesan dalam kepailitan. Kencana.
Afreeportamara, N. W. (2019). Hambatan kurator dalam menyelesaikan piutang koperasi yang diputus pailit. Jurnal Pasca Sarjana Hukum, 7(2).
Agustina, N. M. A. D. P., & Saraswati, P. S. (2021). Tinjauan yuridis UU No. 37 Tahun 2004 mengenai PKPU dalam hal debitur pailit di masa Covid-19. Media Keadilan: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum, 12(1).
Alweni, B. F., & Ringkuangan. (2022). Pengurusan harta pailit berdasarkan Undang-Undang Nomor 37 Tahun 2004. Jurnal Lex Privatum, 10(1).
Ananingsih, S. W., & Tryadi, L. (2024). Perlindungan hukum bagi pemegang saham dalam pemberesan harta perseroan terbatas terbuka yang pailit. Jurnal Ilmu Hukum, Humaniora dan Politik, 5(2).
Ariestawaty, N. (2025). Rekonstruksi regulasi penyelesaian kepailitan dan PKPU oleh kurator dan pengurus yang berbasis nilai keadilan (Disertasi, Universitas Islam Sultan Agung).
Harahap, M. Y. (2016). Hukum perseroan terbatas. Sinar Grafika.
Jayalantara, A. A. N. (2024). Objektivitas kepentingan umum pada kewenangan jaksa sebagai dasar mengajukan pailit (Disertasi, Universitas Hasanuddin).
Kharisma, A. P. (2023). Kedudukan hukum kreditor separatis atas jaminan kebendaan milik guarantor yang telah pailit. Jurnal Perspektif, 28(2).
Lyanthi, M. E., & Ranovianto, A. R. (2024). Tanggung jawab perdata atas tindakan lalai kurator dalam kepengurusan harta pailit (boedel pailit). Journal Publicuho, 7(3), 1057–1071.
Mulyatno, A. D. (2022). Kewenangan kurator untuk mengurus perseroan terbatas pailit. Asas Wa Tandhim: Jurnal Hukum, Pendidikan & Sosial Keagamaan, 1(2).
Nadifa, A., & Priyono, E. A. (2025). Analisis putusan kepailitan dalam upaya perdamaian sebagai alternatif penyelesaian. Jurnal Kertha Semaya, 13(4).
Silalahi, R., & Purba, O. (2020). Peran dan wewenang kurator dalam kepailitan perseroan terbatas. Jurnal Retenrum, 1(2).
Soeprapto, M. F. I. (2019). Ilmu perundang-undangan. Kanisius.
Sriwidodo, J., & Tumanggor. (2024). Perkembangan hukum kepailitan dan PKPU di Indonesia. Kepel Press.
Sjahdeini, S. R. (2010). Hukum kepailitan: Memahami Undang-Undang No. 37 Tahun 2004. Pustaka Utama Grafiti.
Sukananda, S. (2022). Legal standing pemegang saham yang tidak memperoleh dividen untuk mengajukan pailit. Jurnal Mimbar Hukum, 34(2).
Tandra, S. (2022). Hukum kepailitan: Kertas kerja kurator dan pengurus. Laksbang Pustaka.
Tirayo, A. M., & Halim, Y. (2019). Problematik definisi harta pailit untuk kepastian hukum dalam kepailitan dan PKPU. Jurnal Ilmiah Penegakan Hukum, 6(2).
Triantini, N. N. D., & Laksana, I. G. N. D. (2020). Tanggung jawab dewan komisaris terkait kepailitan perseroan terbatas. Kertha Semaya: Journal Ilmu Hukum, 8(6).
Triyanto, T. (2024). Rekonstruksi regulasi sita umum dengan sita pidana dalam kepailitan yang berbasis nilai keadilan (Disertasi, Universitas Islam Sultan Agung).
Wibowo, B. H. (2023). Upaya kurator memaksimalkan aset KI milik perseroan terbatas saat pailit atau penundaan kewajiban pembayaran utang. Jurnal Kertha Negara, 11(10).
Yuwono, M. Y. (2015). Perkembangan kewenangan RUPS perseroan terbatas di Indonesia. Jurnal Notarius, 8(2).
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Jo Wendy Suyoto, Waty Suwarty Haryono, Yuherman Yuherman, Saefullah Saefullah
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International. that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
