A commercial dispute between PT Orela and PT Pelayaran Samudera Rizqi (PSR) has taken a controversial turn as proceedings in Jakarta’s Central District Court raise concerns over alleged legal manipulation, questionable debt claims, and professional misconduct within Indonesia’s bankruptcy system.
The case centers on a petition for Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations (PKPU) filed by PT Orela against PSR, which ostensibly stems from a dispute over the loan of salvage equipment. But PSR’s board claims the issue runs deeper than an unpaid bill. They argue that this is a case of internal sabotage — a misuse of legal instruments by former insiders seeking to disrupt the company’s operations from within.
“This is no longer about a debt. It’s about the integrity of corporate governance and the future of doing business in Indonesia,” said PSR Commissioner Rita Hendrawaty in a press briefing after Monday’s court session.
Debt Claims Without Contractual Basis
At the heart of the case is a debt claim involving airbag equipment allegedly loaned by PT Orela for a PSR salvage operation. However, PSR asserts that there was no formal agreement in place — no signed contract, no board-approved debt acknowledgment, and no official correspondence legitimizing the transaction.
“Without a legitimate legal basis, the PKPU filing appears deeply problematic,” said Rita, noting that the company never authorized such obligations under its corporate structure.
Legal Moves and Power Shifts
Further complicating matters is the backdrop of a recent change in PSR’s leadership. In early 2025, shareholders convened an Extraordinary General Meeting (RUPS LB), removing the previous board of directors without granting them acquit et de charge — meaning the former executives remain legally accountable for past actions.
According to shareholder Rudi Rusmadi, the timing of the PKPU petition is suspicious. “The claims emerged only after the change in management. It raises the possibility of collusion between the former board and external parties,” said Rudi, who represents the interests of PT Kemala Permanik and PT Pelayaran Samudera Logistindo.
He further alleged that the PKPU process is being exploited as a strategic tool to destabilize the company, rather than resolve financial obligations.
Questions of Legal Ethics
Perhaps the most serious accusation involves the company’s former legal counsel. Rudi contends that the lawyer previously representing PSR actively encouraged external parties to file the PKPU against the company — a move that, if true, could constitute a breach of fiduciary duty.
“How can a legal adviser, who is bound to protect the company’s interests, become an agent in its potential downfall?” he questioned.
