Explore the evidence.
Understand the reach.

The financial system in any country plays a critical role in facilitating payment and providing policy and performance anchors to the economy. Therefore, systemic financial distress manifests in industry-level financial distress by front-hitting the financial system first. Financial organizations’ failure triggers a domino effect on the whole ecosystem, and therefore financial institutions enjoy various layers of protection when their operations show signs of distress. Several financial industry players worldwide have experienced financial distress in one form or another during episodes of systemic crisis such as the 2008 international financial crisis. Although the distress might not have necessarily led to bankruptcy or liquidation in some cases, it left several questions unanswered, particularly with respect to a leadership role, ecosystem contingencies, and the recovery mechanism. This study scanned recent extant literature on organizational financial distress and identified essential gaps for future research. The study provided a holistic review of antecedents, outcomes, and intra-industry characteristics of financial distress. The study found that the leadership role as an orchestrative agent in an organizational ecosystem has not been adequately addressed in the extant literature. The study contributes to the literature by clarifying leadership aspects of systemic financial distress by placing leadership within the core of the financial ecosystem before, during, and after distress. Outcomes and recommendations for future research are proposed.

The establishment of the Bankruptcy Law aims to overcome the difficulties of the business world in terms of debt and receivables in continuing their activities. However, in practice the PKPU and Bankruptcy institutions are used as a means of resolving ordinary civil disputes, this is due to Article 225 paragraph (3) and (5) in conjunction with Article 222 paragraph (1) and (2). The purpose of this study is to analyze the ratio legis for debtors in relation to the ratio legis Article 225 paragraph (3) and paragraph (5) associated with the purpose of establishing Bankruptcy and Suspension Of Debt Payment Obligations (UUK-PKPU). This research is normative legal research with a statute approach, the case approach, historical approach, comparative approach, and the conceptual approach. The legal materials used are primary, secondary, and tertiary. The analysis technique uses legal logic, legal interpretation teleologically, hermeneutics, grammatically, and systematically. The results of the study indicate that the ratio legis regarding PKPU as regulated in Article 225 paragraph (3) and paragraph (5) has a vague norm when it comes to the purpose of establishing UUK-PKPU, that PKPU is a means for debtors so that debtors can restructure their debts. So that no rights are given to debtors who are not present at the PKPU session resulting in no legal protection for the debtor to defend himself by conveying the reasons for the debtor's absence.

The establishment of the Bankruptcy Law aims to overcome the difficulties of the business world in terms of debt and receivables in continuing their activities. However, in practice the PKPU and Bankruptcy institutions are used as a means of resolving ordinary civil disputes, this is due to Article 225 paragraph (3) and (5) in conjunction with Article 222 paragraph (1) and (2). The purpose of this study is to analyze the ratio legis for debtors in relation to the ratio legis Article 225 paragraph (3) and paragraph (5) associated with the purpose of establishing Bankruptcy and Suspension Of Debt Payment Obligations (UUK-PKPU). This research is normative legal research with a statute approach, the case approach, historical approach, comparative approach, and the conceptual approach. The legal materials used are primary, secondary, and tertiary. The analysis technique uses legal logic, legal interpretation teleologically, hermeneutics, grammatically, and systematically. The results of the study indicate that the ratio legis regarding PKPU as regulated in Article 225 paragraph (3) and paragraph (5) has a vague norm when it comes to the purpose of establishing UUK-PKPU, that PKPU is a means for debtors so that debtors can restructure their debts. So that no rights are given to debtors who are not present at the PKPU session resulting in no legal protection for the debtor to defend himself by conveying the reasons for the debtor's absence.

The financial system in any country plays a critical role in facilitating payment and providing policy and performance anchors to the economy. Therefore, systemic financial distress manifests in industry-level financial distress by front-hitting the financial system first. Financial organizations’ failure triggers a domino effect on the whole ecosystem, and therefore financial institutions enjoy various layers of protection when their operations show signs of distress. Several financial industry players worldwide have experienced financial distress in one form or another during episodes of systemic crisis such as the 2008 international financial crisis. Although the distress might not have necessarily led to bankruptcy or liquidation in some cases, it left several questions unanswered, particularly with respect to a leadership role, ecosystem contingencies, and the recovery mechanism. This study scanned recent extant literature on organizational financial distress and identified essential gaps for future research. The study provided a holistic review of antecedents, outcomes, and intra-industry characteristics of financial distress. The study found that the leadership role as an orchestrative agent in an organizational ecosystem has not been adequately addressed in the extant literature. The study contributes to the literature by clarifying leadership aspects of systemic financial distress by placing leadership within the core of the financial ecosystem before, during, and after distress. Outcomes and recommendations for future research are proposed.