Environmental compensation as debt in bankruptcy: the curator’s responsibility for a debtor’s environmental obligations in Indonesia

Purpose Indonesia’s bankruptcy law does not expressly regulate how curators must treat final and binding court rulings ordering environmental compensation, creating a normative gap in the protection of environmental claims. This paper aims to examine the legal status of such rulings as debts in bankruptcy and analyses the curator’s responsibility for notifying and verifying these claims when administering the estate of a debtor holding an environmental approval. Design/methodology/approach This study uses normative legal research using statutory, conceptual, case and comparative approaches. It examines the bankruptcy of PT Ricky Kurniawan Kertapersada (PT RKK) as the primary case, alongside the PT Yinchenindo tax-claim precedent. Comparative references include the United States’ Midlantic doctrine, Canada’s Redwater decision and China’s Guiding Case No. 214. These materials are analysed to assess the legal position of environmental compensation judgements as debts and the scope of curators’ responsibilities in bankruptcy proceedings. Findings This study finds that a final environmental compensation ruling satisfies the statutory definition of debt under Indonesia’s Bankruptcy Law, while the state remains a concurrent creditor under the existing framework. The PT RKK case reveals a gap in early notification and claim verification, as the state’s claim was recognised only after a renvoi objection. The paper argues that existing notification duties and supervisory-judge powers can be operationalised through judicial guidance, enabling earlier notification and verification of environmental claims without changing their statutory creditor ranking. Originality/value This paper contributes a focused normative analysis of environmental compensation judgements in Indonesian bankruptcy by identifying a structural gap in curators’ notification and verification responsibilities. Unlike analyses centred primarily on creditor ranking or the outcome of claim disputes, it treats the PT RKK case as a basis for developing a preventive procedural safeguard. Its proposed approach operationalises existing statutory notification duties and supervisory-judge powers through guidance addressed to commercial court judges, offering a targeted means of strengthening legal protection without creating a new creditor priority.