ABSTRAK
Badan Usaha Milik Daerah (BUMD) untuk mengembangkan usahanya seringmengikat perjanjian kredit dengan bank. BUMD memberikan jaminan bisa berupasewa guna bangunan atau hak pakai tanah negara apabila sudah diperjanjikanterdahulu oleh kedua belah pihak. BUMD bisa dipailitkan karena telah memenuhiPasal 2 UU No.37 Tahun 2004 Tentang Kepailitan dan Penundaan PembayaranPiutang. Dalam hal ini, BUMD dilelang bukan di Pantia Urusan Piutang Negaramelainkan kepailitan diserahkan kepada hukum acara perdata karena BUMDmerupakan badan hukum privat yang pengaturan menggunakan Undang-UndangPerseroan Terbatas. Dalam hal ini yang menjadi kendala pada saat pembagianhasil penjualan aset debitor terutama hak kreditor separatis ketika kurator telahmemasukan klasul beban gaji pegawai 2008-2009 dan sewa hak pakai atas tanahperusahaan daerah Bali kedalam boedel pailit. Seharusnya, kurator hanyamemasukan beban sewa kedalam boedel pailit bukan dengan menambah bebangaji pegawai perusahaan daerah Bali kedalam boedel pailit. Ketetapan MahkamahAgung No.123/Kasasi/PDT.Sus/2010 harus batal demi hukum karena dalil yangdiajukan Pengadilan Niaga Surabaya sudah batal demi hukum. Terakhir,Ketetapan Mahkamah Agung No.150/Peninjauan Kembali/PDT.SUS/2011 yangdiajukan oleh kreditor konkuren dengan bukti baru bahwa pembagian sisa hasillelang tidak dibagikan berdasarkan prinsip secara prorata. Dengan demikian,kreditur separatis tidak mendapatkan perlindungan yang wajar sesuai Pasal 60Undang-Undang No.37 Tahun 2004 Tentang Kepailitan dan PenundaanKewajiban Pembayaran Utang. Peristiwa hukum tersebut melahirkan penelitianyang menggunakan metode pendekatan yuridis normatif. Penelitian tersebutditopang dengan pengumpulan data yang diperoleh dari kepustakaan yangdituangkan kedalam deskritif analisis. Menurut hasil penelitian ternyatapenyelesaian masalah kreditor separatis bisa ditangguhkan dengan cara titleeksekutorial yang berdasarkan Pasal 20 Undang-Undang No.4 Tahun 1996Tentang Hak Tanggungan dan penyelesaian masalah kredit perbankan bisamelalui pengambil alihan agunan sesuai Pasal 12 A Undang-Undang No.10 Tahun1998 Tentang Perbankan. Setelah ada keseimbangan antara peraturan haktanggungan dengan peraturan perbankan kemungkinan bisa memprioritaskankedudukan kreditor separatis sesuai Pasal 55 Undang-Undang No.37 Tahun 2004Tentang Kepailitan dan Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang.

---

ABSTRACT
If a Local Government Owned Enterprise (LGOE) willing to expand its business,they must bind credit agreement with the bank. The LGOE can guarantee rentbuildings or land use rights if the state had earlier agreed by both parties. LGOEcan be bankrupted if it meet article 2 of the law No.37 in 2004 years onbankruptcy and suspension of payment accounts. In this regard, enterprises areauctioned instead trustee, state receivables affairs bankruptcy but handed over tocivil procedural law as a legal entity of private enterprises. That using thecompany’s Act Limited debt owned enterprises was the non-governmentaccounts. In the case, the constrained goes on the distribution of assets from thesale of public enterprises where separatist creditor’s did not get benefit from offproperty debitor. Therefore could to include from mistake of the curator whilecalculated of obligation debitor. Properly devide not salary of employee fromassets debitor for separatist creditor’s. As what is true in decision Supreme CourtNo.123/Apple/Privat /2010, curator had counted clausul of salary employee in2008 - 2009 Bali of Local Goverment Enterprises to listing bankruption. TheUnderlying principle of the curator because of Abadi Persada Nusantara companywas done of rent agreement about soil of right utility to Bali of LocalGovernment. Consequently, what happens next are burdens of rent and salary ofemployee Bali of Local Goverment. This decision could been invalid law becausethis case was canceled of comersial law court in Surabaya. Last of creditors withnovum as sharing production did not agree principle secured prorata. As a resultis separtist creditor’s do not get protection whom real matching on arcticle 60 ofAct No. 37 of 2004 in Bankrupt and Suspension Payment Account. Law eventsmentioned above spawned research using normative judicial approach. Thereasearch was supported by collection of data obtained from the literature which ispoured into a descriptive analysis. According to results of research it turns out theproblem solving separatist creditor’s possibly suspended by way of the titleexecutor based on article 20 of Act No.4 of 1996 in dependents right and thesettlement of bank could take out the guarantee with it self on article 12 A ActNo.10 of 1998 in Bank. When there is balance between guarantee regulation andbanking regulation could prioritize separatis creditor’s position matching onArticle 55 of Act No. 37 of 2004 in Bankrupt and Suspension Payment Acccount.