Financial Distress Case of Indonesian Firm: PT Dwi Aneka Jaya Kemasindo Tbk. (DAJK)
Financial Distress Case of Indonesian Firm: PT Dwi Aneka Jaya Kemasindo Tbk. (DAJK)
Financial Distress Case of Indonesian Firm: PT Dwi Aneka Jaya Kemasindo Tbk. (DAJK)
29019033
Major Cause:
Insolvency
The agreement to delist the DAJK securities does not eliminate the liabilities that must be
fulfilled by the company. The total liabilities of the firm amount for Rp 1,15 trillion, consist of
96 creditors. The biggest bill holders are from Bank Mandiri and Standard Chartered Bank. Bank
Mandiri has a bill of Rp 490.19 billion, Singapore SCB Rp 261.48 billion, and Jakarta SCB Rp
100.67 billion. In addition to the two banks, DAJK also has debts to Bank Danaman of Rp 12.05
billion, Citibank of Rp 33.23 billion, Commonwealth of Rp 53.31 billion, and BRI Syariah Bank
of Rp 185.16 billion.
Looking at the firm’s financial statement as of September 2017, the total asset of DAJK is Rp 1,3
trillion, reflecting a decrease from December 2016 which account for Rp 1,5 trillion. The firm
has experienced continuous loss since 2016 meaning the firm was not able to generate profit for
the last three years. Its revenue also has gone down from 2015. The price of the stock also
happened to continuously fall until January 2018 following the firm’s poor performance for the
last three years.
The firm has stated several causes for its financial distress. After the homologation obtained by
the firm, several events happened in the firm causing the firm failed the homologation which
then made the creditor filed cancelation of the homologation. First of all, majority of the
directors resigned right after the homologation statement, leading to a difficult situation for the
administration in such distressed firm. Moreover, shareholders never inject fresh funds (working
capital). So there is no additional capital for the company. As for some time back, the paper
company only runs from a small purchase order (PO). However, the firm strived to defend the
company by filing for cassation in the Supreme Court.
Last but not least, the firm was in the paper and pulp industry in which, at that time, the industry
faced issues making firms have difficulty operating their businesses. The industry was
experiencing barriers to the availability of raw materials both related to government policies and
pressure from competing countries related to environmental problems. Also, the energy and trade
issues are worsening the business environment. In terms of government regulation, there is no
policy that encourages a more conducive business climate for the pulp and paper industry
especially for the availability of raw materials, energy and trade.