No abstract

Tender conspiracy is the most serious violation in business competition cases and is contrary to economic democracy, because it does not provide equal opportunities for every citizen to participate in the process of producing and marketing goods/services in a healthy, effective, and efficient business climate. In the KPPU's Decision Number 10/KPPU-I/2017 it is stated that, Reported Parties I to Reported Parties IX have been legally and convincingly proven to have conspired to tender in the procurement of construction work for the construction of the Mandala Krida Stadium. At the appeal level, the Sleman District Court handed down Decision Number 19/Pdt.Sus-KPPU/2019/PN Smn which rejected the Petitioners' objection. At the cassation level, the Supreme Court in Decision Number 893 K/Pdt.Sus-KPPU/2020 upheld Decision Number 19/Pdt.Sus-KPPU/2019/PN Smn and Decision Number 10/KPPU-I/2017. The purpose of this study is to find out, examine, and analyze the suitability of KPPU's handling of the case of conspiracy to tender the procurement of construction work for the construction of the Mandala Krida Stadium in the Province of Yogyakarta with the applicable laws and regulations, as well as those that are considered by judges both at the district court and the Supreme Court. in strengthening the KPPU's decision Number 10/KPPU-I/2017. This type of research includes normative legal research, using qualitative descriptive analysis. The results of the study show that the KPPU's handling of case Number 10/KPPU-I/2017 and the judges' considerations at the Sleman District Court and the Supreme Court have been in accordance with what is stipulated in the applicable legal provisions.However, the rule of reason approach used by KPPU in this case is considered inappropriate.

Law enforcement in the capital market sector becomes a serious issue, because the varies pattern of capital market business practices is very difficult to identify and qualify which includes a crime and which are not criminal acts. This paper aims to find the ideal law enforcement model in capital market disputes. This thesis is conducted by the juridis normative method by basing approach to the legislation in force. The research results show that there are several factors that can cause capital market legal enforcement is not optimal, they are, legal enforcement factor, regulation factor, and legal cultural factor. To further optimize there needs to be a change of paradigm in legal enforcement that is, progressive legal enforcement, with the strengthening of watchdog institutions such as Market watchdog conducted by financial services authority, and the establishment of a special institution for settlement of capital market disputes.

Penelitian ini untuk mengetahui pelaksanaan pengadaan tanah pengadaan tanah untuk kepentingan pembangunan perumahan, bentuk perlindungan hukum bagi konsumen yang membeli unit rumah dan bentuk penyelesaian apabila terjadi perselisihan antara pengembang dan konsumen perumahan di Kabupaten Gunungkidul.Jenis penelitian yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah penelitian normatif empiris dengan menggunakan metode pendekatan perundang-undangan yang didukung oleh data empiris yang dilakukan dengan penelitian lapangan dan penelitian kepustakaan sebagai penunjang. Sarana yang digunakan dalam pengumpulan data primer adalah pedoman wawancara sedangkan pengumpulan data sekunder dilakukan dengan studi dokumen.Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa pelaksanaan pengadaan tanah untuk kepentingan pembangunan perumahan di Kabupaten Gunungkidul sudah berjalan sesuai dengan ketentuan peraturan perundang-undangan yang berlaku, namun masih terdapat kendala yang dihadapi dalam prosesnya, hal ini dikarenakan masih adanya pihak kedua belah pihak. dalam unsur penyelenggara pemerintahan dan partai. pengembang perumahan yang belum mengetahui dan memahami tahapan proses dalam pengadaan tanah untuk kepentingan pembangunan perumahan khususnya yang berkaitan dengan sistem Online Single Submission. Upaya perlindungan hak konsumen oleh pengembang perumahan telah dilakukan sesuai dengan ketentuan namun masih terdapat pelanggaran hak konsumen dalam pembelian unit rumah di Kabupaten Gunungkidul. Berdasarkan data BPSK Yogyakarta, tidak ada permintaan penyelesaian sengketa.

This research aims to find out how legal protection for investors in the event of delisting in issuers and how the role of the Financial Services Authority (FSA) in providing legal protection for investors when delisting on issuers occurs. In this research used normative legal research with methods of legal, comparative, conceptual and case approaches. The legal materials used in this research include primary legal materials, secondary legal materials and tertiary legal materials with the data collection methods used are literature studies and document studies. As for the daya analysis method used is a qualitative perspective method. The results obtained from this study are that it can be seen that the capital market in Indonesia has tried to provide legal protection for capital market investors in the event of a delisting of issuers through the application of the principle of transparency and the implementation of existing regulations in the capital market including the implementation of Undang-Undang Nomor 8 Tahun 1995 tentang Pasar Modal, Undang-Undang Nomor 40 Tahun 2007 tentang Perseroan Terbatas, the Civil Code (KUHPerdata), and various regulations stipulated by the FSA regarding delisting. In addition, through various regulations in the Indonesian capital market, it can be seen that the FSA is given a very large mandate to provide legal protection for investors, especially in the event of a delisting of issuers.