Ratification of a legal entity based on the issuance of a Decree of the Minister of Law and Human Rights requires a process that is not brief. Meanwhile, corporation which has not been ratified as a legal entity does not rule out the possibility that the promotors of corporation will carry out legal actions in the name of corporation. This journal aims to provide an explanation of the extent to which the liability of corporation and promoters on contracts made before corporation becomes a legal entity. The research methods in this study are conceptual approach and statute approach. Law Number 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Companies in Indonesia currently regulates the liability of promotors before corporation becomes a legal entity. From this journal, it will be known that liability which appears from pre-incorporation contract lies on promotor before corporation becomes a legal entity, but when the legal action has been approved by the General Meeting of Shareholders or has been stated in the deed of establishment, it will become corporate's actions, therefore the liability is also attached.

The limit of material claim in the small claims court regulated in PERMA Number 4 of 2019 can be seen as a limitation towards the choice of forums for resolving disputes. Therefore, this research initiates a legal breakthrough that allows the limit of material claim to be deviated by agreement or contract. After analyzing the relevant legal sources, it can be concluded that the formation of a small claims court based on an agreement is in accordance with the principles of quick, simple, and affordable trial. In line with the utilitarian approach and economic analysis of law, it is expected that the expansion of the range of small claims court procedures will bring benefits to the community, especially incresing the ease of doing business in Indonesia. This idea does not violate the basic principles of a small claims court because it only changes the terms of a dispute that can be resolved by a small claims procedures, while the mechanism for examining the case still refers to the existing regulations. The formulation of the norm can be read:“The maximum value of the lawsuit is IDR 500,000,000.00 (five hundred million rupiah), unless otherwise agreed with a written agreement that expressly states that the dispute resolution chosen is a small claims court forum of which the  material claims exceed the maximum limit regulated in PERMA Number 4 of 2019.”

Korupsi yang merupakan masalah global telah menyebabkan tingginya kerugian keuangan dan perekonomian negara di Indonesia. United Nation Convention Against Corruption telah mencanangkan rekomendasi kepada negara-negara untuk membuat pengaturan mengenai Non-Conviction Based Asset Forfeiture sebagai upaya untuk mengembalikan kerugian negara secara maksimal. Kerugian negara yang telah kembali saat ini masih tidak sebanding dengan kerugian negara yang secara nyata ada akibat korupsi. Urgensi ini lah yang menghadirkan konsep perlunya pengaturan mengenai Non-Conviction Based Asset Forfeiture di Indonesia. Penelitian yang digunakan bersifat yuridis normatif dengan pendekatan peraturan perundang-undangan (statute approach) dan pendekatan konseptual (conceptual approach). Peraturan perundang-undangan di Indonesia sejatinya telah mengadopsi konsep Non-Conviction Based Asset Forfeiture, namun tidak memenuhi secara maksimal dasar filosofis adanya konsep tersebut, yaitu mengembalikan kerugian negara akibat korupsi secara maksimal dan cepat dengan mekanisme peradilan perdata. Sehingga, undang-undang yang mengatur mengenai perampasan aset perlu dibuat tersendiri dan diundangkan untuk mengakomodasi upaya pengembalian kerugian negara akibat korupsi secara maksimal.

In the futuristic era, transportation is one of the essential necessities for society. The dynamism of urban and rural life makes all groups of people need adequate and usable accommodation in general. However, land transportation infrastructure in Indonesia is not maximally available so it requires a lot of development. The construction of transportation infrastructure requires enormous costs, so the solution that can be used is to use a financing scheme. One of the simpler financing schemes is direct lending. The purpose of this research are to explain two main topics. First, is to analyze the legal relation of the parties in providing direct lending to finance transportation infrastructure. Second, is to determine the legal remedies that the government can take when the borrowers default on lending to finance transportation infrastructure. The type of research used is doctrinal legal research so as to produce a clear and detailed legal analysis regarding direct lending to finance land transportation infrastructure. When a borrower, who has been bound in an agreement with a lender, breach of contract, the borrower can be subject to two options of legal remedies.

<p align="justify">Indonesia sebagai surga keanekaragaman hayati kedua terbesar di dunia setelah Brazil, menjadikan Indonesia rawan sebagai objek <em>biopiracy </em>oleh peneliti asing. Kasus Peneliti LIPI serta Kasus Shiseido menjadi bukti bahwa peraturan perundang-undangan yang berlaku di Indonesia belum memberikan perlindungan yang optimal serta menjamin kelestarian keanekaragaman hayati Indonesia. Dalam melakukan penelitian ini, penulis merumuskan permasalahan sebagai berikut: 1) Apakah peraturan perundang-undangan yang ada di Indonesia telah memberikan perlindungan hukum terhadap varietas lokal atas tindakan biopiracy yang dilakukan oleh peneliti asing? dan 2) Apakah Pemulia tanaman yang melakukan biopiracy dapat dilegitimasi untuk mendapatkan hak Perlindungan Varietas Tanaman? Metode penelitian yang digunakan untuk melakukan penelitian ini adalah metode penelitian hukum normatif yang berupa pendekatan peraturan perundang-undangan (<em>statute approach</em>) dan pendekatan konseptual (<em>conceptual approach</em>). Hasil penelitian yang didapatkan adalah Indonesia belum membentuk undang-undang yang secara <em>sui generis</em> mengatur mengenai <em>biopiracy</em>, namun untuk saat ini telah ada beberapa peraturan perundang-undangan yang secara implisit menentang praktik-praktik <em>biopiracy</em>.</p>