To foster foreign investment and attract leading international universities to establish campuses in Vietnam, the government has recently adopted several regulations, including Decree No. 124/2025 on foreign cooperation and investment in the field of education, Decree No. 125/2024 on regulatory requirements for educational investment and operation, and Decision No. 452/QD-TTg approving the Planning of the Network of University and Teaching Institutions for the Period 2021–2030, with a Vision to 2050 (the “University Network Plan”). However, foreign investors and private higher educational institutions must still navigate regulatory complexities, build strong academic reputations, and ensure financial sustainability to compete effectively in an increasingly competitive landscape. Below are highlights of recent developments in university-related regulations that may open new opportunities for foreign investment in Vietnam. Adopting the University Network Plan The University Network Plan encourages the development of private higher education institutions (“HEIs”), especially not-for-profit ones, and welcomes top foreign HEIs to open their own foreign branch campuses (“FBCs”) in Vietnam, with the following targets. Until 2030: Encouraging new establishment and expansion of the network of private HEIs (including their branch campuses) and FBCs of top foreign HEIs, especially those offering training majors of science, engineering, and technology. Developing regional HEI networks along economic corridors centered on large cities—not only the traditional economic hubs of Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City, but also other provinces and cities throughout the country such as Hai Phong, Nghe An (Vinh), Thanh Hoa, Hue, Da Nang, Khanh Hoa (Nha Trang), Binh Đinh (Quy Nhon), Dak Lak (Buon Ma Thuot), Lam Dong (Da Lat), Binh Duong, and Can Tho. Vision to 2050: Increasing the number and proportion of private HEIs, especially not-for-profit ones. Having private HEIs account for about 50% of learners. Requirements for Foreign Investment in Higher Education Foreign investors can engage in higher education business

Tilleke & Gibbins recently assisted Bitmain, a leading manufacturer of cryptocurrency mining hardware, in successful cancellation action lawsuits against BITMAIN and ANTMINER trademarks that were unlawfully registered by a local party in Indonesia. Background Founded in 2013, Bitmain is a leading manufacturer of digital currency mining servers, marketed under their BITMAIN and ANTMINER brands. The company has maintained a strong global market share, with customers in over 100 countries and regions. In Indonesia, Bitmain has held the BITMAIN trademark registration in classes 35, 36, 41, and 42 since 2018. However, the company was unable to register the trademark in other classes because a local party had already registered the mark in the desired classes. Bitmain also discovered that their ANTMINER brand had been registered by the same local party, which impeded Bitmain’s application to register the ANTMINER trademark in Indonesia. Bitmain had been using these trademarks and products worldwide long before the local party’s registration in Indonesia, and had also secured trademark registrations in various countries. However, the local party exploited Indonesia’s first-to-file principle, securing the BITMAIN and ANTMINER trademarks before Bitmain could file. This was a classic example of trademark squatting, where a party registers a foreign trademark in a jurisdiction where the original owner has not yet filed, with the intent to profit from the brand’s success. Initial Approach Upon discovering that the local party had made these trademark applications, Bitmain found that one of these applications was still in the publication period. We advised and assisted Bitmain to file opposition against the application, but this opposition was subsequently refused because the local party had already obtained identical BITMAIN trademarks in other classes. Consequently, the application was registered in the Trademark Office database. Following the unfavorable opposition decision, we initially worked with Bitmain to seek a mutually

In recent years, Vietnam has positioned itself among the leading countries in the world in terms of digital asset ownership and trading volume. This rapid adoption reflects the country’s growing digital economy and the increasing engagement of individuals and businesses in blockchain-based financial activities. Central to this growth are Resolution No. 57-NQ/TW of the Politburo dated December 22, 2024, on breakthroughs in science, technology, innovation, and national digital transformation with a vision to 2045 (“Resolution 57”) and Resolution No. 03/NQ-CP of the Government dated January 9, 2025, promulgating the Action Plan to Implement Resolution 57 (“Resolution 03”), which outline a flexible and innovative policy framework that embraces pilot programs for emerging technologies to lay the groundwork for Vietnam’s legislative framework concerning cryptocurrency and blockchain technologies. Regulatory clarity in terms of digital assets and blockchain technologies is now more critical than ever for businesses and investors. In light of this, Vietnam is currently in the process of introducing three key legal instruments, with drafts of the Law on Digital Technology Industry (“Draft DTI Law”), Resolution of the National Assembly on the Establishment of Regional and International Financial Centers in Vietnam (“Draft Financial Center Resolution”), and Resolution of the Government on the Pilot Implementation of Crypto Asset Markets in Vietnam (“Draft Crypto Pilot Resolution”) nearing promulgation. Current Regulatory Direction and Schedule Vietnam’s regulatory framework for crypto assets and blockchain has been in a developmental stage since 2017, focusing on directions, plans, and schedules rather than established regulations. In February 2024, under Decision No. 194/QD-TTg of the Prime Minister, the Ministry of Finance (MOF) was assigned to draft a legal framework to either prohibit or regulate virtual assets and service providers by May 2025, signaling a clearer regulatory direction. In March 2025, Directive No. 05/CT-TTg of the Prime Minister directed the MOF

While Thailand’s Foreign Business Act B.E. 2542 (1999) (FBA) has been in place for over two decades, the issue of nominee arrangements remains a hot topic—especially as authorities continue to crack down on businesses that use Thai nationals to hold shares in violation of foreign ownership restrictions under the FBA. The FBA was enacted to limit foreign parties (which includes foreign individuals, offshore legal entities, and foreign majority-owned companies in Thailand) ability to conduct certain business activities in Thailand without authorization. This legal restriction has led many business operators to use nominees to operate their businesses. Similar to many other countries, nominee arrangements are illegal in Thailand. The FBA expressly prohibits foreigners from using Thai nationals to hold shares on their behalf in a way that enables them to own and operate reserved businesses under the law. Engaging in such arrangements (including conducting a business without the necessary license under the FBA) can result in severe penalties, including imprisonment, fines, and the forced dissolution of the business. The authorities, particularly the Ministry of Commerce and the Department of Special Investigation, continue to actively pursue cases involving suspected nominees. The FBA categorizes businesses into three lists, each outlining different levels of restrictions on foreign ownership and participation: List 1: Foreign business operators are strictly prohibited from engaging in any of the business activities on list 1, such as media outlets (newspapers, radio, and television), rice farming, forestry, extraction of Thai medicinal herbs, and land trading. List 2: Foreign business operators must obtain a foreign business license (FBL) from the Department of Business Development (DBD) and secure approval from the Thai cabinet to engage in a business activity on list 2. In addition, the company must be at least 40% Thai-owned (this may be reduced to 25% with special approval from