Extended producer responsibility (“EPR”), a strategy whereby producers are held accountable for the environmental impact of their products throughout their entire life cycle, including disposal and recycling, has become more and more familiar to manufacturers in Vietnam. According to the director of the legal department of the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources, EPR is an alternative financial solution for managing waste and increasing recycling without raising environmental protection taxes and fees, which may help Vietnam to maintain a closed loop of resources in manufacturing. New EPR Regulations Applicable to Producers and Importers In 2020 and 2022, the new Law on Environmental Protection 2020 and its guiding Decree No. 08/2022/ND-CP were promulgated, introducing a legal framework for EPR (“New EPR Regulations”) imposed on not only producers but also importers. Under the New EPR Regulations, producers and importers of certain types of products and packaging are responsible to collect and treat waste and recycle their products and packaging. The responsibility to collect and treat waste took effect on January 10, 2022, while there are different timelines being phased in from 2024 to 2027 for the recycling of products and packaging, depending on the type. For the purpose of compliance with the recycling requirement under the New EPR Regulations, the producers and importers can implement the recycling obligation by themselves, or engage a third party to recycle or organize the recycling, or make a financial contribution to the Vietnam Environment Protection Fund to support the recycling process. This will cause an increase in cost and, hence, an impact on prices of certain products in the near future. Exceptions to the recycling obligation include: Producers and importers of products and packaging for (i) export or temporary import for re-export or (ii) manufacture or import for research, study, or testing purposes. Packaging producers

Attorneys from Tilleke & Gibbins have prepared the Laos, Myanmar, and Thailand sections of the recently released Global Merger Notification Guide from Lex Mundi. The guide provides answers to key questions related to the merger notification requirements in jurisdictions of Lex Mundi member firms in 57 jurisdictions around the world. Each country-specific section contains in-depth information on the jurisdiction’s legal framework governing merger notifications, addressing the following questions and topics: Regulatory agency for merger notifications Transactions subject to national rules Timeline for filing merger notifications Merger review process Sanctions for not fulfilling merger notification requirements Remedial options for addressing the regulator’s competition concerns Current regulatory outlook and other notable information The guide draws on the expertise of Lex Mundi member firms from around the world. Its innovative format allows users to compare current information from multiple jurisdictions in a side-by-side, customizable report. To browse the contributions, generate country-specific reports, and compare regulatory guidance on merger notification requirements across multiple jurisdictions, please visit the Lex Mundi website.

Michael Ramirez, a counsel in Tilleke & Gibbins’ dispute resolution department, has contributed an article to a series on contractual terms in Asia from the Asian Business Law Institute. Previous articles in the series have looked at administrative and tax requirements and contract breach and remedy under Thai law. The article gives an overview of how extracontractual liabilities are treated under Thai law. It addresses issues related to contract negotiations, no-reliance clauses, entire agreement clauses, and concurrent liability. ABLI, which is based in Singapore, conducts legal research and dissemination in order to provide knowledge, guidance, and recommendations surrounding development of legal systems in Asia. The full article on extracontractual liabilities is available as a PDF through the button below.

Introduction The idea of the metaverse rose to prominence in the public discourse in 2021, most notably when Facebook renamed itself Meta and announced a new focus on launching a virtual, immersive world. The initial excitement around the metaverse has since faded, with worsening economic conditions having a particularly acute effect on companies in the technology sector. When Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced in March 2023 that artificial intelligence (AI) was the company’s “single largest investment,” many took this as a sign of the company shifting focus away from the metaverse. However, there remains significant interest in the metaverse from both businesses and consumers. Zuckerberg himself reaffirmed Meta’s focus on the metaverse, highlighting how developments in AI will improve virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) technology. Meanwhile, Roblox, a metaverse gaming platform, announced that in Q1 2023, its number of daily active users had increased to 66 million. Most recently, the announcement by Apple of its new ‘Vision Pro’ AR headset is reported to have renewed interest in the metaverse among developers. A particular area of interest in the developing metaverse is digital fashion and retail. In its Metaverse Fashion Trends Report 2022, Roblox found that nearly three in four users aged 14 to 24 spend money on digital fashion items. Roblox itself has partnered with fashion brands Burberry, Gucci, Tommy Hilfiger, and others, to offer experiences and items for use on the platform. In March 2023, Decentraland, a metaverse platform with a decentralized governance structure, hosted the Metaverse Fashion Week, featuring brands such as Adidas, Coach, and DKNY. As businesses continue to invest and look for opportunities to expand into the metaverse, whether through traditional e-commerce or more innovative digital asset offerings, it is important that they consider the ways in which new and existing laws apply