With intellectual property playing an ever-increasing role in economic development, the need to harness, promote, and protect ASEAN innovation remains urgent as integration progresses. Among its objectives, the ASEAN Economic Community aims to transform the region into a hub of innovation and competitiveness and ensure that the region remains an active participant in the international IP community. With ASEAN member states increasing IP generation and further committing to global IP regimes, the region is increasingly looking toward sophisticated IP ownership and holding structures. IP Holding Companies ASEAN-based companies continue to centralize ownership of their IP assets in offshore holding and licensing vehicles—an approach multinational companies headquartered elsewhere have been using for a number of years. IP-intensive companies look to locate their IP portfolios in low-tax jurisdictions with strong IP registration and protection laws. The company then licenses the IP to operating companies in the group or to third-party licensees, franchisees, agents, distributors, and other partners in return for royalties or license fees. These special-purpose vehicles are typically referred to as IP holding companies. IP holding companies are popular because they can help corporations minimize tax, gain tax benefits or concessions, protect IP from bankruptcy or other claims against the parent company, and focus management attention on the IP portfolio as an income generator. Tax and IP Holding Companies Tax is the primary reason most companies park their IP in separate IP holding vehicles. Sometimes, companies choose to establish their IP holding company in a no-tax, low-tax, or preferred-tax jurisdiction close to their home country. The selected jurisdiction should also be a country with a large and well-established tax treaty network. Double taxation treaties are key considerations in jurisdiction shopping. If the IP assets need to be pledged as security for future borrowings or if they are to be included

On October 16, 2024, Thailand’s Anti-Corruption Cooperation Committee (ACCC) issued a notification to enhance anticorruption standards in public procurement. The new notification (officially “Notification of the Anti-Corruption Cooperation Committee on the Procurement Budget and Minimum Standards of the Policy and Directions for Anticorruption in Relation to Procurement according to Section 19 of the Public Procurement and Supplies Administration Act B.E. 2560”) supersedes previous guidelines and imposes stricter compliance requirements on business entities involved in the government procurement processes. The updates not only align with the goals of Thailand’s Public Procurement and Supplies Administration Act B.E. 2560 (2017) but also reflect the government’s resolution to mitigate corruption, particularly in high-value public contracts. The ACCC’s new notification introduces additional definitions, lowers budget thresholds for compliance, and strengthens business obligations. Key Components The new notification continues the previous guidelines’ requirement that businesses seeking to bid on government procurement projects meet the specified minimum standards—such as communicating and implementing anticorruption policies at all organizational levels, establishing a code of conduct, and providing related training programs to employees. The notification also introduces a number of changes, the most notable of which are detailed below. “Entrepreneur” definition. The definition of this term is narrowed to entities involved in the public procurement bidding process. Previously, the definition broadly applied to all business entities engaged in selling goods or services. Threshold for mandatory compliance. The project budget threshold that necessitates compliance with the minimum standards is  THB 300 million—a reduction from the previous threshold of THB 500 million. Minimum standards to prevent unfair competition. The new notification introduces a specific definition for “disturbing fair competition,” establishing clear parameters around actions that disrupt competitive fairness within public procurement. Continued compliance requirements. Businesses’ compliance with the minimum standards must now extend from the date of bid submission to the

Tilleke & Gibbins has contributed the Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam chapters to Restructuring in Southeast Asia, a comparative guide produced by Drew Network Asia (DNA). The publication outlines the principal debt restructuring processes available to corporate debtors across nine Southeast Asian jurisdictions and provides an accessible overview for lenders, creditors, and companies navigating financial distress in the region. Structured in a question-and-answer format, each jurisdictional chapter addresses the same core topics, allowing readers to compare approaches across markets. The guide covers key issues such as available restructuring mechanisms, court-supervised and out-of-court options, the roles and powers of creditors, and the implications of restructuring on ongoing business operations. As with other DNA resources, the guide aims to provide practical orientation rather than exhaustive analysis. Legislative developments and jurisdiction-specific considerations may affect the applicability of certain procedures, and readers requiring tailored advice are encouraged to contact the practitioners listed at the end of each chapter. The full guide is available for download using the button below or directly from the DNA website.