In September 2025, Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) accused a company listed on the Stock Exchange of Thailand (SET), including its current and former directors, of concealing material information in connection with its filing registration and draft prospectus. This recent enforcement action demonstrates the serious consequences of making false statements or appearing to conceal material information in IPO filings and ongoing disclosures. In addition to being subject to criminal penalties, such actions can impact the eligibility of directors and executives to serve and may cause lasting reputational damage. Key Legal Risks The Securities and Exchange Act B.E. 2535 (1992) (as amended) imposes strict liability for making false statements or concealing material information in IPO registration statements and draft prospectuses. In such cases, investors can claim for damages, and there are also criminal penalties, including imprisonment for up to five years and substantial fines, may apply to the company, its directors, and responsible officers. However, misstatements or omissions in IPO filings do not, by themselves, disqualify directors or executives from holding office, whether arising from an SEC accusation or even a final court judgment. In contrast, for ongoing disclosures after listing, such as financial statements, annual reports, and meeting notices, false or misleading statements or concealment of material information can result in not only criminal liability but also immediate disqualification of directors and executives. If the SEC accuses a listed company or its directors or executives of such misstatements or omissions, those directors or executives are immediately disqualified from their positions, even before a final court judgment. Director and Executive Qualifications Directors and executives must meet the SEC’s specified standards of trustworthiness, as set out in the relevant rules. The SEC clearly defines characteristics that are considered to demonstrate a lack of trustworthiness. For ongoing disclosures, being involved in

Over the past several years, during and after the COVID-19 pandemic, Thai employees and labor unions have faced reductions in benefits and welfare from their employers. Consequently, they have pursued various strategies to enhance their compensation packages. One such approach involves establishing employee committees to negotiate with employers regarding benefits and welfare. Additionally, companies with existing unions typically nominate representatives to serve on these employee committees. Many employers, however, remain unfamiliar with both the committee’s role and the heightened procedural requirements that apply when disciplinary measures are contemplated against committee members. Because any violation of a committee member’s statutory rights can expose the employer—and its directors or authorized representatives—to criminal liability, a clear understanding of the relevant legal framework is essential. The Labor Relations Act B.E. 2518 (LRA) provides the statutory foundation for establishing employee committees. The purpose of the committee is to promote harmonious industrial relations and create a formal channel through which employees and employers can discuss workplace matters on a regular basis. Any workplace that employs at least fifty employees must, upon request by employees or the labor union, facilitate the creation of a committee. Members may be elected directly by employees or, where applicable, appointed by the labor union. Each member serves a three-year term. The LRA prescribes minimum committee sizes based on the employer’s headcount, as shown in the table below. If union members constitute more than 20 percent of the total workforce, the union must appoint at least one more committee member than the number of nonunion members elected by the general workforce. If union membership exceeds 50 percent of the workforce, the union acquires the exclusive right to appoint every committee member. Where multiple unions exist and their combined appointments would exceed the statutory committee size, the employer may lawfully refuse to

Vietnam’s higher education system is at a pivotal stage of reform, with the government taking decisive steps to strengthen its policy and regulatory framework. In response to obstacles encountered during the implementation of the Law on Higher Education, issued in 2012 and amended in 2018, the third draft of the amended Law on Higher Education (Draft Law) is scheduled for submission to the National Assembly in October 2025. The Draft Law reflects the state’s commitment to aligning the education sector with international standards while addressing persistent structural challenges. The Draft Law emphasizes clarifying institutional mandates, enhancing accountability, and modernizing governance models to enable higher education institutions to operate with greater autonomy and efficiency. Against this backdrop, we outline below several notable provisions of the third draft and their potential implications for higher education institutions (HEIs) in Vietnam. Applicable Entities In addition to HEIs as defined and covered under existing legislation, the Draft Law extends its scope of applicable entities. The current Law on Higher Education does not regulate training institutions under state agencies, the armed forces, or political and social organizations, nor does it provide specific provisions for institutions offering only postgraduate education. To address this, the Draft Law introduces the term “institutions with higher education activities,” expanding its scope to include: (a) academies and research institutes established by the prime minister, mandated to provide doctoral-level training; (b) educational institutions affiliated with state agencies, political organizations, socio-political organizations, and the people’s armed forces, authorized to offer higher education programs in their specialized fields; and (c) institutions established pursuant to international treaties or by decision of the prime minister, with authorization to deliver certain levels of higher education. The inclusion of “institutions with higher education activities” represents a significant development both legally and institutionally. In an increasingly diversified higher education

In September 2019, the government of Vietnam issued Decree No. 75/2019/ND-CP on Administrative Sanctions in the Field of Competition (Decree 75) to address the urgent need for clear sanctioning mechanisms following the implementation of the new Law on Competition in July 2019. However, after five years of enforcement, various gaps and inconsistencies have been exposed that hinder its application. These shortcomings have reduced the deterrent effect of the sanctioning regime, and created legal uncertainty for market participants. A recent case involving Duc Giang – Lao Cai Chemicals’ acquisition of another chemical company—one of the first cases of economic concentration violation to be sanctioned by the National Competition Commission (NCC) since the Law on Competition took effect—highlights the practical difficulties under Vietnam’s competition law enforcement regime. In this case, although the transaction exceeded the statutory notification thresholds of economic concentration set out in the law, the parties failed to submit the required notification. This violation resulted in the NCC imposing aggregate fines of VND 1,423,982,880 (approximately USD 54,770) on the companies in September 2024. On appeal, Duc Giang – Lao Cai Chemicals argued that the chairman of the NCC was legally entitled to issue a warning as the key punishment instead of a monetary penalty. However, the chairman rejected the appeal, citing Article 14 of Decree 75, under which the specific penalty and level for “failure to notify economic concentration” is a fine, not a warning. While the chairman of the NCC is generally empowered to impose penalties, a warning cannot be applied if the specific regulation for a particular violation does not provide for it as a sanction. This example shows the inadequacy and inconsistency of the regulations on penalties for violations of competition law, and underscores the need for an amendment of Decree 75 to resolve such conflicts