Nearly a year after Vietnam’s issuance of its National Power Development Plan for 2021-2030, with a vision to 2050 (“PDP VIII”), the Prime Minister issued Decision No. 262/QD-TTg dated April 1, 2024, approving the Implementation Plan for PDP VIII (“Implementation Plan”). Among other contents, the Implementation Plan sets forth the list of prioritized power source projects through 2030, and the capacity of renewable energy sources through 2030, as detailed below. Prioritized Power Source Projects through 2030 The Implementation Plan lists out six types of power source projects prioritized for development through 2023 according to the capacity approved under PDP VIII. They include: Domestic gas-fired power (14,930 MW) LNG-fired power (22,400 MW) Coal-fired power (30,127 MW) Cogeneration power using residual heat, blast furnace gas, and by-products of technological lines in industrial facilities (2,700 MW) Hydropower (29,346 MW) Pumped storage hydropower (2,400 MW) With respect to each type, the Implementation Plan provides details of projects by location and their operational progress. Such information is set out in Schedule III of the Implementation Plan. For power source projects not included in this list, the provincial People’s Committees will consult with the Ministry of Industry and Trade (“MOIT”) and relevant agencies on compliance with the planning prior to appraisal and issuance of in-principle investment approval. Renewable Energy Projects through 2030 The Implementation Plan allocates the capacity of the following renewable energy sources by locality/region: Offshore wind power (6,000 MW) Onshore wind power (21,880 MW) Hydroelectric power (29,346 MW) Biomass electricity (1,088 MW) Electricity produced from waste (1,182 MW) Rooftop solar power for self-production and self-consumption (2,600 MW) Battery storage (300 MW) With respect to each renewable energy source, the Implementation Plan provides a list of certain renewable energy projects through 2030, including the expected life cycle of the projects, and the allocated capacity for various localities/regions. For the remaining capacity, the provincial People’s Committees were tasked to propose a list of additional projects,

A bank guarantee or bond is a powerful tool that provides contractual parties with security and assurance. Bank guarantees are commitments made by a bank (as a guarantor) on behalf of a customer (as an obligor) to a beneficiary to ensure that certain contractual obligations will be fulfilled. If the customer fails to comply with these obligations, the bank can compensate the beneficiary up to the amount specified in the bank guarantee. Bank guarantees are widely used in Thailand as a form of security and are common in construction agreements and government procurement contracts, among others. If the beneficiary (e.g., a project owner) concludes that the counterparty in the agreement (e.g., a contractor) has breached the underlying contract in some way, the beneficiary will demand payment from the bank pursuant to the guarantee. Collecting on a Guarantee and Preventing Payment In the context of construction and procurement agreements, there are two types of bank guarantees—conditional and unconditional. A conditional bank guarantee means that the project owner must satisfy certain agreed-upon conditions (e.g., provision of proof of the breach, proof of damages, or even consent from the contractor) to demand payment. An unconditional bank guarantee means that the bank must compensate the project owner for the demanded amount (up to the limit specified in the bank guarantee) without any conditions. When a project owner concludes that a contractor has breached the underlying contract (often for nonperformance or failure to comply with a representation or warranty), the project owner will demand payment from the bank holding the guarantee. Upon receiving such a demand, Thai banks will usually inform the contractor and ask if it has any objections. Even if the bank guarantee is unconditional, in practice, a bank may be reluctant to make payment if the contractor, as the bank’s customer, strongly objects. This means that

On March 1, 2024, the Lao official gazette published the newly amended Law on Intellectual Property No. 50/NA, dated November 20, 2023 (the “2023 Law on IP”). The timing of this update is consistent with Laos’ history of providing regular revisions to the country’s IP legislation since the enactment of the first Law on Intellectual Property by the National Assembly in 2007 (the “2007 Law on IP”). These revisions include amendments in 2011, 2017, and now 2023. Prior to 2007, intellectual property (IP) protection was granted through decrees issued by the prime minister’s office for selected types of IP: trademarks, patents, petty patents, and industrial designs. The 2007 Law on IP marked a significant shift by introducing comprehensive legislation to protect industrial property rights, new plant varieties, copyright, and related rights. It laid the foundations for IP legislation in Laos, with the primary objectives of promoting and protecting intellectual creativity and attracting foreign investment. Since 2007, the enactment of new IP laws has not always entailed significant amendments to the existing IP framework; however, it frequently serves as an opportunity to introduce long-considered mechanisms. For example, the amended Law on Intellectual Property No. 38/NA, dated November 15, 2017 (“2017 Law on IP”) introduced, among other provisions, the possibility of opposition by a third party after the formal examination of a trademark application by the examiner. The 2023 Law on IP brought additional changes and updates to the IP regulatory landscape in Laos. Some of the most notable of these are highlighted below. Trademarks While Laos already introduced a new mechanism for online trademark registration in November 2023—about a month before enacting the 2023 Law on IP—the new law did introduce some noteworthy changes. Well-Known Marks The 2023 Law on IP appears to ease the burden of proof for establishing that a mark is well known. The 2017

Under Thai law, namely the Criminal Procedural Code, an injured person may bring a criminal case to a criminal court without having a public prosecutor file the case for him or her. After the court conducts an inquiry into the case, the court considers whether to accept the case for further trial and determine whether the defendant should be penalized accordingly. Private parties involved in certain types of cases, such as labor disputes or shareholder disputes, may find this a common channel to pursue. Criminal law in Thailand recently underwent a significant change, as new legislation changed numerous criminal offenses to become phinai-fine offenses instead. However, as this is a relatively new development, there are still instances in which plaints involving phinai fines are still being submitted to the court by these private injured persons as criminal cases. But this raises the issue of whether the court can proceed with such cases. For over a year, Thailand has enforced the Act on Phinai Fine Proceedings B.E. 2565 (2022) (ACFP) as a new legal measure to decriminalize certain types of fines for criminal penalties with less-serious offenses to phinai offenses, which results in phinai-related offenders having to pay only fines instead of facing the entire criminal procedures and penalties under the Thai Penal Code and Criminal Procedure Code, including bail submission, travel restrictions, imprisonment, and a criminal record. What happens to ongoing trials in court for phinai offenses? The ACFP automatically changed criminal offenses under 204 pieces of legislation, including certain offenses under the Bankruptcy Act B.E. 2483 (1940), the Determining Offenses Relating to Registered Partnership, Limited Partnership, Limited Company, Association, and Foundation Act B.E. 2499 (1956), the Labor Relations Act B.E. 2518 (1975), the Consumer Protection Act B.E. 2522 (1979), the Public Limited Companies Act B.E. 2535 (1992), and other legislation listed in

Thailand’s Office of Insurance Commission (OIC) has opened a public hearing period on a draft notification from the Ministry of Finance (MOF) that would relax foreign shareholding and board limits for life insurers. The hearing period runs until May 31, 2024. Key principles of the draft notification are outlined below. Life Insurer Qualifications Life insurers may apply for permission to exceed 49% foreign shareholding or have a majority of foreign directors if: They operate a business that may cause harm to insured parties or the public and either (1) the OIC has directed the company to improve its status or adjust its capital, or (2) the company’s actions may have a significant impact on the insurance industry, causing significant compensation burdens and affecting the company’s capital adequacy ratio (CAR); Their shareholders are unable to increase capital; and They are unable to attract Thai investors to increase the capital necessary to ensure stability and the long-term operation of the business. Foreign Shareholder Qualifications Eligible foreign shareholders must: Be an insurance company or participate in the insurance industry; Have at least 10 years of relevant experience; Demonstrate financial stability and possess a credit rating (or have a parent company with a credit rating) of at least “A” from a reliable credit rating agency; Present a clear business plan, financial resolution plan and strategy, and technological and expertise development plan to develop and promote the company’s efficiency and competitiveness in the industry; and Be capable of investing and increasing the capital to at least THB 2 billion to maintain stability and maintain a CAR of at least 250%. In addition, life insurers are required to present a clear restructuring plan and new organization chart to the OIC for further approval by the MOF. For more details on the MOF’s notification regarding criteria on foreign shareholding limits for life insurance companies, or on any issue concerning insurance regulations

Thailand’s Office of Insurance Commission (OIC) has released draft Notifications regarding Guidelines for Considering Qualifications and Suitability of Insurance Agents and Brokers to Manage Risks Related to Insurance Fraud for Life and Non-Life Insurance Companies for a public hearing period. The draft notifications set out criteria that life and non-life insurance companies should follow to assess the risk of brokers and agents committing insurance fraud. Risk Rating Under the OIC’s draft notifications, the risk of insurance agents and brokers committing insurance fraud is represented by four color-coded levels, according to the characteristics of the agent or broker. These levels are summarized in the table below. Insurance companies can verify the qualifications and suitability of agents and brokers by accessing information on insurance fraud in the OIC’s database. This access must comply with the Personal Data Protection Act, requiring the consent of the agent or broker whose information is being accessed. For more details on the OIC’s notification, or on any aspect of insurance regulations in Thailand, please contact Athistha (Nop) Chitranukroh at [email protected], Witchupong Chittchang at [email protected], Ajaree Trachukul at [email protected], Thammapas Chanpanich at [email protected], or Sireethorn Wijan at [email protected].

On May 4, 2024, the Vietnamese government issued Decree No. 46/2024/ND-CP (“Decree 46”) amending and supplementing certain articles of Decree No. 99/2013/ND-CP dated August 29, 2013, on administrative sanctions in industrial property, as amended and supplemented in 2021 (“Decree 99”). Decree 46, which will come into force on July 1, 2024, is designed to bring Decree 99 in line with the amended IP Law of 2022. Some of the notable amendments of Decree 46 are discussed below. New Infringing Acts Decree 46 added the following new infringing acts subject to sanctions, which had not been set out in the former decree: Use of patents, utility solutions, layout designs, or industrial designs without paying compensation according to the provisions on temporary rights specified in Article 131 of the amended IP Law. Accepting a trademark license not in the form of a written contract in the case of using the licensed trademark on goods or packaging. Failure to notify clients of costs, charges, and fees related to procedures for establishing and protecting industrial property rights. Deceiving clients in the course of entering into and performing industrial property representative service contracts, but not to the extent of criminal prosecution, or forcing customers to enter into and perform industrial property representative service contracts. Although these acts are not common occurrences, it is nevertheless important to have clear regulations in order to ensure consistency with the amended IP Law and overcome difficulties and obstacles if such acts are committed in practice. Amendments and Supplements Decree 46 adopted amendments and supplements to main sanctions, additional sanctions, and remedial measures, specifically: The monetary fine imposed for violations against trade secrets is VND 50 million to VND 100 million (approx. USD 2,000 – USD 4,000), a large increase compared to the VND 5 million to VND 15 million (approx. USD 200 – USD 600) in the previous decree.

On May 1, 2024, Thailand’s National Cyber Security Committee (NCSC) published the draft NCSC Notification Re: Cloud Cybersecurity Standards for a public hearing period, which was open until May 14, 2024. These standards have been drafted to drive the country’s cloud-first policy with the aim of minimizing risks from cyber threats to cloud services utilized by government agencies, supervising or regulating organizations, and critical information infrastructure (CII) organizations. The key points of the draft Cloud Cybersecurity Standards are below. Scope The standards apply to government agencies, supervising or regulating organizations, and CII organizations under the Cybersecurity Act B.E. 2562 (2019), as well as cloud service providers (defined below). The standards prescribe cloud system cybersecurity measures for cloud service customers (defined below) and providers only to the extent that the service is provided to the in-scope organizations outlined above. Definitions Cloud service customers (CSCs): In-scope organizations that have a formal contractual agreement to use cloud services provided by a cloud service provider. Cloud service providers (CSPs): Persons who enable cloud services to be used by a cloud service customer, responsible for maintaining infrastructure, platforms, and software that enable provision of the cloud services and for managing these resources to ensure their accessibility, security, and scalability for their cloud service customers. Application In-scope organizations that will use or have been using cloud services must comply with the Cloud Cybersecurity Standards by taking into account their data or technology information systems’ level of impact, as specified in the previously issued Notification of the NCSC Re: Standards for Defining the Security Category for Data and Information Systems B.E. 2566 (2023). The impact level related to personal data is to be rated as being at least at the medium level, and the minimum standards for that level specified in the draft Cloud Cybersecurity Standards must be adopted. In-scope organizations must report their implementation of the