On April 29, 2025, the State Bank of Vietnam (SBV) issued Circular No. 03/2025/TT-NHNN (Circular 03), which provides detailed guidance on the opening and use of Vietnamese dong (VND) accounts by non-resident foreign investors engaging in indirect investment activities in Vietnam. Circular 03, which took effect on June 16, 2025, amends Circular No. 06/2019/TT-NHNN of the SBV on the management of foreign exchange for foreign direct investment activities in Vietnam (Circular 06) and replaces Circular No. 05/2014/TT-NHNN of the SBV guiding the opening and use of indirect investment capital accounts for implementation of foreign indirect investment activities in Vietnam (Circular 05). Below are some of the key points of Circular 03. Change of Account Name Circular 03 renames “indirect investment capital account” to “indirect investment account” (IIA). This change aligns with the terminology used in other legislation, ensuring consistency across Vietnam’s legal framework governing foreign exchange and investment activities. Additionally, by removing the word “capital,” the new term better encompasses the full range of transactions that may be conducted through these accounts, such as share transfer and other forms of indirect investment-related activities. This helps prevent misinterpretation and facilitates compliance for foreign investors operating in Vietnam. Account Types Circular 03 clearly delineates account types and investor residency status as follows: For non-resident foreign investors: The opening and use of investment accounts in VND is for carrying out transactions related to indirect investment activities. For resident foreign investors: Credit and debit transactions are made through payment accounts in VND in accordance with relevant laws. Additional Permitted Uses of IIAs In addition to the cash inflows and outflows authorized under Circular 05, Circular 03 introduces more cash transactions that can be conducted via IIAs. These include: Receiving interest and other legal income when conducting stock purchase transactions that do not require sufficient funds when placing orders by foreign institutional investors under

Three American giants are actively protecting their intellectual property rights against generative AI, as two legal battles commence on both sides of the Atlantic. In the UK, Seattle-based media company Getty Images accuses UK-based Stability AI of multiple IP infringements. In the US, The Walt Disney Company and Universal Studios are teaming up against Midjourney, an AI startup, with their main ground being copyright infringement. Both cases are centered around questions legal minds have been posing since the introduction of generative AI: Is the output of generative AI an infringement? And who is ultimately responsible for the output, the platform or the user? Getty Images v. Stability AI Getty initially filed a claim in the High Court in 2023, which resulted in Stability applying for reverse summary judgment on the grounds that Getty had no real prospect of success, arguing that their operations took place outside the UK. However, the High Court judge hearing the case decided that the claims brought by Getty did have a real prospect of succeeding in court. Despite this, Stability saw a small victory when the court ruled that the representative action brought by Getty would not succeed due to the difficulties in identifying who qualified for the class. The proposed class was comprised of 50,000 rightsholders who alleged their rights were also infringed. Stability was successful in arguing that identifying these individuals would be challenging due to the unclear definition of the class. This current trial is centered around four main grounds: Copyright infringement. Getty accuses Stability of using content that Getty owns or has an exclusive license for when training their model, Stable Diffusion, resulting in the generated output containing substantial parts of that content. Getty is also alleging secondary copyright infringement, arguing that Stability is importing an article into the UK that they know is infringing

Tilleke & Gibbins has contributed the Cambodia, Thailand, and Vietnam chapters to Taking and Enforcing Collateral Security and Guarantees in Southeast Asia, a comparative guide developed by Drew Network Asia (DNA). The publication examines the legal frameworks governing collateral security and guarantees across seven Southeast Asian jurisdictions and is intended to assist financial institutions, corporate borrowers, and cross-border investors in evaluating secured lending options in the region. The guide provides a practical overview of key issues relevant to taking and enforcing security interests—covering, among other topics, the types of assets that may be secured, the formalities and registration requirements for creating security, and the rights and procedures available in enforcement scenarios. Each chapter follows a consistent question-and-answer format to allow readers to compare approaches across jurisdictions easily. While the guide offers a high-level survey of the region’s collateral and guarantee regimes, it also notes that country-specific developments and transaction-specific considerations may affect the applicable requirements. Readers seeking detailed advice are encouraged to consult the lawyers listed at the end of each jurisdictional chapter. The full guide is available for download using the button below or directly from the DNA website.

Vietnam’s new Personal Data Protection Law (PDPL) was passed by the National Assembly on June 26, 2025, and will enter into force on January 1, 2026. The PDPL introduces several new concepts, exemptions, and obligations in comparison with the current Decree No. 13/2023/ND-CP on personal data protection (PDPD), while other contents remain essentially the same. The relationship between the PDPD and the PDPL has not been clearly addressed; however, it is expected that the government will issue a new decree providing necessary guidance on certain requirements under the PDPL, and the PDPD will remain in effect until it is replaced by this new decree. Some key points of the new PDPL include the following: Personal data will be further defined by lists of basic personal data and sensitive personal data to be issued by the government. The consent-centric approach of the PDPD remains in place, along with additional exemptions for certain data processing activities. The requirements for the data processing impact assessment (DPIA) and transfer impact assessment (TIA) remain unchanged. However, there are new exemptions for the TIA, including for the processing and storing in the cloud of employee data, and when the data subject is the person sending its own data outside of Vietnam. Consent obtained under the PDPD remains valid under the PDPL. DPIAs and TIAs submitted under the PDPD are valid under the PDPL but may need to be updated to be in line with the requirements of the PDPL. Administrative fines depend on the type of violation. The fine for sale and purchase of personal data will be 10 times the revenue from the sale or VND 3 billion (about USD 115,000), whichever is higher. The fine for cross-border transfer violations is 5% of the violator’s revenue of the preceding year or VND 3 billion, whichever is higher. Other violations are

As modern business strategies increasingly embrace sustainability, the influence of ESG principles is reshaping product design, packaging, and brand protection. From label-free bottles to the legal importance of 3D marks in Thailand, these developments highlight the growing connection between environmental responsibility and intellectual property. The Rise of ESG ESG principles have become critical in shaping business strategies worldwide. Companies are increasingly required to disclose ESG data, which influences investor decisions, loans, and consumer behavior. Studies show that consumers are willing to pay more for sustainable packaging, and businesses with strong ESG commitments often achieve higher growth rates. Product Minimization Trend One sector experiencing significant transformation is the consumer product industry, where brands worldwide are adapting their packaging to align with ESG principles. A notable approach is packaging minimization, exemplified by Pepsi’s introduction of its first label-free PET bottle in China in 2022. Similarly, in Thailand, several bottled water brands have embraced label-free designs, including Sprinkle drinking water’s “Redesign to Reduce” initiative and other similar efforts. These shifts not only enhance brand perception but are also warmly welcomed by consumers and business associates alike. For instance, Cathay Pacific has introduced label-free bottled water on select flights and cabins as part of their ongoing commitment to boosting onboard recycling efforts. From Design to Distinctiveness with 3D Marks Packaging has evolved into a critical component of brand identity, blending functionality with distinctiveness to strengthen consumer recognition and loyalty. This shift carries significant implications for intellectual property. Protecting these designs is no longer optional but essential, given their substantial commercial value. Securing legal protection—whether through design rights or three-dimensional (3D) trademarks—has become a strategic necessity. In an era shaped by sustainability and innovation, safeguarding distinctive packaging is not just a precaution but a fundamental step in maintaining competitive advantage and ensuring enduring brand success. In Thailand, businesses can register 3D marks

In Thailand, in-court business rehabilitation is a legal proceeding that enhances a debtor’s chance to restructure business operations for corporate debtors who are unable to repay their debts. The purpose of this proceeding is to allow the debtor to continue operating the business and generate income to repay creditors. The amounts that creditors receive in the rehabilitation proceeding are greater than the amounts creditors would receive if the debtor went bankrupt. The law is not designed to allow debtors or creditors to use the business rehabilitation process in bad faith for their benefit or to defraud another party. Accordingly, the Business Rehabilitation Law, which is included in the Thai Bankruptcy Act B.E. 2483 (1940), provides criminal liability for actions taken before or during the process. This article addresses the key points regarding criminal liability for safeguarding debtors and creditors in business rehabilitation proceedings from any parties who act in bad faith. Criminal Liability in Business Rehabilitation The following provisions establish the framework for criminal liability in business rehabilitation cases, ensuring that all parties act with integrity throughout the process. The Bankruptcy Act of Thailand B.E. 2483 (1940) provides the relevant provisions regarding the business rehabilitation process. Additionally, if a company debtor or its authorized directors are found to have committed fraud or malfeasance under the Bankruptcy Act, they can also be held criminally liable under the Penal Code or related criminal statutes. The rehabilitation process aims to help a business recover financially under the supervision of the court. When the court approves the rehabilitation plan, the court appoints a business rehabilitation plan administrator to manage and implement the process. However, if it is discovered that the debtor, its executives, or even the plan administrator engaged in illegal activities prior to or during the rehabilitation process—such as tax evasion, embezzlement, fraud, or bribery—criminal charges may

Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) is no longer a distant innovation confined to science fiction and research labs; it has become an integral part of daily business operations worldwide. Employees across industries are adopting GenAI tools at a remarkable pace—including in Southeast Asia, where a tech-savvy workforce and widespread internet and mobile access have driven early adoption. The reality facing organizations today is clear: employees are integrating GenAI into their daily work, often without official approval or clear policies. This phenomenon, often called “Bring Your Own AI,” comes out of a disconnect between organizational governance and employee behavior and reveals the urgent need for proactive AI policies and oversight. For business leaders and legal teams, GenAI is both an opportunity and a challenge. On one hand, these tools can deliver real business value and boost efficiency. On the other, the unsanctioned and unmonitored use of GenAI introduces substantial legal risks, such as data privacy violations, confidentiality breaches, and intellectual property issues. The widespread adoption of GenAI tools by employees, regardless of official organizational stance or guidelines, demonstrates that prohibition is neither practical nor effective. A more strategic approach involves establishing comprehensive governance policies that encourage responsible AI use while managing the risks. Organizations that take the lead in developing GenAI governance policies are better positioned to benefit from its transformative potential. The question isn’t whether GenAI will change how we work, but how quickly organizations can put the right safeguards in place to manage this change successfully. Risks of GenAI Use The use of GenAI in business operations, whether sanctioned or not, exposes organizations to a unique set of risks. The following are particularly relevant: Data security and confidentiality: General GenAI tools in the market may transmit data to external servers, retain conversation histories, and use inputs for model training. Further, employees may share confidential organization or