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

In Thailand, a business rehabilitation plan in court-supervised rehabilitation proceedings is a crucial element of the business rehabilitation process that outlines how a debtor’s assets will be managed. It also provides guidance for resolving a debtor’s business challenges so that the business can survive and continue to generate returns, increasing the likelihood that its creditors will be repaid. Key Plan Components The Bankruptcy Act B.E. 2483 sets forth the following components to be covered in a rehabilitation plan: The reasons for rehabilitation; Details about the debtor’s assets, liabilities, and other binding obligations at the time the court-ordered rehabilitation; Principles and methods of the rehabilitation; Redemption of collateral when there are secured creditors and guarantor liabilities; Ways to resolve problems arising from a temporary lack of liquidity during plan implementation; Action to be taken when a claim or debt is assigned; Name, qualifications, and letter of consent of the plan administrator, as well as information on compensation; Appointment and release of the plan administrator; Period in which the plan will be implemented (maximum of five years); and Refusal of the debtor’s assets or refusal of contractual rights if the debtor’s assets or contractual rights have obligations that exceed the benefits they yield. Considering the diverse nature and challenges of each debtor’s business, the details listed here are only general guidelines for what should be included in a rehabilitation plan. The planner has the flexibility to create a plan with different details or guidelines than those outlined above to best suit the nature and challenges of the debtor’s business. The planner can also omit some of the mentioned requirements if they are not relevant to the debtor’s business. Concerns of Relevance Court approval of the rehabilitation plan. Once the plan is approved by a meeting of the creditors, it is necessary

Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has announced a public hearing on proposed amendments to takeover regulations under Thailand’s Security and Exchange Act B.E. 2535 (1992) (and the regulations issued thereunder) that have the potential to reshape the country’s market for takeovers. The proposed changes, which have not yet been compiled in a formal draft regulation, may affect acquisition planning but could also help reduce unnecessary regulatory and administrative burdens. The SEC is accepting comments on the proposed changes through its website until November 30, 2024. The key proposed changes are detailed below. Alignment of tender offers and reporting under Section 246: Previously, Section 246 (reporting of acquisition/disposition upon reaching or crossing any multiple of 5% shareholding) focused only on group shareholding changes, while Section 247 (tender offer obligation) looked at both groups and individuals to trigger tender offering obligations. The proposed amendment aligns these requirements by considering only group-level triggers for both sections. Another change addresses situations where an entity acquires another entity (persons under Section 258) that already holds shares in a listed company. Currently, actions of shareholders in a listed company resulting in a person under Section 258 and such shareholders as a group holding shares in a listed company in aggregate and triggering the tender offer threshold only result in reporting under Section 246 while having no tender offer obligation. Under the proposed amendment, such actions will trigger a tender offer obligation—not immediately upon the acquisition of persons under Section 258 and reaching or crossing the relevant threshold, but once there is any increase (even a single share) in the shareholding in the listed company, unless the circumstances fall into an exemption (e.g., disposal of the additional shares within seven business days) or a waiver is obtained. Currently, obligations are triggered at the next threshold,