Resources

Zaid Ibrahim & Co contributed to the Lexology Panoramic: Private Equity 2026 (Fund Formation)Malaysia.

Authored by Chief Operating Officer, Chua Wei Min, Partner, Geraldine Oh and Partner (Tax) Kellie Allison Yap, the article offers a detailed overview of essential information regarding Malaysia’s private equity fund formation regime whether through the use of Malaysia vehicles of a Sdn Bhd, LLP or Labuan entities of an LP, LLP. Each with its own pros and cons.

The guide explores, among other, formation, regulation, licensing and registration requirements (CMSL/PEMC), taxation, selling restrictions and investors generally and finally, updates and trends in the vibrant VC/PE space in the last year with a continued forward momentum in 2026.

Read the full article here.

Zaid Ibrahim & Co contributed to the Lexology Panoramic: Private Equity 2026 (Transactions) Malaysia.

Authored by  Chief Operating Officer, Chua Wei Min, Partner, Muhammad Zukhairi Muhammed Salehudin and Associate, Teng Yee Von, the article offers a detailed overview of things to know regarding Malaysia’s private equity transactions.

The guide explores, among other, transactions formalities, rules and practical considerations, debt financing, shareholders' agreement and more.

Read the full article here.

‍

Intellectual Property (“IP”) risks are often overlooked during a due diligence exercise on a company in a potential transaction.  Parties involved in the transaction may treat IP as a mere checkbox when assessing the company.  However, the impact of IP on a company’s risk profile should not be underestimated.

In many modern businesses, particularly those operating in technology, manufacturing, brand-driven or content-based sectors, IP constitutes a core component of the business.  A superficial review of IP assets may therefore result in significant blind spots that only emerge after completion of the due diligence exercise.

From a risk management perspective, IP due diligence should not be treated as a mere formality.  It should be approached as a substantive exercise designed to identify legal, commercial and operational risks.

There are several issues that legal practitioners should consider when conducting due diligence on a company’s IP assets.

(1) Evaluation of IP Assets

It is often assumed that IP risks can be adequately addressed by verifying a list of registered assets (such as trademarks, patents or industrial designs) and confirming that they are recorded in the target company’s name.  While this is an important starting point, it is rarely sufficient on its own.

Many valuable IP assets are not registrable or remain unregistered by their nature.  Confidential information, trade secrets, know-how, software source code, algorithms and business plans are examples of IP that do not appear on public registers.  Protection of these assets depends largely on contractual controls, internal policies and employee discipline.  Where due diligence focuses only on registered IP, unregistered IP assets are often overlooked or poorly documented.  This increases the risk of misuse or leakage, particularly where contractual protections or internal safeguards are weak or absent.

These risks can be mitigated by confirming that employees, contractors and vendors have entered into agreements that clearly assign IP to the company and impose appropriate confidentiality obligations.  Where such protections are missing or unclear, companies should implement updated agreements, obtain confirmatory assignments where necessary and restrict access to sensitive information, such as source code or technical know-how.

Where a company holds registered IP assets, registration alone does not guarantee that such assets are enforceable or aligned with the business's actual operations.  For instance, trademarks may be registered in classes of goods or services that do not reflect actual use, potentially exposing the company to non-use cancellation actions in court or limiting enforcement options.  Further, information recorded in public IP registers should not be accepted at face value.  In practice, IP assets may have been assigned or licensed by the company without the relevant changes being recorded, creating discrepancies between the legal position on record and the company’s actual rights of ownership or control.

These risks can be addressed by verifying internal IP records against the information recorded in public registries.  Where there are inconsistencies, corrective measures should be taken to ensure that the registers accurately reflect the company’s registered IP assets.  This exercise should be supported by a review of any agreement with third parties that affect ownership or use of the IP, including assignments or licences.  Ultimately, effective IP due diligence should confirm whether the company truly owns and controls the IP assets in its portfolio.

(2) Reliance on Open-Source Materials

In the course of conducting IP due diligence, it is important to identify whether the company relies on open-source software or components in its business operations or in the creation of new IP assets.  Open-source materials are commonly used, particularly by small and medium enterprises and startups to manage and reduce operational costs.  However, the use of open-source materials can carry legal and commercial implications if not properly managed.  Certain open-source licences impose conditions on how software or components may be used, modified or distributed and, in some cases, may require the disclosure of source code or restrict the company’s ability to commercialise proprietary developments.

Due diligence should identify which open-source materials are used, the applicable licence terms and whether the company’s actual use complies with those terms.  Failure to do so may create compliance issues that disrupt business operations and undermine the company’s long-term ability to develop, commercialise and benefit from its IP.  Where higher-risk licences are identified, early action should be taken to adjust the company’s development practices and safeguard proprietary IP.

(3) Infringement and Third Party Risk Exposure

The target company should be assessed for potential exposure to IP infringement claims by third parties.  The absence of ongoing litigation does not necessarily indicate a low-risk profile, as potential infringement issues may exist without having been challenged or detected.  In many cases, such issues remain dormant because the company’s business has not yet attracted attention from competitors or other rights holders.

Infringement risk often arises in competitive markets where branding, software, product designs or marketing materials are adopted quickly without formal clearance.  Therefore, it is prudent to check whether the company has procedures in place to review and clear the use of IP belonging to third parties for the company’s business activities.  The absence of such controls increases the likelihood of inadvertent infringement, which may only surface at a later stage.

To mitigate the risk of IP infringement, it is advisable for companies to involve their legal department or external lawyers in the review and clearance process on a regular basis.  This ensures that any decision to use a particular third-party IP right is based on legal reasoning rather than personal discretion.  Early legal oversight can help identify potential issues before they escalate into disputes or disrupt the transaction.

Conclusion

IP due diligence warrants the same level of attention and rigour as financial or regulatory review.  A due diligence exercise is only complete when IP risks are properly identified, understood and assessed in their commercial context.  In practice, due diligence is often led by teams with strong corporate expertise but limited focus on IP.  As a result, material IP issues may be overlooked or under-analysed.  Involving IP specialists at an early stage is therefore essential to ensure that the due diligence exercise is robust and that IP risks are addressed before they crystallise into post-completion problems.

This article was originally published at the PRAKTIS website.

Introduction

Malaysia has enacted the Cross-Border Insolvency Act 2026 (Act 877) (“Act”), which received Royal Assent on 20 January 2026 and was published in the Gazette on 30 January 2026. The Act will come into operation on a date to be appointed by the Minister charged with responsibility for law by notification in the Gazette.

The Act adopts the principles of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency dated 30 May1997, representing a significant modernisation of Malaysia's insolvency regime.

Key Objectives

The Act's objectives include fostering cooperation between Malaysian and foreign courts, providing legal certainty for trade and investment, ensuring fair administration of cross-border insolvencies, maximising debtor property value, and facilitating the rescue of financially troubled businesses.

Scope of Application

The Act applies to corporations as defined in the Companies Act 2016 and the Labuan Companies Act 1990, but expressly excludes individuals under the Insolvency Act1967, limited liability partnerships, and registered businesses under various state and federal business licensing statutes.

Notably, the Act contains significant carve-outs for regulated financial institutions. It does not apply to licensed financial institutions, Islamic financial institutions, development financial institutions, member institutions under the Malaysia Deposit Insurance Corporation Act 2011, stock exchanges, derivatives exchanges, clearing houses, central depositories, and various Labuan-licensed entities including Labuan banks, investment banks, insurers, reinsurers, takaful operators, trust companies, and foundations.

Recognition of Foreign Proceedings

The Act defines "foreign proceedings" as collective judicial or administrative proceedings in a foreign State, including interim proceedings, under the law relating to insolvency in which the property and affairs of the debtor are subject to control or supervision by a foreign court, for the purposes of reorganisation or liquidation. This broad definition encompasses a wide range of insolvency-related processes, whether formal court-supervised proceedings or administrative procedures, provided they involve collective creditor participation and supervisory oversight over the debtor's property and affairs. Importantly, interim or provisional proceedings also fall within the definition, enabling foreign representatives to seek recognition even while foreign insolvency proceedings are at an early stage.

A foreign representative may apply directly to the High Court in Malaya or the High Courtin Sabah and Sarawak for recognition of foreign proceedings. Applications for recognition must be accompanied by a certified copy of the decision commencing the foreign proceedings and appointing the foreign representative, or a certificate from the foreign court affirming the existence of the foreign proceedings and the appointment. The High Court is required to determine applications for recognition at the earliest possible time.

Effects of Recognition and Relief

Upon recognition, individual actions concerning the property, rights obligations or liabilities of the debtor is stayed, execution against debtor property is stayed, and the right to dispose of debtor property is suspended. These have the same effect as a winding-up order under Malaysian law.

The Court may also grant discretionary relief upon recognition of any foreign proceedings, including orders staying actions, suspending property disposal rights, directing examination of witnesses, and entrusting property administration to the foreign representative or a Malaysian insolvency office-holder.

Access Rights

Foreign representatives have direct access to Malaysian courts and may appear in person or through an advocate. Foreign creditors have the same rights as Malaysian creditors and cannot be ranked lower than general unsecured creditors solely due to their foreign status, though foreign tax, social security, and superannuation claims may be excluded.

Cooperation with Foreign Courts and Representatives

The Act mandates cooperation between Malaysian courts and insolvency office-holders with their foreign counterparts to the maximum extent possible, including direct communication and information sharing. Cooperation may include coordinating administration of debtor property, implementing agreements on coordination of proceedings, and managing concurrent proceedings.

Concurrent Proceedings

After recognition of foreign main proceedings, Malaysian insolvency proceedings are generally limited to property located in Malaysia. Where concurrent proceedings exist, the Court must ensure consistency between relief granted and Malaysian proceedings and that automatic stays do not apply if foreign main proceedings are recognised after Malaysian proceedings have commenced.

Protection of Creditors and Interested Persons

In granting relief, the Court must ensure adequate protection for creditors (including Malaysian creditors, secured creditors, and hire-purchase parties) and may impose conditions such as requiring security. Transferring property outside Malaysia requires court leave and certification that Malaysian creditors' claims below a prescribed threshold have been satisfied.

Public Policy Exception

The Court retains discretion to refuse any action or relief that would be contrary to the public policy of Malaysia.

Avoidance Actions

Upon recognition of foreign proceedings, a foreign representative has standing to apply to the Court for avoidance actions under relevant provisions of the Companies Act 2016 and the Labuan Companies Act 1990. These include actions relating to preferences, floating charges, and other transactions that may be detrimental to creditors. However, this power does not apply retrospectively to transactions entered into before the Act comes into operation.

Regulatory Restrictions

The Act contains important restrictions where regulatory authorities are involved. Recognition, relief, and cooperation under the Act are not permitted if theywould be prohibited by certain provisions of the Financial Services Act 2013, Islamic Financial Services Act 2013, Malaysia Deposit Insurance Corporation Act 2011, or Capital Markets and Services Act 2007.

The Act also protects the finality of payment and netting arrangements under financial services legislation and the enforceability of netting provisions in qualified financial agreements. Additionally, where regulatory authorities such as Bank Negara Malaysia, the Securities Commission Malaysia, or the Labuan Financial Services Authority have issued specific directions or orders in respect of a person for purposes of financial stability or systemic risk management, recognition and relief under the Act require the prior written approval of the relevant authority.

What This Means for Local Players

Malaysian corporations and insolvency practitioners now have a structured framework for dealing with cross-border insolvencies involving foreign counter parties. Local creditors benefit from explicit statutory protections as the Act mandates that Malaysian courts must ensure their interests are adequately protected before granting relief to foreign representatives, and any transfer of debtor property outside Malaysia requires prior court leave and certification that Malaysian creditors below a prescribed threshold have been satisfied. This offers meaningful safeguards against value leakage in cross-border restructurings.

Malaysian insolvency office-holders are expressly authorised to cooperate and communicate directly with foreign courts and representatives. This legitimises cross-border coordination efforts and should reduce uncertainty when Malaysian proceedings run concurrently with foreign proceedings. However, where concurrent proceedings exist, Malaysian proceedings will generally be limited to assets located in Malaysia, which may constrain the reach of local office-holders in complex group restructurings.

For local financial institutions, the broad carve-outs in the Schedule are significant. Licensed banks, insurers, securities market operators, and other regulated entities remain subject to their sector-specific resolution regimes under the Financial Services Act 2013, Islamic Financial Services Act 2013, and the Malaysia Deposit Insurance Corporation Act 2011, rather than this Act. This preserves regulatory control over systemically important institutions and ensures continuity in how their distress situations are managed.

What This Means for Foreign Investors

Foreign investors and multinational groups with Malaysian subsidiaries or assets now have a clear pathway to seek recognition of foreign insolvency proceedings in Malaysia. The Act grants foreign representatives direct access to the Malaysian High Courts without requiring submission to full local jurisdiction, removing a significant procedural barrier. Applications for recognition must be determined at the earliest possible time.

Once foreign main proceedings are recognised, the Act provides automatic stays on individual creditor actions and executions against the debtor's Malaysian assets, mirroring the effect of a local winding-up order. This is a substantial benefit for foreign insolvency practitioners seeking to preserve asset value and prevent a race to enforcement by local creditors. Foreign representatives may also apply for discretionary relief, including orders entrusting the administration of Malaysian assets to them or examining witnesses and gathering evidence.

Foreign creditors are afforded equal treatment with Malaysian creditors in terms of participation rights and cannot be ranked lower than general unsecured creditors solely by reason of being foreign. However, foreign tax claims, social security claims, and superannuation claims may be excluded from Malaysian proceedings, which investors should factor into recovery expectations.

Critically, cooperation and recognition under the Act may be refused or subject to prior regulatory approval where financial stability concerns are engaged. Foreign investors dealing with Malaysian financial institution counterparties should be aware that the Act's benefits may not extend to situations involving regulated entities or where Bank Negara Malaysia, the Securities Commission, or the Labuan Financial Services Authority has issued specific directions.

Conclusion

The Cross-Border Insolvency Act 2026 aligns Malaysia with international best practices under the UNCITRAL Model Law. Stakeholders should familiarise themselves with the Act and monitor for its commencement date.

Please contact us if you have any questions regarding the Act's implications for your business.

‍

The Stamp Act 1949 (“Act”) has long served as a foundational element of Malaysia’s tax landscape, and, like all enduring legislation, it evolves to meet contemporary needs. In recent developments, the introduction of the Stamp Duty Self-Assessment System (“SDSAS”) has been on everyone’s mind – starting with Phase 1 kicking off on 1 January 2026. With this new system, taxpayers are required to first categorise their instruments according to the First Schedule of the Act, then independently and accurately determine the rate payable to the Collector and subsequently make such payments to the Collector upon filing their stamp duty return on SDSAS. This represents a marked departure from the previous framework, under which taxpayers were only required to submit their instruments online for the Collector to adjudicate and issue an official assessment notice specifying the stamp duty due – upon which the taxpayers would make payment.

With such a significant change within the stamp duty framework, the Inland Revenue Board (“IRB”) has introduced the Voluntary Disclosure Program (“VDP”).The VDP is aimed to facilitate the transition between the past framework and the newly implemented system, acting as an automatic blanket exemption for all eligible taxpayers. However, it is important to note that this program and the exemptions that come along with it would only be available for 6 months from 1January 2026 to 30 June 2026 for instruments executed between year 2023 to year2025.

Many taxpayers have asked why the Stamp Duty Voluntary Disclosure Programme (VDP) applies only to instruments executed between 2023 and 2025, and whether documents executed prior to 2023 fall outside stamp duty exposure.

During a recent dialogue session with CTIM members, the Director General of Inland Revenue ("DGIR") verbally indicated that, as a matter of administrative practice, the Inland Revenue Board ("IRB") generally audits stamp duty compliance for a period of up to three years only. This administrative approach is broadly aligned with the IRB’s general audit framework.

However, it is important to note that, legally, the Stamp Act 1949 provides a time bar of five years for the assessment and recovery of deficient stamp duty. The DGIR also clarified that instruments executed prior to 2023 are not exempt from stamp duty.

Stamp duty remains legally payable under the Act as there is no remission or exemption order granting a blanket exemption for such instruments. A blanket exemption would potentially require refunds to be made to taxpayers who have already paid duty, which is not the current policy approach. Accordingly, while instruments executed before 2023 may, in practice, be less likely to be subject to audit under current IRB administrative practice, they remain legally chargeable to stamp duty.

Our view is that the three-year scope reflects the IRB’s current administrative practice rather than a limitation imposed by legislation, and such practice is not legally binding nor guaranteed to remain unchanged. Taxpayers should therefore assess their exposure based on statutory provisions rather than solely on current audit practice.

The overarching principle of the Act is that every instrument must be stamped at the prescribed rate. In practice, many taxpayers fall foul of the late-stamping provisions, rendering them liable under Section 47A of the Act. However, non-compliance not only attracts penalties imposed by the Collector, but also carries the more serious consequence that an unstamped document may be inadmissible as evidence in court, potentially undermining a party’s claims or defences should a dispute arise.

Specifically, under Section 47 of the Act, taxpayers are required to file a stamp duty return and ensure stamp duty payable is made within 30 days of the date of execution in Malaysia or the date of receipt in Malaysia, and failure to do so would attract penalties. Subsequently, Section 47A of the Act sets out the penalties for late stamping, whereby the “late” taxpayer would be subject to fifty ringgit (RM50) or ten percent (10%) of the amount of the unpaid duty if the instrument is stamped within three (3) months after the time for stamping, or one hundred ringgit (RM100) or twenty percent (20%) of the amount of the unpaid duty, whichever sum is greater in both cases.

Under Section 47A(2) of the Act, the Collector has the power to remit or reduce the amount of duty payable. Hence, the Collector has introduced the VDP to grant a remission period for eligible taxpayers, which applies to instruments executed between 1 January 2023 and 31 December 2025. For the VDP to apply, it is exclusive to taxpayers who have duly executed and stamped the relevant instruments, but have not paid the stamp duty. However, if the taxpayer has had the instrument stamped and the duty paid, then the VDP does not apply to such parties. Given that the VDP is designed as an automatic blanket exemption, those eligible are not required to file appeals of any sort, and the system will automatically display that the payment for duty is waived.

With the introduction of the SDSAS, the likelihood of the Collector “rejecting” a taxpayer’s submission may increase. Accordingly, taxpayers should be aware of the appeals process in the event of any dispute or dissatisfaction with an assessment by the Collector. Where a taxpayer disagrees with the Collector’s assessment, the taxpayer may, within thirty (30) days from the date of the assessment, lodge a written notice of objection with the Collector. Upon determination of the objection, the Collector shall notify the taxpayer inwriting of the decision. If the taxpayer remains dissatisfied with the Collector’s decision, the taxpayer may, within twenty-one (21) days from the date of notification, appeal the decision to the High Court.

The VDP can be seen as a nudge from the Collector to the taxpayers, a nudge forward in the direction of modernity through the SDSAS. Therefore, the bottom-line of the VDP is that it is introduced to encourage taxpayers to independently file, stamp and pay for their instruments in the future, fostering a culture of compliance and individual integrity under the SDSAS.

We are pleased to announce that our partners Andreanna Ten Maven, Mohamad Izahar Mohamad Izham and Nadarashnaraj Sargunaraj have contributed as authors of the Malaysia chapter of the International Comparative Legal Guide (ICLG) – Public Procurement 2026, providing a practical overview of Malaysia’s public procurement regime, including core procedures, eligibility requirements, remedies, and recent regulatory updates.

Our chapter highlights Malaysia’s major energy transition shifts, including carbon pricing, electricity market liberalisation, renewable energy exports, CCUS regulation, BESS deployment, and upstream discoveries driving both security and sustainability under the NETR.

On 26 October 2025, Malaysia and the US signed the Agreement on Reciprocal Trade (ART) during the 47^th ASEAN Summit in Kuala Lumpur.  Under Executive Order 14257 issued by the US President on 2 April 2025, the agreement is a US proposal to renegotiate tariffs on Malaysia from 25 percent to 19 percent.

The agreement covers many areas including among others in relation to Good Regulatory Practices (GRP).  This update will only focus on Good Regulatory Practices (GRP), and it is beyond the scope of this update to discuss the ART as a whole.

Good Regulatory Practices (GRP)

Article 2.8 in relation to Good Regulatory Practices (GRP) specifically states that:

Malaysia shall adopt and implement good regulatory practices as  set out in Article 2.21 of Annex III that ensure greater transparency,  predictability, and participation throughout the regulatory lifecycle.

Under Annex III: Specific Commitments, Article 2.21 in relation to Adoption and Implementation of Good Regulatory Practices (GRP) sets out the following:

With respect to the adoption and implementation of  good regulatory practices at the central level of government, Malaysia  shall─

(a)    ensure  that laws, regulations, procedures, and administrative rulings are promptly  published and made easily         accessible online;

(b)    under  normal circumstances,[1] publish  and make easily accessible online the text of proposed regulatory          measures,[2] as  well as any regulatory impact analysis, an explanation of the regulation, and  its objective;

(c)     conduct  public consultations for proposed regulatory measures in a transparent  manner; allow adequate         time for interested persons, domestic and foreign, to  submit comments, taking into account the complexity         or possible impact of the  proposed regulation; and give consideration to comments received;

(d)    give  reasonable notice of planned regulatory measures and publish regulatory  policy priorities that will be          developed, modified, or eliminated in the near  term;

(e)    use  publicly accessible high-quality data, evidence, technical information, and  risk assessments, where          appropriate, during the planning and development of  regulation;

(f)     support  international regulatory cooperation through the use of, as appropriate,  relevant international         standards, guides, and recommendations to avoid  unnecessary obstacles to trade;

(g)    conduct  reviews of regulation in effect to determine whether new information or other  changes justify          modification or repeal of regulation; and use tools, such as  regulatory impact analysis, to assess the need for          and possible impacts of  regulations, which could also include alternative approaches to regulation,  where          appropriate.

Key observations on the Good Regulatory Practice (GRP) requirements

• The requirement operates ‘one way’ for Malaysia as it only requires Malaysia to comply, perhaps on the assumption that the US has already complied with such Good Regulatory Practice (GRP) requirements in its domestic legal framework.
• The requirement is only imposed at the ‘central government’ level which is interpreted as Federal Government level and thus, is an important consideration given the autonomy of States and Local Governments to legislate on their own.
• The requirements from (a) to (g) Annex III: Specific Commitments, Article 2.21 already are reflective in our National Policy on Good Regulatory Practice (NPGRP).  The author does not intend to cover this exhaustively, but these requirements can be seen for example in our Regulatory Process Management System (RPMS) framework, adoption of evidence-based tools such as Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) and Behavioral Insights (BI), and specific elements there under such as the consultation process and option development.

According to the Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC), ART will only come into effect 60 days after both parties exchange written notifications confirming that their domestic legal procedures have been completed.  It is thus unclear when this will specifically occur given the range of matters agreed in the ART that would require domestic policy to be revisited.

Notwithstanding this, it is the author’s view that signing the bilateral reciprocal trade agreements would have the impact of requiring parties to upgrade domestic requirements in line with international standards, particularly on Good Regulatory Practices (GRP).[3]  Malaysia is no stranger to this where it ratified the multilateral Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) on 30 September 2022 which also included Good Regulatory Practices (GRP) requirements in Chapter 25: Regulatory Coherence.  

It is also the author’s view that from a domestic perspective on Good Regulatory Practices (GRP), it can be perceived that our domestic Good Regulatory Practices (GRP) ecosystem is already in line with best practice. In line with ASEAN’s Vision 2045 call to action to ‘embed’ GRP in every workstream, such requirements have already seamlessly been integrated into the domestic policy and regulatory development cycle.  It is then with optimism that we look forward to the next transformation of our National Policy on Good Regulatory Practice(NPGRP) that will set the benchmark of our Good Regulatory Practices (GRP)ecosystem for years to come.

The Agreement can be accessed here https://www.miti.gov.my/ART.                                                                                                                

If you have any questions or require any additional information, please contact our Partner and Head of the Government Advisory Practice, Mohamad Izahar Mohamad Izham at izaharizham@ziclegal.com of Zaid Ibrahim & Co.  

This alert is for general information only and is not a substitute for legal advice.

[1] “normal circumstances” do not include, for example, situations in which: publication in accordance with subparagraph (b) would render the regulatory measure ineffective in addressing the particular harm to the public interest that the regulatory measure aims to address; urgent problems (for example, of safety, health, or environmental protection) arise or threaten to arise for Malaysia; or the regulatory measure has no substantive impact upon members of the public, including persons of the United States.

[2] “regulatory measures” means measures of general application adopted, issued, or maintained by a regulatory authority with which compliance is mandatory, except: general statements of policy or guidance that do not prescribe legally enforceable requirements or measures concerning: (i) military, foreign affairs, or national security functions of the Government; (ii) public sector management, including personnel, pensions, public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts;(iii) departmental organization, procedure, or practice; or (iv) taxation, financial services, anti-money laundering, monetary policy, exchange rate policy, or government procurement. For greater certainty, a regulatory authority at the central level of government does not include legislatures or courts.

[3] At the time of writing, it is understood that the only two ASEAN countries that have signed the bilateral reciprocal trade agreements with the US is Cambodia and Malaysia.

‍