You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

October 30, 2025

Contested Control in Thailand: Why Boards Stay Put (and What It Means for Tender Offers)

Subscribe to Updates

Recent events at a Thai listed company, where a proposal to remove the director was not successful, amid claims that a competitor was attempting to gain control of the company, illustrate how disputes over corporate control can unfold differently at the board level and shareholder level. At the board level, removing directors of a listed company mid-term to gain corporate control is not an easy task under Thai law, as it requires a higher threshold than appointing a new director, which typically only requires a simple majority vote in a listed company. At the shareholder level, Thailand’s tender offer and competition regimes add complexity where different shareholder groups act in concert to remove opposing board representatives or otherwise influence control.

In this article, we will explore why the attempted removal of a director may fail, and how the tender offer regime may apply.

Key Issues at a Glance

Shareholder groups may seek to convene meetings to propose changes to board composition or company authority. Such proposals can be delayed or complicated by regulatory requirements and the need for additional disclosures.

Regulatory authorities and minority shareholders may raise concerns when major shareholders coordinate to influence board control, especially if such actions could trigger tender offer or merger control obligations. Companies often respond by seeking further information on shareholder relationships and potential conflicts before proceeding.

Why the Director Removal Failed

Under Section 76 of the Public Limited Companies Act B.E. 2535 (as amended), the early removal of a director requires two conditions to be satisfied at the same meeting of shareholders:

  • Headcount test: At least 75% of shareholders attending and entitled to vote must vote in favor. If multiple shareholders appoint the same person as proxy, each proxy is counted as a separate head for the purpose of the headcount test, even if only one authorized person attends and holds all such proxies (e.g., 10 proxies to one person count as 10 heads).
  • Sharecount test: Votes in favor must represent not less than 50% of all shares held by shareholders attending and entitled to vote.

In the recent case, even though the sharecount test was satisfied (approximately 80% of shares voted “for”), the headcount test failed (most shareholders present voted “against”). Because both conditions must be met simultaneously, the removal did not carry, and the director remained in office.

From Boardroom to Ownership: A Lead-in to Tender Offer Rules

A valid shareholder vote to alter board composition does not, by itself, trigger a mandatory tender offer under Thai law. Instead, a mandatory tender offer is triggered when the voting rights of any person — alone or together with persons acting in concert or persons under Section 258 (basically its related persons) of the Securities and Exchange Act B.E. 2535 (as amended) — reaches or exceeds 25%, 50%, or 75% of a listed company’s total voting rights.

In the context of unrelated parties — meaning those who are not part of the same group company but work together to gain control of a listed company — the concept of “acting in concert” is crucial. Acting in concert means that if people coordinate their actions with the intention to vote in the same direction or to influence the company’s direction, they may be treated as a single group. If this group’s combined voting rights reach or exceed 25%, 50%, or 75% of the listed company’s total voting rights, they are required to make a mandatory tender offer, even if no individual alone reaches these thresholds.

Allegations of control-seeking without a tender offer also invite regulatory scrutiny from the SEC regarding conduct and disclosure, potentially affecting the timing and posture of any subsequent offer. Separately, competition law considerations may require clearance where effective control by a competitor is in play, even where no mandatory tender offer obligation arises.

Could an Offer Still Proceed — and What Might Get in the Way?

Before acquiring shares or deciding to act in concert, parties should carefully consider whether their actions may trigger a mandatory tender offer or whether a voluntary tender offer is appropriate. However, several practical hurdles may arise:

  • Acting‑in‑concert exposure: The characteristics of acting in concert must be thoroughly reviewed to avoid unintentionally reaching thresholds that require a mandatory tender offer. Launching either a voluntary or mandatory tender offer requires strategic planning and a clear understanding of the regulatory implications.
  • Pre‑offer conduct and disclosure: Making a tender offer requires compliance with the Thai SEC’s filing and disclosure requirements, including submission of prescribed forms and publication of offer details. Offer documents must be complete, accurate, and consistent, and must be promptly harmonized to ensure fairness. Questions concerning nominee affiliations or potential conflicts are likely to receive heightened regulatory scrutiny.
  • Minority fairness: Conflict-of-interest or competitor-control concerns may invite closer review of equal treatment and opinions of financial advisors. An offeror must ensure that minority shareholders have an equal opportunity to dispose of their shares at the same acquisition price.
  • Merger control: When an acquirer is a competitor, merger control clearance from the Trade Competition Commission of Thailand may be required. Launching a tender offer without a credible path to clearance risks delay and uncertainty.

Navigating corporate control, especially in a listed company, under Thai law involves intricate legal considerations. For specific situations and tailored advice, we strongly recommend consulting with experienced legal advisors.

Related Professionals

Practices

Capital Markets

Corporate/M&A

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

June 23, 2026
Thailand’s Board of Investment (BOI) has significantly revised its post-approval compliance framework for projects that receive investment promotion incentives, replacing the previous semiannual reporting system for project progress with a new quarterly reporting regime. The initial report is due by July 30, 2026, covering the second-quarter reporting period of April to June 2026. The new requirements—implemented through BOI Announcement No. 8/2569 and Office of the BOI Notification No. Por. 8/2569, both of which became effective on March 30, 2026—apply both to newly promoted projects and to existing promoted projects that remain in the implementation stage. Background Under the previous reporting framework, BOI-promoted companies that had not yet commenced full operations were generally required to submit reports on project progress to the BOI twice a year (February and July) through the BOI’s e-Monitoring system. By adopting a quarterly reporting regime, the BOI seeks to strengthen monitoring and evaluation of investment progress and project implementation. Reporting Requirements Under the new regulations, BOI-promoted companies must submit project progress reports on a quarterly basis during the implementation phase of a promoted project. The reporting periods and submission deadlines are: Q1 (January–March): April 30 Q2 (April–June): July 30 Q3 (July–September): October 30 Q4 (October–December): January 30 of the following year The quarterly reporting obligation runs from the date the BOI promotion certificate is issued until the BOI grants approval for commencement of full operations. For newly promoted projects, no quarterly report is required for the quarter in which the BOI promotion certificate is issued—the first reporting obligation arises in the immediately following reporting period. All project progress reports must be submitted electronically through the BOI’s e-Monitoring system. The existing annual reporting requirement also remains in effect, requiring promoted companies to submit an annual operating results report through the e-Monitoring system by July 31 of
Read More
June 18, 2026
Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has released a detailed draft notification expanding its oversight to cover the funding sources behind major shareholdings in licensed securities and digital asset business operators. Published on June 8, 2026, as Public Hearing Document No. 30/2569, the draft builds on funding-source principles introduced in an April hearing and on recently amended Ministry of Finance notifications issued in February 2026 that broadened the definition of major shareholder of licensed securities and digital asset business operators. A public comment period on the draft closes on June 23, 2026. An earlier version of the SEC’s proposal brought the issue of funding behind significant shareholdings within the SEC’s regulatory perimeter, signaling intent to look beyond shareholding to the persons and capital ultimately financing major shareholdings in licensed securities and digital asset business operators. The concern is that control may be exercised through financing arrangements rather than through equity ownership alone. The draft notification advances that initiative into a more detailed regulatory framework, as summarized below. Expanded Definition Captures Funding Sources Throughout Ownership Chains The draft regulation introduces a “material funding source” concept. A material funding source is the principal capital that enables a major shareholder to acquire its shareholding, without which the shareholding could not be obtained. Under the proposed rules, any person who provides such funding, whether directly to the major shareholder or indirectly through any tier of the ownership chain above the operator, is deemed a controller subject to SEC approval. The draft also captures any person acting as a conduit or intermediary in facilitating financial assistance to a major shareholder, deeming each of these persons to be a material funding source and aggregating it into the same control group as the ultimate funding source. The definition covers not only cash loans and equity investments,
Read More
June 9, 2026
On April 28, 2026, the Central Bank of Myanmar (CBM) issued Notification No. 18/2026 introducing the new Foreign Remittance Business Regulations. The new regulations apply to companies intending to operate foreign remittance businesses in Myanmar that are not licensed banks, non-bank financial institutions, or other financial institutions. The regulations supersede and replace the previous regulatory framework governing foreign remittance businesses under CBM Notification No. 21/2019. While the overall structure remains familiar, the new regulations introduce more detailed requirements for licensing, operations, reporting, and compliance, with a stronger focus on transparency and regulatory oversight. Broader Licensing Requirements Under the new regulations, applicants must submit detailed business plans describing the use of information technology and mobile platforms, along with clear plans for handling remittances from workers abroad and resolving customer complaints. Financial Thresholds and Reporting Requirements The baseline financial thresholds remain unchanged. Licensees must maintain a security deposit of MMK 100 million in an escrow account, along with a separate revolving fund dedicated solely to remittance operations. The new regulations introduce more structured reporting obligations. Licensees are now required to submit daily remittance transaction data by the next business day before noon, in addition to monthly and periodic reporting requirements. Foreign bank account statements must also be submitted regularly, and licensees must provide updates on business operations every six months. Strengthened AML and CFT Framework The new regulations place a greater emphasis on anti-money laundering (AML) and counter financing of terrorism (CFT), with tighter controls over management changes. Any changes in shareholding, share transfers, or the appointment of key management personnel such as the managing director require prior approval from the CBM. Licensing Fees and Validity The new regulations increase licensing costs, while maintaining the same validity period of three years. The new regulations provide more detailed grounds for suspension and
Read More
June 4, 2026
On May 19, 2026, the Cabinet of the Royal Thai Government approved, in principle, revisions to Thailand’s visa exemption scheme and visa on arrival (VOA) program, as proposed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Tourism and Sports. The revisions represent a tightening of Thailand’s immigration framework and will affect a broad range of short-term visitors. Background On July 15, 2024, Thailand expanded its visa exemption scheme by increasing the permitted period of visa-exempt stay from 30 days to 60 days in order to promote tourism, support the country’s post-pandemic economic recovery, and facilitate international travel. Under this revised scheme, passport holders from 93 countries and territories (an increase from the previous 57 countries and territories) have been permitted to enter Thailand without a visa and remain in the country for up to 60 days per entry for purposes including tourism, business engagements, urgent work, and ad hoc assignments. In addition, eligible visitors may apply at the Thai Immigration Bureau for a further 30-day extension of stay. Key Changes The proposed revisions would revoke the current 60-day exemption and reinstate the previous stay period, thereby reducing the maximum permitted stay for eligible travelers to 30 days per entry. In addition, the number of countries and territories eligible under the 30-day visa-exemption scheme is expected to be reduced to 54. The scope of the VOA scheme would likewise be significantly narrowed, with the number of eligible countries reduced from 31 countries to just four (Azerbaijan, Belarus, Serbia, and India). Further, Thailand is expected to introduce a new 15-day visa exemption category for nationals of Seychelles, the Maldives, and Mauritius. The revised framework would also limit each country or territory to a single visa exemption privilege in order to simplify Thailand’s immigration framework and reduce overlapping immigration privileges.
Read More