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

June 9, 2022

Legislation Amendments for Public Limited Companies in Thailand

On May 23, 2022, the Public Limited Companies Act (No. 4) B.E. 2565 (2022) was approved and published in the Government Gazette. The updated law amends the previous version of the Public Limited Companies Act by formally allowing board of directors (BOD) and shareholders’ meetings to be held electronically, and amending corporate approval processes for public limited companies.

The new act came into effect the day after its publication, but full implementation of certain amendments will only become practical after the issuance of various related subrules and subregulations. The key elements of the new act are described below.

Electronic Dissemination of Company Notices and Advertisements

Under the previous version of the Public Limited Companies Act, required company notices, statements, and advertisements had to be published in a local newspaper where the company is located, for at least three consecutive days.

However, the amended act allows such notices, statements, and advertisements to be sent via electronic means, though the process must comply with subregulations to be issued by the Department of Business Development (DBD).

Electronic Delivery Options for Documents

The amended act allows public limited company notices or documents to be sent to company directors, shareholders, or creditors electronically instead of by registered mail, as long as the recipients have consented to receive such documents via electronic means. Electronic delivery of documents must comply with subregulations to be issued by the DBD.

Additional Individuals Authorized to Call BOD Meetings

In keeping with the previous version of the law, the amended act grants the chairperson of the BOD the authority to call a board meeting, and allows any two directors to jointly request that the chairperson call a meeting, in which case the chairperson must call the meeting within 14 days. The amended act further stipulates that if the chairperson does not call the meeting in accordance with the request, at the lapse of the 14-day window, the requesting directors can then directly call a BOD meeting in the following 14 days. The new act also allows the vice-chairperson to call a BOD meeting if there is no chairperson; this authority passes to any two directors if there is no vice-chairperson.

Electronic BOD Meetings

The amended Public Limited Companies Act allows BOD meetings to be convened by electronic means, unless this is prohibited by the company’s articles of association. Such meetings, which are deemed to be held at the company’s head office, must be held in compliance with the laws governing electronic meetings.

A public limited company’s BOD should meet at least once every three months. The previous version of the Public Limited Companies Act stipulated that the notice calling for a meeting be given to the directors in person or sent to them at least seven days in advance, but the amended act reduces the notice period to three days. In the case of an urgent matter and when needed to protect the rights and benefits of the company, the notice period can be shortened further and the notice can be sent electronically.

Electronic Shareholders’ Meetings
Similar to electronic BOD meetings, shareholders’ meetings can also be convened electronically if this is not restricted by the company’s articles of association and is in compliance with the laws governing electronic meetings. Likewise, the company’s head office is deemed the location of the meeting.

If a shareholders’ meeting is requested by the holders of at least 10% of the total issued shares, and the BOD fails to call the meeting within 45 days of receiving the shareholders’ request, the requesting shareholders can then call for a shareholders’ meeting in the subsequent 45 days. The meeting notice issued by the requesting shareholders can be sent electronically, provided the shareholders have consented to receive the documents via electronic means. This delivery of documents must comply with subregulations to be issued by the DBD.

Appointment of a Proxy Holder via Electronic Means

The amended act permits shareholders to appoint a proxy holder via electronic means, provided the method is safe, credible, and in accordance with the rules prescribed by the DBD. This is a change from the previous version of the act, under which the appointment of a proxy holder for a shareholders’ meeting had to be made in writing and signed by the grantor, with a hard copy submitted to the chairperson or a designee.

Tilleke & Gibbins will continue to monitor the new act’s implementation—particularly the development of regulations related to electronic processes—and provide updates as appropriate. For more information on these new laws, or any aspect of how public limited companies can comply with Thailand’s laws, please contact Chaiwat Keratisuthisathorn at [email protected] or +66 2056 5507, Onunya Chanpen at [email protected] or +66 2056 5603, or Suphitsara Jaturaphitjaroen at [email protected] or +66 2056 5645.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

November 13, 2025
Tilleke & Gibbins has contributed the Thailand chapter to Franchise 2026, part of the International Comparative Legal Guides (ICLG) series published by Global Legal Group. This annual guide offers comparative analysis of franchise laws and regulations across jurisdictions worldwide, providing practical insights for businesses and legal practitioners operating in the global franchise sector. Each country chapter in the 12th edition follows a Q&A format covering key aspects of franchise law and operations, including: Relevant legislation and rules governing franchise transactions Business organization options for franchised operations Competition law considerations Protection of intellectual property and brands Liability issues and risk mitigation Governing law and dispute resolution Real estate matters Online trading regulations Termination requirements Joint employer risks and vicarious liability Currency controls and taxation Commercial agency considerations Good faith obligations and fair dealing requirements Ongoing relationship management Franchise renewal processes Franchise migration procedures Sustainability commitments Electronic signatures and document retention Current developments in the franchise sector The Thailand chapter, authored by Alan Adcock and Kasama Sriwatanakul, provides an in-depth overview of the legal landscape for franchising and franchising-related activities in Thailand. The complete Thailand chapter is available as a PDF below. The Thailand chapter—and the full Franchise 2026 guide—are also freely available on the ICLG website.
November 7, 2025
Thailand and the United States signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) titled “Cooperation to Diversify Global Critical Minerals Supply Chains and Promote Investments” on October 26, 2025, signaling a new strategic alignment aimed at developing Thailand’s mineral sector, particularly in rare earth elements (REEs). The MOU has implications for investments in technology, manufacturing, and other related sectors. This update outlines the key provisions of the MOU and the potential opportunities and legal navigating points for businesses. Objectives The primary driver of this agreement is the US initiative to diversify global supply chains for critical minerals and reduce reliance on current market leaders, particularly China. For Thailand, it represents a major opportunity to attract high-tech investment and develop its downstream processing industries. The cooperation is set to focus on five main areas: Technical knowledge: Exchange of technical expertise and international best practices to strengthen Thailand’s mining and processing sector. Joint cooperation: Establishing workshops, seminars, and scientific collaboration to boost innovation. Regulatory practice: Promoting good governance and streamlining regulatory and licensing procedures. Information sharing: Sharing data on potential projects and global market prices. Full-value chain: The MOU covers the entire mineral lifecycle, from exploration and extraction to processing, refining, and recycling. “First Opportunity to Invest” Clause The most debated provision within the MOU states that “participants expect to have the first opportunity to invest . . . in critical minerals assets that may be sold in Thailand.” Business implications: This clause is widely interpreted as granting US companies a first look or preferential access to investment opportunities in Thailand’s critical minerals sector. This could be a significant advantage for US-based or affiliated companies in mining, technology, and energy seeking to secure a foothold in a developing REE supply chain. Thai government position: Thai officials, including the prime minister, have publicly clarified
October 31, 2025
On September 29, 2025, Thailand’s Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC Office) published its Regulations on the Review and Certification of Binding Corporate Rules B.E. 2568 (2025) (the Regulations). The Regulations provide clarity on the PDPC Office’s approach to reviewing and certifying binding corporate rules (BCRs) under Section 29 of the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA), and aim to facilitate international data transfers within a group of undertakings or enterprises (a “corporate group”). In conjunction with this development, the PDPC Office also approved BCRs for two companies operating in Thailand on September 30, 2025. This milestone represents the first concrete progress since the PDPC’s Notification on Criteria for the Protection of Personal Data Sent or Transferred to a Foreign Country pursuant to Section 29 of the PDPA B.E. 2566 (2023) came into effect in March 2024. Some key features of the Regulations are set out below. Categorization of BCRs BCRs are classified into two types: (1) BCRs for Controllers (BCR-C) and (2) BCRs for Processors (BCR-P). The category must be clearly specified when submitting the BCRs to the PDPC Office. Documentation Requirement The applicant must prepare and submit the application (a standard template may be provided by the PDPC Office in the future) along with supporting documents for review and certification in the Thai language. If the supporting documents are in a foreign language, a certified Thai translation should be provided. The translation must be notarized by a notary public or qualified person. Supporting documents may include, among others, a binding instrument such as an intra-group agreement, or a list of entities subject to the BCRs. Expedited Process Requirement Organizations with existing BCR approvals under the EU or UK GDPR, or from countries announced by the PDPC under Section 28, may apply through an
October 30, 2025
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,