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​ 

October 24, 2025
On October 22, 2025, the Thai government posted a directive not to grant gambling licenses for gambling involving poker nationwide to crack down on illegal gambling activities. The directive was issued by Thailand’s Ministry of Interior to align with government policies to prevent the legalization of all types of gambling businesses, including poker as a sporting activity. This will result in the revocation of poker activities as sport and institute a strict ban on such activities nationwide. Businesses should note the new government’s strict approach toward gambling activities as the legal situation regarding gambling in the country continues to draw close attention.
October 1, 2025
In September 2025, Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) accused a company listed on the Stock Exchange of Thailand (SET), including its current and former directors, of concealing material information in connection with its filing registration and draft prospectus. This recent enforcement action demonstrates the serious consequences of making false statements or appearing to conceal material information in IPO filings and ongoing disclosures. In addition to being subject to criminal penalties, such actions can impact the eligibility of directors and executives to serve and may cause lasting reputational damage. Key Legal Risks The Securities and Exchange Act B.E. 2535 (1992) (as amended) imposes strict liability for making false statements or concealing material information in IPO registration statements and draft prospectuses. In such cases, investors can claim for damages, and there are also criminal penalties, including imprisonment for up to five years and substantial fines, may apply to the company, its directors, and responsible officers. However, misstatements or omissions in IPO filings do not, by themselves, disqualify directors or executives from holding office, whether arising from an SEC accusation or even a final court judgment. In contrast, for ongoing disclosures after listing, such as financial statements, annual reports, and meeting notices, false or misleading statements or concealment of material information can result in not only criminal liability but also immediate disqualification of directors and executives. If the SEC accuses a listed company or its directors or executives of such misstatements or omissions, those directors or executives are immediately disqualified from their positions, even before a final court judgment. Director and Executive Qualifications Directors and executives must meet the SEC’s specified standards of trustworthiness, as set out in the relevant rules. The SEC clearly defines characteristics that are considered to demonstrate a lack of trustworthiness. For ongoing disclosures, being involved in
September 30, 2025
Vietnam’s higher education system is at a pivotal stage of reform, with the government taking decisive steps to strengthen its policy and regulatory framework. In response to obstacles encountered during the implementation of the Law on Higher Education, issued in 2012 and amended in 2018, the third draft of the amended Law on Higher Education (Draft Law) is scheduled for submission to the National Assembly in October 2025. The Draft Law reflects the state’s commitment to aligning the education sector with international standards while addressing persistent structural challenges. The Draft Law emphasizes clarifying institutional mandates, enhancing accountability, and modernizing governance models to enable higher education institutions to operate with greater autonomy and efficiency. Against this backdrop, we outline below several notable provisions of the third draft and their potential implications for higher education institutions (HEIs) in Vietnam. Applicable Entities In addition to HEIs as defined and covered under existing legislation, the Draft Law extends its scope of applicable entities. The current Law on Higher Education does not regulate training institutions under state agencies, the armed forces, or political and social organizations, nor does it provide specific provisions for institutions offering only postgraduate education. To address this, the Draft Law introduces the term “institutions with higher education activities,” expanding its scope to include: (a) academies and research institutes established by the prime minister, mandated to provide doctoral-level training; (b) educational institutions affiliated with state agencies, political organizations, socio-political organizations, and the people’s armed forces, authorized to offer higher education programs in their specialized fields; and (c) institutions established pursuant to international treaties or by decision of the prime minister, with authorization to deliver certain levels of higher education. The inclusion of “institutions with higher education activities” represents a significant development both legally and institutionally. In an increasingly diversified higher education
September 29, 2025
In September 2019, the government of Vietnam issued Decree No. 75/2019/ND-CP on Administrative Sanctions in the Field of Competition (Decree 75) to address the urgent need for clear sanctioning mechanisms following the implementation of the new Law on Competition in July 2019. However, after five years of enforcement, various gaps and inconsistencies have been exposed that hinder its application. These shortcomings have reduced the deterrent effect of the sanctioning regime, and created legal uncertainty for market participants. A recent case involving Duc Giang – Lao Cai Chemicals’ acquisition of another chemical company—one of the first cases of economic concentration violation to be sanctioned by the National Competition Commission (NCC) since the Law on Competition took effect—highlights the practical difficulties under Vietnam’s competition law enforcement regime. In this case, although the transaction exceeded the statutory notification thresholds of economic concentration set out in the law, the parties failed to submit the required notification. This violation resulted in the NCC imposing aggregate fines of VND 1,423,982,880 (approximately USD 54,770) on the companies in September 2024. On appeal, Duc Giang – Lao Cai Chemicals argued that the chairman of the NCC was legally entitled to issue a warning as the key punishment instead of a monetary penalty. However, the chairman rejected the appeal, citing Article 14 of Decree 75, under which the specific penalty and level for “failure to notify economic concentration” is a fine, not a warning. While the chairman of the NCC is generally empowered to impose penalties, a warning cannot be applied if the specific regulation for a particular violation does not provide for it as a sanction. This example shows the inadequacy and inconsistency of the regulations on penalties for violations of competition law, and underscores the need for an amendment of Decree 75 to resolve such conflicts