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

April 20, 2023

Restoring Company Registration and Status in Myanmar

Subscribe to Updates

In 2018, following enactment of the Myanmar Companies Law (MCL), the Directorate of Investment and Company Administration (DICA) launched Myanmar Companies Online (MyCO), an official online platform for corporate registration. The MCL required companies to re-register in MyCO, but some companies did not complete this step within the date provided by the law. In addition, the MCL introduced a requirement for companies to file an annual return through MyCO. Some companies have also failed to do this, which can eventually lead to DICA automatically striking the company’s name from the register.

If a company has not re-registered, it must follow specific administrative procedures to “activate” the company in MyCO. There are also administrative procedures allowing for restoration of companies that have been struck from the DICA register. This article considers the ramifications of each of these scenarios and outlines potential next steps for companies facing these challenges.

Activating a Company Not Yet Re-registered

Prior to enactment of the MCL, all companies were formed under the Myanmar Companies Act 1914, which was the primary law governing registration and operation of companies in the country. Once the MCL was passed, companies were required to re-register online via MyCO by January 31, 2019.

For companies that did not re-register on MyCO, the company’s name, old registration number, and registration date under the Myanmar Companies Act 1914 was recorded in MyCO, and the status of the company was set as “Not Yet Re-registered.”

Companies assigned this status should not assume that it means the company was struck off the DICA register. Rather, the DICA states that if a company is listed as not re-registered on MyCO, it can still re-register by fulfilling the requirements specified in the MCL.

In order to re-register under the MCL, the company must obtain a court order to proceed with the re-registration process and submit it along with the required form via MyCO in the presence of the registrar.

Restoring a Struck-Off Company

Under the MCL, all companies must file an annual return through the MyCO system within two months of incorporation and annually within a month of the incorporation anniversary. If a company fails to submit the annual return in time, the registrar will issue a notice. After 28 days, the company registration will automatically be suspended unless the company files its annual return and pays any outstanding fees and penalties.

If the suspension is not revoked within six months, the registrar will strike the company’s name off the register, and the company must then be liquidated under the Insolvency Law. Until the company is liquidated, all the directors and members of the company maintain their liability as provided in the MCL.

To date, the registrar has struck off approximately 8,300 companies. If these companies wish to regain their status and continue with their business activities—or if directors of the struck-off company want to establish a new company—they will need to restore their registration. To achieve this, a company can file a request for reinstatement in court, and the court may order the restoration of the company, which can then submit the order to the DICA to commence the restoration process.

Complying with Myanmar’s Corporate Registration Requirements

Though the rules surrounding registration and company status can seem complex, businesses in Myanmar must comply with them in order to operate legally and avoid penalties or administrative obstacles and delays. It is important for companies to stay up to date with changes in the law and fulfill all necessary requirements in a timely manner, including re-registering on MyCO and filing annual returns. Companies facing challenges with registration or restoration should seek legal advice and guidance to navigate the process effectively.

Related Professionals

Practices

Corporate/M&A

Location

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.
Read More
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
Read More
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
Read More
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,
Read More