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

February 23, 2018

Significant Changes Introduced by the Myanmar Companies Law 2017

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

The much-anticipated Myanmar Companies Bill was passed by the Pyidaungsu Hluttaw and assented to by President U Htin Kyaw on December 6, 2017. The newly enacted Myanmar Companies Law 2017 (MCL 2017) effectively repeals the archaic Myanmar Companies Act 1914 (MCA 1914), and will come into effect at a date to be designated by the president, currently anticipated to be no later than August 1, 2018. In the meantime, the MCA 1914 remains in effect. The main changes introduced by the MCL 2017 are detailed below.

Up to 35% Foreign Shareholding in Local Companies

The most significant change introduced by the MCL 2017 is the new definition of a foreign company. Under the MCA 1914, a locally incorporated entity with any foreign shareholding is considered a foreign company in Myanmar. The MCL 2017 changes this legal definition, allowing companies to have up to 35% of their shares held by foreign nationals before being considered a foreign company. This allows foreign investors to partake in business activities that were previously restricted to companies with 100% of shares held by Myanmar citizens.

Sole Shareholders

Based on the existing practice of the Directorate of Investment and Company Administration (DICA), the principal government body regulating company affairs in Myanmar, locally incorporated companies must have a minimum of two shareholders. The MCL 2017 changes this position, allowing companies to be incorporated with a minimum of one share and a single shareholder. This brings Myanmar’s company law practices more in line with international standards, and it allows companies to incorporate wholly-owned subsidiaries in the country.

Number of Directors and Residency Requirements

Under the MCL 2017, only one director has to be appointed for each company. This is different from the current practice of the DICA, which requires locally incorporated companies to have at least two directors. However, the MCL 2017 requires at least one director of the company to be ordinarily resident in Myanmar—that is, resident in Myanmar for at least 183 days in each year (but not necessarily a Myanmar national). Public companies must have at least three directors, one of whom must be a Myanmar citizen ordinarily resident in the country.

Replacement of Memorandum and Articles of Association with a Constitution

The DICA’s practice under the MCA 1914 is to require companies to have a memorandum and articles of association in accordance with sample templates provided by the DICA during incorporation. The MCL 2017 replaces this requirement with a single company constitution. The memorandum of association, articles of association, and any other constituent documents of an existing company in Myanmar will collectively regarded as its constitution, provided that they are consistent with the MCL 2017.

Abolition of Company Objectives

The MCL 2017 abolishes the requirement for companies incorporated in Myanmar to stipulate their company objectives, which effectively limit the type of business activities that a company can undertake. Under the current MCA 1914 framework, persons wishing to incorporate a company in Myanmar are required to have the intended company objectives approved by the DICA before filing a company incorporation application. Registered objectives of an existing company will cease to exist 12 months after the enactment of the MCL 2017.

Removal of Permit to Trade Requirement for Foreign Companies

The MCL 2017 removes the requirement for foreign companies to obtain a permit to trade when applying for company incorporation. The removal of this regulatory hurdle, which, despite its name, does not permit foreign companies to engage in trading activities, expedites the company incorporation process.

Abolition of Authorized Capital and Par Value

The MCA 1914 only allows a company to hold shares up to the amount of authorized capital stated in the memorandum of association, with any capitalization beyond that requiring a formal amendment to the memorandum. This requirement changes under the MCL 2017, which states that shares shall not have a nominal or par value. This allows companies to have more flexibility in pricing shares.

Different Classes of Shares Permitted

The MCL 2017 allows companies to issue different classes of shares and securities, thereby permitting companies to distinguish the rights of different shareholders. Companies can therefore issue preferential shares and shares with weighed voting rights.

Exemptions for Small Companies

Under the MCL 2017, companies with less than 30 employees and annual revenues lower than MMK 50 million (approx. USD 38,500) are exempted from certain reporting and meeting requirements. For example, unless required by the company’s constitution, the DICA, or an ordinary shareholders’ resolution, a qualifying company does not need to hold an annual general meeting or file an annual balance sheet, directors’ report, or financial statements.

Directors’ Duties Codified 

In line with common law principles and modern legislation governing companies internationally, the MCL 2017 lays down a comprehensive set of directors’ duties. This includes the duty to act with care and diligence, the duty to act in good faith in the company’s best interest, the duty to avoid reckless trading, and more.

Clarification on the Regulation of Overseas Corporations

The MCL 2017 states that all overseas corporations (i.e., foreign-incorporated entities) must register themselves in order to “carry on business” in Myanmar. While the MCL 2017 does not define activities which constitute the carrying on of a business in Myanmar, it states that an overseas corporation is not deemed to be carrying on business in Myanmar merely because it maintains a bank account, conducts an isolated transaction completed within a period of 30 days (not being one of a number of similar transactions repeated from time to time), holds property, becomes a party to legal proceedings, or lends money. Under the MCA 1914, foreign-incorporated entities are actually able to register their branch offices or representative offices in Myanmar with the DICA, though neither branch offices nor representative offices are recognized as distinct legal entities from the foreign-incorporated entities, and are regarded as nonresident foreigner entities in Myanmar. It is therefore important for foreign businesses with regular business transactions in Myanmar to consider these new provisions to determine whether registration under the MCL 2017 is indeed required.

Ongoing Modernization

The enactment of the MCL 2017 is a much welcomed move as Myanmar strives to modernize its legislative framework, signifying the country’s commitment to continuing the liberalization of its economy. The DICA has also indicated that the launch of an online companies’ registry is in the pipeline, the introduction of which will certainly boost transparency in the country’s company administration framework. The DICA has also announced that all existing companies incorporated under the MCA 1914 will be required to re-register themselves online within six months from the entry into force of the MCL 2017.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Corporate/M&A

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

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
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.
Read More
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
Read More
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
Read More