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 13, 2019

Stock Manipulation and Class Actions in Thailand

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

Since 2017, the Anti Money Laundering Office (AMLO), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and the Stock Exchange of Thailand (SET) have been engaged in an active drive to monitor and pursue many charges related to stock manipulation against high-level executives of security-issuing companies. These authorities, particularly the SEC, have the duties to regulate, monitor, and sanction any traders who act in contravention of the Securities and Exchange Act B.E. 2535 (1992) (the Act), which prohibits, among other things, insider trading and stock manipulation. Executives charged by the SEC for engaging in such conduct could be required to pay substantial civil fines, and could also be barred from holding an executive position in securities-issuing companies. Investors who suffer losses from such manipulations also have the right to file a claim against the stock manipulators to seek compensation.  

Stock Manipulation

Stock manipulations occur when a person with inside information causes stock to behave abnormally in order to manipulate its price or value. Principally, the Act prohibits anyone with inside information related to the securities-issuing company from purchasing or selling securities, or entering into a derivative contract with respect to the securities, for themselves or for others, except as allowed by law. The disclosure of inside information to another person, directly or indirectly, is also prohibited under the Act.

Certain groups of people are presumed under the Act to have inside information by the nature of their roles or positions in the company, including directors, executives, auditors, advisors, and employees who are responsible for or capable of accessing inside information. Any such persons found to have traded securities, or entered into derivatives contracts, in a different manner from their normal practice, are presumed to have known or possessed inside information.

The impact of insider trading can be substantial, and cautionary tales abound. In one very recent high-profile case, executives of a securities-issuing airline manipulated stocks by jointly trading shares with the public while trading shares among themselves by matching orders. The transaction appeared to the public to be a bid, thereby masking the true price and volume of securities being traded. This trading scheme caused the price and the volume of the shares to behave abnormally in the market, with the prices ultimately rising 22.5 percent.

The SEC charged the executives who participated in this scheme with offences under the Act, ordered them to pay massive civil fines (nearly USD 16 million in total), and barred them from becoming executives or directors of listed companies and securities-issuing companies.

Rights of Injured Investors to Claim through Class Actions

The fines and penalties in the case above are an example of the robust protections against unscrupulous trading practices in the arsenal of the SEC. However, the risks of insider trading no longer end with SEC sanctions. Recent legislation has also empowered affected investors to recover their losses from such practices directly.

In stock manipulation cases, even when vast sums have been unlawfully procured by a stock manipulator, the individual traders that have been misled may only have suffered comparatively small amounts of individual loss. This means that claim amounts have often been too small for investors to justify the cost of litigation.

Thailand’s recently enacted class action legislation, chiefly the Act to Amend the Civil Procedure Code (No.26) B.E. 2558 (2015), changes that, by allowing plaintiffs in cases related to securities and stock exchanges, including stock manipulation, to apply for class proceedings.

This means that a representative of a large group (or “class”) of injured parties can file a claim against the same defendant or defendants, on behalf of the group, in a single lawsuit. In a stock manipulation case for example, a class may include all those who purchased stock at an artificially inflated price. If the claim is successful, the damages awarded by the court can then be calculated based on the number of members of that class (if appropriate).

Strengthening that protection further, Thailand’s class action regime is an “opt-out” system, which allows for passive participation by class members. Class action cases are initiated and driven by lawyers and representatives of the class members who suffered similar losses, based on the same legal violations and other facts. When the parameters of such a class are fixed by the court, it will issue notices of proceedings to the class members. These notices include essential information such as a summary of claims, the details of claimants and lawyers, the rights of the class members, the binding effect of any court decision on those class members, and, crucially, the period for opting out from the proceedings. Those who do not do so are included in the plaintiff class, will be bound by the court’s decision, and will may be included in the multiplier for calculating the award of damages.

Once the class is fixed, the plaintiff benefits from all the tools of civil litigation, including a document discovery process, in which parties are required to disclose their documentary evidence and witnesses to the opposing party. Uniquely among Thai civil proceedings, class action legislation enhances this discovery process by granting the court powers to interrogate the parties prior to witness hearings, and to search for additional facts beyond what has been disclosed by the parties.

This means that in addition to facing substantial fines by the SEC, and being prevented from holding future executive positions, those involved in unscrupulous trading activities may also find themselves facing an enhanced civil litigation process culminating in an award of damages based on the losses of hundreds, or even thousands, of defendants.

This powerful advantage for wronged investors should encourage companies to be even more cautious in their approach to preventing insider trading. More importantly, this protection should increase the confidence of traders, large and small, seeking to trade in Thailand free from the fear of unrecoverable losses caused by shady dealings.

Related Professionals

Practices

Compliance and Investigations

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

May 16, 2024
On May 4, 2024, the Vietnamese government issued Decree No. 46/2024/ND-CP (“Decree 46”) amending and supplementing certain articles of Decree No. 99/2013/ND-CP dated August 29, 2013, on administrative sanctions in industrial property, as amended and supplemented in 2021 (“Decree 99”). Decree 46, which will come into force on July 1, 2024, is designed to bring Decree 99 in line with the amended IP Law of 2022. Some of the notable amendments of Decree 46 are discussed below. New Infringing Acts Decree 46 added the following new infringing acts subject to sanctions, which had not been set out in the former decree: Use of patents, utility solutions, layout designs, or industrial designs without paying compensation according to the provisions on temporary rights specified in Article 131 of the amended IP Law. Accepting a trademark license not in the form of a written contract in the case of using the licensed trademark on goods or packaging. Failure to notify clients of costs, charges, and fees related to procedures for establishing and protecting industrial property rights. Deceiving clients in the course of entering into and performing industrial property representative service contracts, but not to the extent of criminal prosecution, or forcing customers to enter into and perform industrial property representative service contracts. Although these acts are not common occurrences, it is nevertheless important to have clear regulations in order to ensure consistency with the amended IP Law and overcome difficulties and obstacles if such acts are committed in practice. Amendments and Supplements Decree 46 adopted amendments and supplements to main sanctions, additional sanctions, and remedial measures, specifically: The monetary fine imposed for violations against trade secrets is VND 50 million to VND 100 million (approx. USD 2,000 – USD 4,000), a large increase compared to the VND 5 million to VND 15
Read More
May 2, 2024
The Thai Arbitration Institute (TAI) announced on April 19, 2024, that it has jointly set up an in-court arbitration pilot project with five courts in Thailand—namely, the Civil Court, Taling Chan Civil Court, Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court, Samut Prakan Provincial Court, and Samut Prakan Khwaeng Court. The pilot project launched on May 1, 2024. Pilot Project This project is designed to encourage the parties in cases submitted to these courts to consider having parts of the case, or even the entire case, heard and determined by arbitrators under the Civil Procedural Code (CPC). The objective of the project is to provide faster and more efficient judicial services to the public by reducing the number of cases to be fully tried in the courts through providing an option for parties to engage in in-court arbitration. Still, the court remains largely involved in the process, as the court will consider the award in detail before determining whether to render a judgment in accordance with the award without any edits. Therefore, in-court arbitration favors parties who prefer to have a court judgment instead of an out-of-court arbitral award, which could lead to enforcement challenges under the Arbitration Act. Parties who participate in this pilot project will pay the TAI a fee for its administrative assistance and related services. The TAI will assist in setting up and facilitating meetings, witness hearings, and the necessary logistics pertaining to case files involving the arbitrators, the parties, and the court. After the arbitrators hear the case, the case files, including the witness statements, exhibits, and reports during the arbitration proceedings, are collected and sent back to the respective court along with the award. Under the pilot project, the arbitrators will issue awards within 30 days of the last day of the trial or
Read More
April 18, 2024
In-court arbitration is an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) tool provided in the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) for cases that have already been submitted to the court. Historically, in-court arbitration has not been a popular method of resolving disputes. Instead, out-of-court arbitration, as prescribed by the Thai Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002), is far more utilized in practice. The popularity of out-of-court arbitration is demonstrated by the fact that presentations on arbitration in Thailand almost exclusively focus on out-of-court arbitration; in-court arbitration is rarely even a topic of discussion. This situation is partly because in-court arbitration has not been encouraged by the courts in the past. Further, it is also not common for parties to agree on arbitration clauses after a dispute arises and also after it has been submitted to the court. Instead, arbitration clauses are generally discussed and crafted during the negotiation of the contract, which will most likely provide that any dispute arising out of the contract is to be resolved by out-of-court arbitration. Nonetheless, the Thai Courts of Justice have recently started to support this in-court ADR tool as a viable option and to encourage parties to agree in-court arbitration clauses before proceeding with a case through trial. This article is not meant to assess whether in-court arbitration is preferable to either out-of-court arbitration or to having the case heard by professional judges of the Courts of Justice. Instead, the purpose of this article is to discuss certain key provisions of the CPC that parties should carefully consider before agreeing to an in-court arbitration clause. On this point, the CPC specifically states that out-of-court arbitration is prescribed by arbitration law, the Arbitration Act, which is an entirely separate piece of legislation drafted specifically to apply to out-of-court arbitration. In contrast, in-court arbitration is completely regulated by
Read More
April 17, 2024
Intellectual property rights holders pursuing legal actions in Vietnam have faced various challenges related to document formality in recent years. For example, in two different disputes at the Ho Chi Minh City Court, we have seen the judge request the claimants to re-prepare the civil dossier due to a lack of documentation proving the authorization of the signer—despite the fact that the cases had been ongoing for long time. Meanwhile, many domain names have been unable to be registered and transferred in recent months. Third-party representatives cannot handle the work as they normally would, as Vietnam’s domain name authority has required all documents to be signed by the domain name holders themselves, instead of the law firms representing them. Such demands have created unnecessary complexities and obstacles for IP holders seeking to protect their rights in Vietnam. Legal Formalities in the Court System Vietnam’s judicial landscape presents unique hurdles for IP holders to enforce their rights. One significant challenge is the requirement for the claimant’s legal representative (typically the CEO/president), as explicitly displayed on the company’s business license, to sign all documents related to a lawsuit. This requirement clashes with the operational practices of many foreign companies, where multiple individuals may have the authority to represent the company. It is extremely impractical, especially in a large multinational conglomerate, for the CEO/president to personally execute all documents and transactions. Instead, authorized staff within these organizations, such as department heads or general counsel, typically handle these tasks. In this situation, Vietnamese courts often demand additional documentation to prove the officers’ authority, necessitating specific authorization documents that may not always be readily available. The courts sometimes remain unconvinced by declarations from the CEO/president affirming the authorization of these officers, and despite such assurances, they may still demand tangible proof of authorization, adding
Read More