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 19, 2026

Thai SEC Issues New Regulation on Related-Party Transactions

Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has overhauled its approach to related-party transactions (RPTs) by issuing new rules that simplify approval processes while expanding oversight. Capital Market Supervisory Board Notification No. TorJor. 46/2568 will replace the longstanding Notification No. TorJor. 21/2551, which has governed RPT compliance for over a decade.

The new regulation takes effect on July 1, 2026. Any RPT matters approved by a company’s board of directors or approved for shareholders’ approval before that date remain subject to Notification No. TorJor. 21/2551.

The new RPT rules will introduce significant changes that market participants should carefully consider.

Consolidated Definitions

Under the previous framework, key definitions relevant to RPT compliance were dispersed across multiple sources, including SEC notifications, Stock Exchange of Thailand (SET) regulations, and provisions of the Securities and Exchange Act (before amendments).

The new regulation consolidates these definitions into a single notification. Concepts such as “related party” and “connected person,” as well as relevant transaction categories, are now more systematically organized and written in greater detail.

The SET has yet to issue corresponding regulations, which should include more detailed related disclosure requirements.

Unified Threshold and Mandatory Board Approval

The most significant change under the new regulation is the elimination of the multitiered approval framework based on transaction type. Instead of various categories, transactions are now classified as either (1) financial assistance provided to related persons, or (2) other RPTs in order to determine the level of corporate approvals and disclosures for each transaction size in these categories, but the concept remains the same.

Under the previous regulation, RPTs were divided into small, medium, and large transactions, with differing approval requirements. The new regulation effectively merges the small and medium categories. As a result, all RPTs must now be approved by the board of directors as a baseline requirement—a change from such approval not being required for small transactions under Notification No. TorJor. 21/2551.

Shareholder approval remains required if the transaction size reaches the prescribed threshold, which is largely unchanged from the previous regulation.

The minority veto mechanism, six-month progress reporting requirements, inclusion of updates in the Form 56-1 One Report, and parent-subsidiary dual approval exemption apply in the same manner as under the new material transaction rules issued by the SEC.

Expanded Aggregation Scope

While the past six-month transaction aggregation period remains unchanged, the new regulation expands the scope of persons whose transactions must be aggregated.

The previous regulation required companies to aggregate transactions with the same related party—including that party’s related persons and close relatives. The new regulation expands this requirement. Where the related party is a juristic person, companies must now also aggregate transactions involving the related party’s controlling persons and major shareholders, as well as any related persons and close relatives of those individuals.

Parent-Subsidiary Dual Approval Exemption

Similar to the new material transaction framework, where a subsidiary that is also a listed company fully complies with the RPT requirements, the parent listed company is not required to separately comply for the same transaction.

While this provision is intended to streamline compliance within corporate groups, it raises an important practical issue. The determination of “related persons” is company-specific and can differ from the perspective of each entity. For example, a person who qualifies as a related person of the parent may not be a related person of the subsidiary, and vice versa.

Without further clarification, this may cause potential gaps in shareholder protection, such as where approval by the subsidiary’s shareholders may not address conflicts that exist for different shareholders at the parent level, and where individuals who would be considered interested persons at the parent level may not be required to abstain from voting at the subsidiary level.

Companies and their advisors should consider whether additional safeguards or voluntary disclosures may be appropriate in situations where the related person relationship exists at the parent level but not at the subsidiary level. We anticipate that the SEC may provide further clarification or guidance on this matter.

Next Steps

Market participants should review related party identification processes, approval procedures, and transaction monitoring systems to align with the revised definitions, calculation methods, and aggregation requirements.

Given the scope of the amendments, further clarification from the SEC is expected. A formal guideline is likely to be issued, and both the SEC and the SET are expected to hold seminars to explain the new compliance framework in more detail. We will continue to monitor developments and provide updates as further clarification becomes available.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 26, 2025
As Vietnam accelerates its digital transformation, data centers have emerged as critical infrastructure supporting the shift toward a digital government, digital economy, and digital society. For businesses targeting Vietnam’s rapidly growing data center market, a clear understanding of the evolving regulatory landscape, compliance obligations, and government incentives is key to successful market entry and operation. This article provides a strategic overview of investment opportunities and key compliance requirements in Vietnam’s dynamic data center sector. Investment Incentives to Boost Data Center Growth Since July 1, 2024, organizations and individuals across all economic sectors have been encouraged to invest in and contribute to the development of data centers. By law, there are no restrictions on shareholding ratios, capital contributions, or foreign investor participation in data center and cloud computing services under business cooperation contracts. Currently, investment in AI data centers is classified as a specially incentivized industry, qualifying for preferential treatments and incentives in terms of investment, taxation, land use, and other related areas. Large-scale data centers, together with AI and cloud computing, are currently considered as strategic technologies and products for which Vietnam offers significant fiscal, tax, and land incentives to promote investment. Additionally, these large-scale projects may receive direct financial support from local development budgets for facility construction, technical infrastructure, and equipment procurement, subject to state budget provisions and applicable laws. AI data center construction projects also enjoy preferential treatment under customs regulations. Regulatory Approvals for Providing Data Center Services The 2023 Telecom Law and its guiding documents marked a significant milestone by classifying data center services as value-added telecom services. Under the law, a data center service is defined as a telecom service that enables users to process, store, and retrieve information via a telecom network through the leasing of part or all of a data center. A
September 19, 2025
Over the past two years—particularly since Thailand announced incentives for EVs, including tax exemptions and reductions—there has been a clear trend of manufacturers relocating their facilities to Thailand. This shift is reshaping the country’s industrial landscape and creating significant opportunities in the real estate sector for companies looking to establish or expand EV manufacturing operations in Southeast Asia. Incentive-Driven Market Transformation The government’s tax exemptions and reductions have proven effective in attracting foreign investment, with Chinese manufacturers currently dominating the market. Most EV parts and car manufacturers operating in Thailand are from China, reflecting the prominence of Chinese EV brands that have already established a presence in the country. The sector encompasses manufacturers of electrical equipment as well as companies seeking to establish facilities for producing electric vehicle components, parts, and accessories. The surge in activity is evident across Thailand’s EV manufacturing sector, with legal practices handling these transactions experiencing unprecedented demand. Industrial Real Estate Framework and Market Dynamics Thailand’s industrial real estate framework provides compelling advantages for foreign manufacturers, who typically face restrictions on foreign land ownership under the Land Code. However, foreign investors can benefit from exemptions to these restrictions if the land is located within industrial real estate zones designated by the Industrial Estate Authority of Thailand (IEAT) or they obtain investment promotion from the Board of Investment (BOI) if the land is located outside an industrial estate area governed by the IEAT. Both the IEAT and BOI provide special tax and nontax incentives, including foreign land ownership, with even greater incentives available for land situated within the country’s Eastern Economic Corridor (EEC). This regulatory advantage has sparked a parallel trend in land development. Industrial real estate developers in the EEC are actively consolidating land into large plots to develop new industrial estate projects, recognizing that
September 17, 2025
M&A specialists at Tilleke & Gibbins have contributed the Vietnam chapter to Private M&A 2025, a newly released guide from Lexology Panoramic. The publication provides practical insights into private mergers and acquisitions frameworks in jurisdictions worldwide. The Vietnam chapter addresses key aspects of private M&A transactions, including: Structure and process, legal regulation, and required consents Advisers, negotiation, and documentation Due diligence and disclosure obligations Pricing, consideration, and financing Conditions, preclosing covenants, and termination rights Representations, warranties, indemnities, and postclosing covenants Taxation of transfers Employees, pensions, and benefits Recent legal, regulatory, and market practice developments The chapter highlights how Vietnam’s legal framework governs private acquisitions and disposals, outlines typical transaction processes and structures, and provides guidance on common regulatory and practical considerations. It also notes recent trends, including increased scrutiny of merger control filings by the Vietnam Competition Commission and regulatory changes affecting M&A approvals. The full Vietnam chapter is available as a PDF through the button below. Readers can also gain 30 days of complimentary access to Private M&A 2025 and Lexology Panoramic’s full library of resources through this link.
September 10, 2025
Under Thai law, authorized directors stand as a company’s mind and will and, as such, may incur personal criminal liability for acts or omissions committed in the course of company business. When allegations surface, directors must be prepared for the practical reality that, before guilt or innocence is ever adjudicated, they could be deprived of liberty unless bail release is promptly achieved through the competent legal authority. When Bail Can Be Granted Two procedural moments trigger the need to consider bail. The first arises during the investigative phase, when a claim is lodged against a director with the competent law enforcement authorities. Upon receipt of a complaint, the assigned inquiry officer summons the director for questioning, compiles evidence, and ultimately forwards a prosecution or nonprosecution recommendation to the public prosecutor. Although the public prosecutor retains ultimate discretion to indict an accused director, the police or prosecutor may conclude that pretrial detention is necessary and may therefore apply to the court for an order to hold the director in court custody. The second moment occurs after a criminal case is filed directly with the court. This occurs once a court accepts a criminal case filed by a prosecutor against a director or, alternatively, when the court accepts a case filed by an individual for trial. For cases filed by individuals, the plaintiff presents prima facie evidence at the preliminary hearing, and the court will accept the complaint if it finds sufficient grounds, thereby conferring upon the director the status of a criminal defendant. Upon acceptance of the criminal case, the court then has the inherent authority to order custody pending trial unless the defendant secures bail release. Procedural Considerations Experienced litigants typically prepare bail security in advance and submit a bail petition at the earliest possible time. While there are