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

Subscribe to Updates

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 Professionals

Practices

Capital Markets

Corporate/M&A

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

January 21, 2026
Spurred by global geopolitics and Canada’s Indo-Pacific Strategy, which aims to forge deeper ties with ASEAN, Canadian companies have been showing growing interest in Thailand and Southeast Asia in recent years. To understand the opportunities offered by the region, we sat down with Andrew Stoutley, a Toronto native and the chief operating officer of Tilleke & Gibbins, a leading Southeast Asian regional law firm with over 130 years of history in Thailand. Q: Why are Canadian companies looking at Thailand and Southeast Asia right now? A: Two reasons stand out. First, diversification has moved up the agenda. Many Canadian companies want options outside North America due to tariff volatility and policy uncertainty in the United States, as well as questions around the next Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement mandatory joint review. At the same time, the shift of global production from China to Southeast Asia is accelerating, driven by rising costs, geopolitics, and the need to avoid overreliance on a single market. As a result, Canadian companies are looking for a second production base or a regional hub, and Thailand and its neighbors are natural choices given their manufacturing depth, location, and established supply chains. Second, Canada’s own efforts in the region are gaining traction. The Indo-Pacific Strategy has led to more on-the-ground support, including larger trade missions, upgraded diplomatic posts, and new financing options. Export Development Canada (EDC) now has a presence in Bangkok, giving Canadian companies a direct line to financing and insurance in Thailand. There’s also steady progress on trade frameworks like the recently signed Canada–Indonesia Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (which will come into effect pending domestic procedures), ongoing negotiations of a Canada–ASEAN FTA, and the exciting announcement about the launch of negotiations of a Canada–Thailand FTA. Together, these developments have the potential to make it much easier
Read More
January 20, 2026
Thailand’s Board of Investment (BOI) has imposed new restrictions on foreign-majority shareholding and land ownership for companies in certain promoted activities. The changes took effect on September 1, 2025, but were not published in the Government Gazette until December 30, 2025, under Notification of the Board of Investment No. Sor. 7/2568 on the Amendment to List of Activities Eligible for Investment Promotion under Notification of the Board of Investment No. 9/2565, dated July 22, 2025. Foreign Land Ownership Restrictions Generally, foreign land ownership is one of the privileges granted to BOI-promoted companies, allowing them to own land to engage in the promoted activities. However, with these new restrictions, the BOI will no longer grant land-ownership privileges to foreign-majority-owned companies that conduct business activities in the following categories: Rolling, drawing, casting, or forging of nonferrous metals (category 5.4.9) Manufacturing of ferrous metal products or ferrous metal parts (category 5.4.11.2) Manufacturing of nonferrous metal products and/or nonferrous metal parts for industrial use (category 5.4.11.4) Manufacturing of other metal products, including other metal parts for industrial use (category 5.4.11.5) Manufacture of chemical products for industry (category 6.2) Manufacture of plastic products for industrial goods and parts (category 6.4.1) These restrictions do not apply to existing BOI-promoted companies that have at least three projects granted promotion under the same juristic person during the past 15 years (2011–2025) with total investment of at least THB 5 billion, excluding the cost of land and working capital. Foreign Shareholding Restrictions For companies to be eligible for BOI promotion in three other categories of business activities, at least 51% of the company’s registered capital must be held by Thai individual shareholders, unless the BOI-promoted activity is located within a special border economic zone as designated by the BOI. These three categories are: Manufacture of bags made of
Read More
January 16, 2026
As the Thai stock market faces a downturn, Thai investors have shown increased interest in depositary receipts (DRs), which offer the same tax benefits as Thai stocks while providing access to foreign securities. However, recent speculation in the media has raised concerns among regulators and the market, raising questions about whether DR issuers actually hold the underlying foreign securities purported to be backing the DRs. This has brought the structural integrity of DR programs under scrutiny. Why This Question Matters In global practice, DRs are understood to be backed by the foreign securities they reference, giving investors economic exposure that closely mirrors direct ownership. When the issuer does not hold the underlying securities directly, the risk profile shifts to the strength of its custodial, hedging, and liquidity arrangements. Those arrangements determine whether DR holders receive equivalent economic and voting rights, how corporate actions are transmitted, and whether conversions or redemptions can be completed in full and on time. In Thailand, the standardized DR disclosure templates and the express allowance for global custodians indicate a regulatory focus on transparency and structural safeguards that preserve these outcomes, even if the issuer’s name does not appear on the foreign share register. Thai Rules for DR Offerings Thai DR offerings are governed by specific Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) notifications and standardized prospectus forms. These instruments establish the disclosure regime for DR structures, risk factors, and the issuer’s arrangements to support the DR program. The framework expressly contemplates the use of a global custodian, indicating that DR issuers are not required to hold the underlying foreign securities directly in their own name if sufficient controls and operational arrangements are in place for the issuer to deliver economic benefits and, where applicable, underlying securities to DR holders when required. More broadly, the relevant SEC
Read More
January 6, 2026
Thailand is developing new legislation on responsible business conduct that would impose statutory obligations on large enterprises to manage human rights and environmental risks throughout their operations and supply chains. The Draft Act on the Promotion of Responsible Business Conduct, commonly referred to as the Human Rights and Environmental Due Diligence (HRDD) Bill, has been developed through extensive consultation involving a wide range of stakeholders, with the Ministry of Justice playing a leading role. If enacted, the HRDD bill would reshape how certain large businesses operate and manage their supply chains, reflecting a recognition of international standards and global concerns regarding human rights and environmental protection. By introducing legally binding due diligence obligations, the draft aims to ensure that businesses operating in Thailand are held accountable for adverse impacts throughout their operations and supply chains, in line with emerging global legal frameworks. Who Will Have to Comply? The HRDD bill primarily targets large enterprises based on their annual revenue thresholds: Manufacturing businesses with annual revenue exceeding THB 500 million Wholesale, retail, or service businesses with annual revenue exceeding THB 300 million The draft would also cover state-owned enterprises and foreign businesses operating in Thailand if their operations meet the applicable revenue thresholds. What Does Human Rights and Environmental Due Diligence Involve? Under the HRDD bill, due diligence is not a one-time checklist but an ongoing process with several key requirements: Adopt and publicly disclose a sustainability policy. Businesses must commit publicly to respecting human rights and protecting the environment, and must integrate this policy into corporate governance and risk management systems. Identify and assess risks. Companies must identify and assess risks of human rights violations and environmental harm across their operations and value chains. Prevent or reduce risks. Businesses must implement effective and proportionate measures to prevent or mitigate
Read More