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

May 18, 2023

Thailand Approves New Private Placement Rules for Listed Companies

Thailand’s Office of the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC Office”) has revamped various rules relating to private placements by listed companies with a view to streamlining the offering process and reducing the documentation required for submission to the SEC Office. Most of these rules were revised by the Capital Market Supervisory Board on December 28, 2022, and will come into effect on July 1, 2023.

The key amendments in the new rules are summarized below.

Elimination of Application Requirement

Issuers are no longer required to apply to the SEC Office prior to offering their shares via private placement, according to new rules laid out in the Notification of the Capital Market Supervisory Board No. TorChor 28/2565 Re: Permission for Listed Companies to Offer Newly Issued Ordinary Shares via Private Placement (the “TorChor 28/2565 Notification”). The rules detailed in this notification will replace the current private placement rules under the Notification of the Capital Market Supervisory Board No. TorChor 72/2558 Re: Permission for Listed Companies to Offer Newly Issued Ordinary Shares via Private Placement.

Under the TorChor 28/2565 Notification, issuers may offer their shares via private placements that are share offerings to no more than 50 high-net-worth or ultra-high-net-worth investors within 12 months, share offerings valued at no more than THB 20 million within 12 months, or share offerings to institutional investors (excluding share offerings to the issuer’s directors or employees), so long as the issuer complies with its information disclosure and corporate approval requirements, which remain mostly unchanged under the new notification.

To fulfill these requirements, notice of a shareholders’ meeting must be submitted to all shareholders at least 14 days in advance, and the offering must be approved by a supermajority vote of the shareholders, which means approval by at least three-fourths of the shareholders present and entitled to vote at the shareholders’ meeting. If the offering price is lower than the market price, there must be no veto of the offering by shareholders holding 10 percent or more of the total issued shares in aggregate (but see additional requirements described in the next section).

Thanks to this no-filing approach, the issuer can now place remaining shares from a rights offering (RO) or a preferential public offering (PPO) via private placement with more flexibility, provided that the issuer complies with the 14-day notice requirement, obtains a supermajority vote from the shareholders’ meeting, and receives a clear mandate from the shareholders’ meeting to place the shares at a price that is not lower than the offering price of the RO or PPO.

Submission of Independent Financial Advisory Opinion

Despite adopting this deemed-approval approach and eliminating the filing requirements, the Capital Market Supervisory Board has introduced a new requirement under the TorChor 28/2565 Notification requiring issuers to submit the opinion of an independent financial advisor (IFA) together with the notice of the shareholders’ meeting. This requirement, which does not apply to private placements of any remaining shares from an RO or PPO, is triggered for “material” offerings in any of the following cases:

  • The offering price is lower than the market price;
  • The offering of shares may result in any investor being a shareholder with the highest voting rights in a listed company—including shareholding by any person under Section 258 of the Securities and Exchange Act B.E. 2535, as amended (e.g., the investor’s spouse and minor children, any juristic person in which the investor together with his or her spouse and minor children has more than 30 percent shareholding, or any person having more than 30 percent shareholding in the investor as a juristic person); any concert party of the investor; and any person under Section 258 of the concert party of the investor; or
  • The offering of shares may affect the earnings per share dilution or control dilution of at least 25 percent of the number of paid-up shares before the date on which the board of directors resolved to propose the offering to the shareholders’ meeting.

The opinion of the IFA must contain at least the following information:

  • Appropriateness of the offering price and conditions of the offering;
  • Reasonableness and benefits of the offering to the investors, including the use of proceeds, in comparison with the impacts on the shareholders; and
  • An opinion (with reasons) on whether the shareholders should vote to approve the offering.

The issuer must submit the draft notice of the shareholders’ meeting and the draft opinion of the IFA to the SEC Office via the office’s e-submission system. The SEC Office will provide feedback within five business days of all documentation being submitted.

Simplification of Market Price Calculation

The TorChor 28/2565 Notification now provides that the issuer must first use the weighted average price of the shares as a benchmark to determine the market price, except when the weighted average price cannot be calculated or is not suitable due to the liquidity of the issuer’s shares. In such a case, the issuer must use the book-building price first, or the fair price determined by a qualified financial advisor if there is a reason the book-building price cannot be used.

In this regard, “weighted average price” means the weighted average price of the issuer’s shares traded on the Stock Exchange of Thailand over at least seven (but no more than 15) consecutive business days before the offering date. The offering date is figured as either the date on which the board of directors determined the offering price (if the board of directors received a mandate from the shareholders’ meeting to determine the offering price based on the market price), or the date on which the board of directors proposed the offering at a specific price to the shareholders’ meeting for approval.

Moreover, the board of directors may set the offering price higher than the calculated weighted average price or at a discount of up to 10 percent by taking into account the market conditions if there are reasonable grounds for doing so and the board of directors has considered the company’s best interests.

Clarification of Offering Period

The TorChor 28/2565 Notification also clarifies the offering period for each placement type. If a shareholders’ meeting grants the board of directors a mandate to determine the offering price based on the market price, the TorChor 28/2565 Notification requires that each placement be completed within five business days after each determination of the offering price by the board of directors, and the offering period cannot exceed 12 months from the shareholders’ meeting.

If the shareholders’ meeting approves a private placement at a specific price, the placement must be completed within three months from the shareholders’ meeting. After these three months, the board of directors may be authorized by the shareholders’ meeting to further determine the offering price based on the market price, in which case the offering period can be extended to a maximum of 12 months from the shareholders’ meeting, but each placement must still be completed within five business days after each determination of the offering price by the board of directors.

As for the placement of remaining shares from an RO or PPO, this must be completed within three months after the end of the subscription period of the RO or PPO.

For more details on these latest rules for private placements by listed companies, or on any aspect of complying with securities laws and regulations in Thailand, please contact Tilleke & Gibbins at [email protected] or [email protected].

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

October 4, 2023
Extended producer responsibility (“EPR”), a strategy whereby producers are held accountable for the environmental impact of their products throughout their entire life cycle, including disposal and recycling, has become more and more familiar to manufacturers in Vietnam. According to the director of the legal department of the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources, EPR is an alternative financial solution for managing waste and increasing recycling without raising environmental protection taxes and fees, which may help Vietnam to maintain a closed loop of resources in manufacturing. New EPR Regulations Applicable to Producers and Importers In 2020 and 2022, the new Law on Environmental Protection 2020 and its guiding Decree No. 08/2022/ND-CP were promulgated, introducing a legal framework for EPR (“New EPR Regulations”) imposed on not only producers but also importers. Under the New EPR Regulations, producers and importers of certain types of products and packaging are responsible to collect and treat waste and recycle their products and packaging. The responsibility to collect and treat waste took effect on January 10, 2022, while there are different timelines being phased in from 2024 to 2027 for the recycling of products and packaging, depending on the type. For the purpose of compliance with the recycling requirement under the New EPR Regulations, the producers and importers can implement the recycling obligation by themselves, or engage a third party to recycle or organize the recycling, or make a financial contribution to the Vietnam Environment Protection Fund to support the recycling process. This will cause an increase in cost and, hence, an impact on prices of certain products in the near future. Exceptions to the recycling obligation include: Producers and importers of products and packaging for (i) export or temporary import for re-export or (ii) manufacture or import for research, study, or testing purposes. Packaging producers
September 18, 2023
Attorneys from Tilleke & Gibbins have prepared the Laos, Myanmar, and Thailand sections of the recently released Global Merger Notification Guide from Lex Mundi. The guide provides answers to key questions related to the merger notification requirements in jurisdictions of Lex Mundi member firms in 57 jurisdictions around the world. Each country-specific section contains in-depth information on the jurisdiction’s legal framework governing merger notifications, addressing the following questions and topics: Regulatory agency for merger notifications Transactions subject to national rules Timeline for filing merger notifications Merger review process Sanctions for not fulfilling merger notification requirements Remedial options for addressing the regulator’s competition concerns Current regulatory outlook and other notable information The guide draws on the expertise of Lex Mundi member firms from around the world. Its innovative format allows users to compare current information from multiple jurisdictions in a side-by-side, customizable report. To browse the contributions, generate country-specific reports, and compare regulatory guidance on merger notification requirements across multiple jurisdictions, please visit the Lex Mundi website.
August 25, 2023
Michael Ramirez, a counsel in Tilleke & Gibbins’ dispute resolution department, has contributed an article to a series on contractual terms in Asia from the Asian Business Law Institute. Previous articles in the series have looked at administrative and tax requirements and contract breach and remedy under Thai law. The article gives an overview of how extracontractual liabilities are treated under Thai law. It addresses issues related to contract negotiations, no-reliance clauses, entire agreement clauses, and concurrent liability. ABLI, which is based in Singapore, conducts legal research and dissemination in order to provide knowledge, guidance, and recommendations surrounding development of legal systems in Asia. The full article on extracontractual liabilities is available as a PDF through the button below.
August 23, 2023
Introduction The idea of the metaverse rose to prominence in the public discourse in 2021, most notably when Facebook renamed itself Meta and announced a new focus on launching a virtual, immersive world. The initial excitement around the metaverse has since faded, with worsening economic conditions having a particularly acute effect on companies in the technology sector. When Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced in March 2023 that artificial intelligence (AI) was the company’s “single largest investment,” many took this as a sign of the company shifting focus away from the metaverse. However, there remains significant interest in the metaverse from both businesses and consumers. Zuckerberg himself reaffirmed Meta’s focus on the metaverse, highlighting how developments in AI will improve virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) technology. Meanwhile, Roblox, a metaverse gaming platform, announced that in Q1 2023, its number of daily active users had increased to 66 million. Most recently, the announcement by Apple of its new ‘Vision Pro’ AR headset is reported to have renewed interest in the metaverse among developers. A particular area of interest in the developing metaverse is digital fashion and retail. In its Metaverse Fashion Trends Report 2022, Roblox found that nearly three in four users aged 14 to 24 spend money on digital fashion items. Roblox itself has partnered with fashion brands Burberry, Gucci, Tommy Hilfiger, and others, to offer experiences and items for use on the platform. In March 2023, Decentraland, a metaverse platform with a decentralized governance structure, hosted the Metaverse Fashion Week, featuring brands such as Adidas, Coach, and DKNY. As businesses continue to invest and look for opportunities to expand into the metaverse, whether through traditional e-commerce or more innovative digital asset offerings, it is important that they consider the ways in which new and existing laws apply