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​ 

April 15, 2026
On March 31, 2026, Vietnam’s government issued Decree 102/2026/ND-CP (Decree 102), which amends Decree 75/2019/ND-CP on administrative sanctions for competition law violations (Decree 75). Effective from May 20, 2026, the new decree introduces a number of significant changes aimed at strengthening enforcement, revising penalty structures, and broadening the range of remedial measures, primarily for violations related to economic concentration. Revised Penalties for Economic Concentration Violations Decree 102 significantly revises the penalties for violations related to economic concentration. Failure to notify an economic concentration; implementing an economic concentration before clearance Under the new framework, Articles 14 and 15 of Decree 75 have been amended to impose a range of monetary fines, rather than relying solely on percentage‑based penalties as under the previous regime, for violations involving the failure to notify an economic concentration or the implementation of an economic concentration prior to clearance. The fines range from VND 500 million to VND 1 billion for each enterprise participating in a concentration with combined assets, revenues, or purchase value below VND 3,000 billion in the preceding fiscal year, capped at 5% of the violating enterprise’s total turnover in the relevant market. For concentrations meeting or exceeding the VND 3,000 billion threshold across those same metrics, the fines increase to VND 1 billion to VND 2 billion per enterprise, also subject to the 5% cap. These differentiated thresholds allow penalties to better reflect the size of the transaction and its potential competitive impact. Non-compliance with conditional approvals Enterprises that do not implement or only partially implement the conditions specified in a conditional economic concentration approval decision face fines ranging from 1% to 3% of total turnover in the relevant market during the fiscal year preceding the violation. Decree 102 also adds a new remedial measure requiring enterprises to fully implement all conditions
April 10, 2026
Following Thailand’s recent expansion of the “major shareholder” definition for securities and digital asset businesses, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) launched a public hearing on April 7, 2026, on expanding the major shareholder definition further to cover funding sources behind share acquisitions in licensed securities and digital asset business operators. The public hearing will remain open for 15 days from the launch date, after which the proposed expansion is expected to take effect promptly so that operators can comply with both the earlier and additional requirements within the 180-day transitional period under the earlier regulations. Funding Sources Captured Under Control-Based Test Under the draft rules, persons who fund direct or indirect major shareholders’ acquisition of shares in a licensed operator would be deemed “controlling persons” and subject to SEC approval as major shareholders. This extends beyond traditional lenders to include guarantors, counterparties to derivatives or structured products, and any arrangement that results in a person being, directly or indirectly, a source of funding to a major shareholder. The SEC proposes to exempt three categories of funding arrangements from approval: Loans from Thai licensed financial institutions or BCBS (Basel Committee on Banking Supervision)-jurisdiction foreign banks; Margin loans for securities trading under Thai securities law; and Repurchase agreements under Thai securities law. Exemptions for Funding Sources of Government-Linked Entities The consultation proposes to stop look-through beyond the level of certain government-linked shareholders, including, without limitation, ministries, departments, bureaus, public organizations, independent agencies, and certain state enterprises. The SEC reasons that these entities’ mandates, duties, and funding sources are already subject to government oversight and audit, presenting minimal ownership-structure risk. Practical Implications Licensed securities and digital asset business operators should begin mapping their funding chains under the expanded definition in preparation for filing approval applications for any newly captured funding providers
April 3, 2026
Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has established a comprehensive governance framework for the use of artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI/ML) in the capital markets. The framework provides guidance to capital market business operators on understanding the risks associated with AI/ML implementation and adopting appropriate practices to build public confidence in Thailand’s capital markets. While the guidelines are principle-based rather than prescriptive, they reflect the SEC’s expectations for responsible AI/ML governance and are likely to inform supervisory activities and industry standards going forward. Scope The framework applies to capital market business operators supervised by the SEC. This includes, for example, securities and derivatives firms, asset management companies, mutual fund and private fund managers, investment advisors and investment consultants (including robo-advisory service providers), derivatives intermediaries, and other licensed intermediaries and market operators in the Thai capital markets that deploy AI/ML in their operations. Core Principles of the Guidelines The framework is presented as a best-practice manual rather than prescriptive regulation, providing guidance that regulated entities may apply to their AI/ML governance and risk management as appropriate. While currently nonbinding, the guidelines signal the SEC’s expectations for the sector, particularly in relation to other binding SEC regulations such as those covering IT risk management and market conduct. The guidelines name four core principles for AI/ML deployment: Fairness: Design and develop AI/ML with consideration for fairness, equality, and social diversity to prevent discrimination against individuals or groups. Legal and ethical compliance: Ensure AI/ML use aligns with applicable laws, ethical standards, and organizational values and policies. Accountability: Establish clear responsibility—both internally and externally—for AI/ML activities and outcomes. Transparency: Provide adequate disclosure to users about AI/ML use, including explainability of decisions and traceability of activities. AI/ML Best Practices The guidelines prescribe best practices across four stages of the AI/ML lifecycle, as described below.
March 31, 2026
Against the backdrop of Vietnam’s rapid economic and technological transformation and its ambition to build a knowledge-driven economy, the National Assembly of Vietnam adopted Law on Higher Education No. 125/2025/QH15 on December 10, 2025, The new law took effect on January 1, 2026, replacing Law on Higher Education No. 08/2012/QH13 of 2012 and its subsequent amendments after more than a decade of implementation. The new law reflects a significant policy shift toward enhancing the institutional autonomy of higher education institutions (“HEIs”)—universities and other university-level institutions. By granting broader autonomy, Vietnam aims to enable HEIs to operate more proactively, better respond to market needs, and improve the quality and efficiency of education and research activities. Comprehensive Institutional Autonomy in HEIs The new law marks a significant shift by granting HEIs comprehensive autonomy as a statutory right, within the bounds of the licensed scope of educational operation and the legal framework, rather than a conditional right as provided under the former law. Under the new law, HEIs are empowered to exercise autonomy over their academic expertise, training, scientific research, international cooperation, organizational structure, personnel, finance, and other higher education activities. The expansion of institutional autonomy is also accompanied by a correspondingly strengthened framework of institutional accountability. However, Vietnam maintains a certain degree of control and imposes restrictions on institutional autonomy in sensitive and strategically important areas. These controls and restrictions include limitations on training autonomy in the majors of teacher training, national defense, and security; and restrictions on financial and personnel management autonomy for HEIs under the administration of the Ministry of National Defense and the Ministry of Public Security. New Model for Curriculum Development The new law removes the concept of “opening a training major” and focuses regulation on how training programs are developed and delivered. Under the previous regime,