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 30, 2025
Recent events at a Thai listed company, where a proposal to remove the director was not successful, amid claims that a competitor was attempting to gain control of the company, illustrate how disputes over corporate control can unfold differently at the board level and shareholder level. At the board level, removing directors of a listed company mid-term to gain corporate control is not an easy task under Thai law, as it requires a higher threshold than appointing a new director, which typically only requires a simple majority vote in a listed company. At the shareholder level, Thailand’s tender offer and competition regimes add complexity where different shareholder groups act in concert to remove opposing board representatives or otherwise influence control. In this article, we will explore why the attempted removal of a director may fail, and how the tender offer regime may apply. Key Issues at a Glance Shareholder groups may seek to convene meetings to propose changes to board composition or company authority. Such proposals can be delayed or complicated by regulatory requirements and the need for additional disclosures. Regulatory authorities and minority shareholders may raise concerns when major shareholders coordinate to influence board control, especially if such actions could trigger tender offer or merger control obligations. Companies often respond by seeking further information on shareholder relationships and potential conflicts before proceeding. Why the Director Removal Failed Under Section 76 of the Public Limited Companies Act B.E. 2535 (as amended), the early removal of a director requires two conditions to be satisfied at the same meeting of shareholders: Headcount test: At least 75% of shareholders attending and entitled to vote must vote in favor. If multiple shareholders appoint the same person as proxy, each proxy is counted as a separate head for the purpose of the headcount test,
October 24, 2025
On October 22, 2025, the Thai government posted a directive not to grant gambling licenses for gambling involving poker nationwide to crack down on illegal gambling activities. The directive was issued by Thailand’s Ministry of Interior to align with government policies to prevent the legalization of all types of gambling businesses, including poker as a sporting activity. This will result in the revocation of poker activities as sport and institute a strict ban on such activities nationwide. Businesses should note the new government’s strict approach toward gambling activities as the legal situation regarding gambling in the country continues to draw close attention.
October 1, 2025
In September 2025, Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) accused a company listed on the Stock Exchange of Thailand (SET), including its current and former directors, of concealing material information in connection with its filing registration and draft prospectus. This recent enforcement action demonstrates the serious consequences of making false statements or appearing to conceal material information in IPO filings and ongoing disclosures. In addition to being subject to criminal penalties, such actions can impact the eligibility of directors and executives to serve and may cause lasting reputational damage. Key Legal Risks The Securities and Exchange Act B.E. 2535 (1992) (as amended) imposes strict liability for making false statements or concealing material information in IPO registration statements and draft prospectuses. In such cases, investors can claim for damages, and there are also criminal penalties, including imprisonment for up to five years and substantial fines, may apply to the company, its directors, and responsible officers. However, misstatements or omissions in IPO filings do not, by themselves, disqualify directors or executives from holding office, whether arising from an SEC accusation or even a final court judgment. In contrast, for ongoing disclosures after listing, such as financial statements, annual reports, and meeting notices, false or misleading statements or concealment of material information can result in not only criminal liability but also immediate disqualification of directors and executives. If the SEC accuses a listed company or its directors or executives of such misstatements or omissions, those directors or executives are immediately disqualified from their positions, even before a final court judgment. Director and Executive Qualifications Directors and executives must meet the SEC’s specified standards of trustworthiness, as set out in the relevant rules. The SEC clearly defines characteristics that are considered to demonstrate a lack of trustworthiness. For ongoing disclosures, being involved in
September 30, 2025
Vietnam’s higher education system is at a pivotal stage of reform, with the government taking decisive steps to strengthen its policy and regulatory framework. In response to obstacles encountered during the implementation of the Law on Higher Education, issued in 2012 and amended in 2018, the third draft of the amended Law on Higher Education (Draft Law) is scheduled for submission to the National Assembly in October 2025. The Draft Law reflects the state’s commitment to aligning the education sector with international standards while addressing persistent structural challenges. The Draft Law emphasizes clarifying institutional mandates, enhancing accountability, and modernizing governance models to enable higher education institutions to operate with greater autonomy and efficiency. Against this backdrop, we outline below several notable provisions of the third draft and their potential implications for higher education institutions (HEIs) in Vietnam. Applicable Entities In addition to HEIs as defined and covered under existing legislation, the Draft Law extends its scope of applicable entities. The current Law on Higher Education does not regulate training institutions under state agencies, the armed forces, or political and social organizations, nor does it provide specific provisions for institutions offering only postgraduate education. To address this, the Draft Law introduces the term “institutions with higher education activities,” expanding its scope to include: (a) academies and research institutes established by the prime minister, mandated to provide doctoral-level training; (b) educational institutions affiliated with state agencies, political organizations, socio-political organizations, and the people’s armed forces, authorized to offer higher education programs in their specialized fields; and (c) institutions established pursuant to international treaties or by decision of the prime minister, with authorization to deliver certain levels of higher education. The inclusion of “institutions with higher education activities” represents a significant development both legally and institutionally. In an increasingly diversified higher education