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

Subscribe to Updates

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 Professionals

Practices

Capital Markets

Corporate/M&A

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

March 2, 2021
The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in a significant increase in the popularity of electronic meetings among businesses across the world, as physical meetings became unfeasible due to government lockdowns and regulations limiting gatherings to limit the risk of further spreading the disease. In Thailand, this turn of events has resulted in the promulgation of a new electronic meeting law to modernize rules that facilitate the convening of corporate entities’ statutory meetings as required under Thai law. Electronic meetings in Thailand have been permitted to some degree since June 27, 2014, when the Announcement of the National Council for Peace and Order No. 74/2557 on Teleconferences through Electronic Means B.E. 2557 (2014) first allowed the practice, subject to various restrictions. However, many companies considered two strict requirements under this announcement to be impractical: at least one-third of the quorum for the electronic meeting had to physically attend the meeting at the designated meeting venue, which implies that no more than two-thirds of the quorum could choose to attend the meeting via electronic means; and all participants of the electronic meeting (whether attending electronically or in person) had to be physically present in Thailand at the time of the meeting, which effectively prohibited overseas participation. New Rules for Electronic Meetings The new electronic meeting law, the Royal Decree on Teleconferences through Electronic Means B.E. 2563 (2020), came into effect on April 19, 2020, replacing the 2014 order and relaxing its most onerous limitations in order to facilitate meetings of directors and shareholders via electronic means during the COVID-19 pandemic. The key relaxations codified by the royal decree include allowing all attendees to attend meetings via electronic means, such as by phone or videoconferencing, from anywhere in the world. Furthermore, there is no longer a physical attendance requirement, and notices (and enclosures)
Read More
March 2, 2021
When Vietnam’s new Law on Enterprises of 2020 (2020 LOE) came into effect on January 1, 2021, the implementing regulations for corporate matters guiding the now-repealed Law on Enterprises of 2014 ceased their effectiveness, per principles under the laws on promulgation of legislative documents. As a result, governmental bodies and enterprises have been awaiting the issuance of new implementing regulations that will apply to the 2020 LOE. The first major guidance arrived on January 4, 2021, when the government issued Decree No. 01/2021/ND-CP on enterprise registration (Decree 01), which replaces Decree No. 78/2015/ND-CP dated September 14, 2015 (Decree 78) on the same matter. This article discusses some notable points of Decree 01 in comparison to Decree 78. Operating Status of Enterprises Decree 01 sets out seven possible legal statuses under which an established enterprise may be classified in its profile on the National Business Registration Portal (NBRP), which is available for public access: Active; Business temporarily suspended; No longer in business at the registered address; Enterprise registration certificate revoked due to decision issued by tax authority; In dissolution process, divided, merged, or acquired; In bankruptcy process; and Dissolved, bankrupt, or ceased to exist. By default, the status of a company is active. The status will be updated to one of the other options in the NBRP when the respective licensing procedures are completed at the provincial Department of Planning and Investment (e.g., for temporary suspension of business or initiation of dissolution process), or according to the decision of the relevant authorities (e.g., for bankruptcy). The previous Decree 78 did not provide detail on the available status options. The common statuses observed on the NBRP before the enactment of Decree 01 were “active,” “business temporarily suspended,” “locked” (akin to the current “in dissolution process”), and “dissolved.” This change will make
Read More
March 2, 2021
Thailand’s long-awaited new Trade Competition Act B.E. 2560 (2017) (TCA) came into effect on October 5, 2017, and the legislation’s extensive reforms of both substantive and procedural rules from the preceding version of the law have been both effective and revolutionizing. Significantly, the TCA lays out an efficient structure for the Trade Competition Commission (TCC) and grants independence to its administrative office, the Office of Trade Competition Commission (OTCC). Consequently, enforcement of this law—which had been almost absent in the past 20 years—is picking up pace. This article will examine the ongoing developments under this law in recent years, and will highlight its current application by discussing some of the TCC’s latest guidelines. TCC: A Developer-Regulator Since its establishment in 2018, the TCC has proven that its role and responsibilities are beyond those of a conventional regulator and law enforcer. The OTCC, with the support of its ad hoc subcommittees, have been actively monitoring the conduct of business operators and the level of competition in various markets and sectors, and the commission is well recognized for its publicizing of the TCA and establishment of new regulations under the law. Through various channels and platforms, a series of regulations, reports on market conditions, press releases, rulings, and precautionary statements have been published, and the TCC’s spokesperson often appears in the media to educate the public. To streamline the exchange of information and collaboration, the TCC and the OTCC have entered into an MOU with six sectoral regulators, including the Securities and Exchange Commission of Thailand, the Office of Insurance Commission, and others. The TCC has also exercised its pre-emptive power to prevent suspicious trade practices and transactions. Prohibitive warnings have been issued against potential infringement, such as unfair trade practices by food delivery platform operators and a proposed merger by
Read More
February 23, 2021
As many are already aware, following the change of government in Myanmar on February 1, 2021, a draft Cyber Security Law was proposed which attracted widespread criticism. However, less attention has been paid to significant amendments to two existing laws, some of which have a similar effect to parts of the draft Cyber Security Law. In other words, while the draft Cyber Security Law has not progressed further and is under public scrutiny, significant elements of it have found their way into law in Myanmar by other routes. Because these amendments are already law, it is very important that individuals and businesses in Myanmar understand their implications. Amendments to the Law Protecting the Privacy and Security of Citizens The Law Protecting the Privacy and Security of Citizens (2017), or the “Privacy Law,” was amended on February 13, 2021, less than two weeks after the military government came into power. These amendments chiefly address the power of the government to conduct searches, seizures, and arrests; to extend detention without judicial oversight; and to carry out broad surveillance and investigation activities that could intrude on individual privacy. The amendments accomplish this by suspending various sections of the Privacy Law for as long as the State Administration Council (the military body now governing Myanmar) is in power. The suspended sections include the following: Section 5: Search, seizure, and arrest without civilian observation The relevant part of Section 5 of the Privacy Law states, “The responsible authorities shall … when acting in accordance with existing law, not enter into a person’s residence or a room used as a residence, or a building, compound or building in a compound, for the purpose of search, seizure, or arrest, unless accompanied by minimum of two witnesses who should comprise Ward or Village Tract Administrators…”. The suspension
Read More