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 20, 2011

What to Expect from Legal Due Diligence

Subscribe to Updates
Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

Business competitiveness among rivals in similar industries is fierce and demanding. The current trend of business expansion is for stronger and financially healthier corporations to merge, acquire, and take over other corporations. Over the past few years, we have heard merger and acquisition (M&A) news or proposals on a daily basis. However, we do not hear as much about the details that make an M&A successful, especially when it comes to due diligence.

Most businesspeople are familiar with the general concept of due diligence, but many have questions about precisely what it entails and why it is vitally important for corporate transactions. Legal due diligence has a variety of definitions, depending upon the context. Generally, due diligence refers to the conduct and judgment that a person would take to carry out their duties. In a corporate context, due diligence is more of an analytical and investigative exercise, typically involving the feasibility of a major transaction.

Before any intended merger or acquisition is completed, financial due diligence on the target is required in order for the acquirer to decide whether or not the acquisition of the target is commercially and financially viable. Legal due diligence on the target is also an important task to identify any legal discrepancies or liability on various matters, which the legal team may discover during their legal due diligence on the target. The acquirer would not complete the deal without their legal team conducting due diligence on the target.

For the acquirer to carry out the due diligence, sincere cooperation from the target is needed, as many documents are not publicly available. The acquirer must therefore rely on the target to submit documents per a due diligence checklist provided by the acquirer (or its legal team). During the due diligence process, the legal team will attempt to confirm many legal issues, including: the legitimacy of the issued shares to be sold to the acquirer; whether or not the target is legally authorized to conduct their business with proper/required licenses; whether or not the shares or businesses to be sold are validly existing with a legitimate structure; terms and obligations of material commercial contracts and employment agreements with key management personnel; and, most importantly, whether or not there is any pending litigation filed by or against the target and/or their management, or even a bankruptcy or reorganization filings.

A legal due diligence report by the legal team will provide a finding of facts and information uncovered during the due diligence. From our experience, depending on the size of the target and the value of the deal, due diligence can take 7 to 30 days to complete. Supporting documentation for each fact would be attached to the due diligence report. This information will be reviewed by the acquirer’s management team, who may then wish to consider possible adjustments of the sale price, provisions on representations and warranties by the target or responsible management of the target, amendments of any discrepancies before the M&A concludes, and continuation or minimum employment period of the key employees.

Due diligence materials can be annexed as schedules to the main report for disclosure by the target and can be used to obtain approval of the deal from the Board of Directors and/or shareholders of both parties.

Apart from the above, other determining factors can be uncovered through the legal due diligence process that may eventually make or break the deal. Examples of such determining factors include noncompliance and violation of laws and regulations, restriction on foreign ownership, restriction on share transfers, encumbrances on major assets, change of control provisions or any provisions which would restrict the contemplated acquisition contained in contracts entered into by the target, breach or potential breach of contract or termination or potential termination of material contract, etc.

Although these due diligence findings must be carefully considered by the acquirer’s management, it is important to recognize that there are certain limitations when performing legal due diligence review.

First, Thailand does not yet have a centralized recording system of pending nationwide court suits to arrange for litigation searches. Generally, jurisdiction over the case rests with the court located at the place of domicile of the defendant or the place where the debt occurred. Independent litigation searches have to be conducted at each major court in Bangkok—the Central Bankruptcy Court and the Business Reorganization Office, Civil Court, South Bangkok Civil Court, Intellectual Property and International Trade Court, Central Labor Court, Criminal Court, and Central Tax Court. If the target is located in another province outside Bangkok, litigation searches at that provincial court also have to be arranged.

Another limitation is that Thailand does not yet have a centralized asset registry. Real property searches have to be arranged at the relevant Land Office where the target’s real property is situated. Copies of the land Title Deeds would, however, serve to facilitate the conduct of these property searches.

Finally, any encumbrances on shares can only be verified by vetting the Register of Shareholders, which is maintained solely by the target and is not in publicly available records.

Despite these limitations, due diligence exercises can reveal crucial information. Although there are no specific statutory requirements in Thailand for legal due diligence to be conducted during the course of an M&A deal, due diligence reviews are now widely seen as an essential step when moving forward with a transaction. All companies involved in significant transactions should carry out legal due diligence review, whether limited or in full, prior to entering into any M&A deal in order to prevent or mitigate future liability.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals
Piyanuj (Lui) Ratprasatporn
Partner and Director, Corporate & Commercial
Thailand
+66 2056 5555
Email

Practices

Corporate/M&A

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 24, 2026
Myanmar’s Directorate of Investment and Company Administration (DICA) has published the guidelines it uses to assess and approve company names for registration in the country. The guidelines, which were published on May 18, 2026, explain how DICA determines whether a proposed name is identical or too similar to an existing name, and they identify words and expressions that may be prohibited or restricted. Businesses planning to incorporate in Myanmar should expect DICA to scrutinize proposed names more closely than it has in the past. Prohibitions on Company Names The Myanmar Companies Law prohibits company names that are identical or similar to existing company names, and DICA’s internal assessment guidelines explain how this rule applies in practice. Under the guidelines, DICA may reject a proposed company name if the proposed name: Is identical or nearly identical to an existing company name; Differs from an existing company name only in punctuation, capitalization, spelling, or transliteration; Only adds words such as “Group,” “Holding,” “International,” “Myanmar,” or “Family” to an existing company name; Merely rearranges the words in an existing company name; Is pronounced similarly to an existing name; Uses the same brand name as an existing company, even if the company carries out different business activities; or Uses an existing brand name together with an abbreviation of that brand name or a shortened form of the name or business description. DICA may also consider whether a proposed name could give the impression that two companies are related, even if they operate in different business sectors. In addition, DICA may review a company name even after registration. If it later determines that the name does not comply with the Myanmar Companies Law or is otherwise unsuitable, DICA may direct the company to change its name under section 26 of the Myanmar Companies Law.
Read More
August 20, 2026
Vietnam’s Law on Bankruptcy and Rehabilitation No. 142/2025/QH15, passed by the National Assembly on December 11, 2025, does something many regional counterparts do not yet attempt: it instructs parties and arbitral tribunals on exactly what happens to an arbitration once a debtor becomes insolvent. Together with the Law on Commercial Arbitration No. 54/2010/QH12, the new law improves upon what used to be an uncertain area of practice, now providing an explicit, mandatory sequence of procedures. Suspension and Termination of Arbitration Proceedings Under article 40(2) of the law, once a Vietnamese court accepts a bankruptcy petition, any arbitration that concerns the debtor’s financial obligations must be temporarily suspended as soon as the tribunal receives the court’s notification. If the court subsequently issues a decision commencing bankruptcy proceedings, article 59(2) takes a further step: the suspended arbitration is terminated outright, and the underlying case file is transferred to the court handling the insolvency for resolution. The two provisions work as a sequence: first suspension, then termination and transfer, rather than as independent triggers. Meanwhile, article 60(4) reinforces this effect by vesting the bankruptcy court with exclusive jurisdiction over all claims against the debtor from the date the petition is accepted. Notably, this mechanism operates automatically, without the need for the insolvency court to issue a separate anti-arbitration order. The tribunal simply suspends or terminates the proceeding by operation of law once notified; however, Vietnamese law currently provides no procedure by which a party can apply to the insolvency court for permission to continue the arbitration despite the statutory effect. Practitioners with a Vietnamese counterparty in arbitration should treat notification of a bankruptcy filing as something to flag to the tribunal immediately since continuing to arbitrate a claim that has become subject to article 40(2) or 59(2) risks producing an award vulnerable
Read More
August 20, 2026
Thai law contains no provision that speaks directly to what happens to an arbitration when one of the parties becomes insolvent. The interaction between arbitration and insolvency is derived instead from the general operation of two separately drafted laws: the Bankruptcy Act B.E. 2483 (1940) and the Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002). Because Thai courts have had few opportunities to interpret how these two statutes apply together, the practical answer to many questions, such as who represents an insolvent party in arbitration, whether an award will be enforced, and what happens to a foreign proceeding, depends on inference from general principles of insolvency, arbitration, and procedural law rather than on settled rules. Liquidation and Restructuring The Bankruptcy Act governs both liquidation, which winds up a debtor’s affairs, and restructuring (rehabilitation), which aims to preserve a business. The consequences for arbitration differ accordingly. In liquidation, the debtor’s assets vest in the official receiver, who alone can conduct or continue any arbitration affecting the estate; the debtor loses the authority to act on its own behalf. In restructuring, the plan preparer or administrator takes over that role, but there is more room for the debtor to remain involved, since the objective of rehabilitation is to keep the business operational. Restructuring carries an automatic stay that takes effect once the Bankruptcy Court accepts the restructuring petition. This stay can halt an arbitration regardless of where it is seated. In contrast, liquidation does not work through a stay; instead, the debtor’s loss of authority over its own assets and disputes is what constrains the arbitration. Neither proceeding provides a party a formal route to apply for permission to continue arbitrating—the Bankruptcy Act contains no such mechanism—though in restructuring cases the Bankruptcy Court may allow proceedings to continue where doing so will not prejudice
Read More
August 20, 2026
As part of its membership in Lex Mundi, Tilleke & Gibbins has released the latest edition of its Guide to Doing Business in Thailand, providing an overview of the legal, regulatory, and commercial considerations for companies establishing or expanding operations in Thailand. The 2026 edition offers practical insight into the country’s business environment, investment framework, and operational requirements. The guide covers a wide range of topics relevant to foreign and domestic investors, including: Investment incentives and promotion schemes Financial facilities and banking regulations Exchange controls and money transfers Import and export regulations Business structures and incorporation options Requirements for establishing a business Operational and compliance considerations Business cessation and insolvency procedures Employment and labor laws Taxation Immigration and visa requirements Prepared by Tilleke & Gibbins lawyers across multiple practice areas, the publication outlines key aspects of doing business in Thailand, including foreign investment restrictions, regulatory compliance obligations, corporate structures, employment requirements, and recent legal and economic developments affecting investors. The publication forms part of Lex Mundi’s Country Guides series, a global collection of jurisdiction-specific reference materials prepared by member firms around the world. Together, these guides help companies evaluate opportunities, compare regulatory environments, and plan international business activities across multiple markets. The full Guide to Doing Business in Thailand 2026 is available through the button below.
Read More