| View previous topic :: View next topic |
BahtandSold Site Admin
Joined: 02 Sep 2006 Posts: 8486 Location: Bangkok Thailand
|
Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 3:11 pm Post subject: Partnership law changes - 7 min shareholders to become 3 |
|
|
|
Partnership and corporate law upgrades
source: Bangkok Post/TILLEKE & GIBBINS 14 Mar 2008
'Why seven shareholders?" is a question businessmen have pestered corporate lawyers with for years, but it is about to become a thing of the past.
The Thai government, prodded by the Commerce Ministry, is adopting major amendments to several partnership and corporate law provisions with the aim to simplify or do away with unnecessary statutory procedures under the Civil and Commercial Code. The amendment was published in the Government Gazette on March 3, 2008 and will be effective on July 1, 2008.
Among other things, the mandatory seven minimum shareholders in a limited company shall be reduced to three. The new rule will benefit both new and old companies.
Having only three persons instead of seven sign the Memorandum of Association (MoA) will make the incorporation process easier and faster. A senior Commerce Ministry official claims that a fringe benefit to existing companies will be that nominee shareholders holding minority shares (typically one share each) will have a chance to make an exit. Many companies are getting ready to reduce the number of their shareholders.
Unlike the number seven, which has never been clarified, there is an explanation as to why at least three shareholders must be maintained, i.e. the requirement of majority number of shareholders still exists in certain statutes.
Another welcome change is that the process of incorporation which takes at least nine days under the present law can be done in one day under the new law. The new law provides for one-day registration of both the MoA and the company together if all requirements are met at the statutory meeting and all the papers are in order. This is a step forward that will put Thailand more in line with international practice.
The rules about shareholders' resolutions are simplified. Currently, a special resolution is required for important matters such as change of company name, address from one province to another, capital, objectives, or Articles of Association, which must be adopted and then confirmed by two successive shareholders' meetings. Said double approval takes at least 21 days and is the key reason why in practice it has been ignored and circumvented by backdating meetings.
The new amendment will allow the passing of a special resolution by only one shareholders' meeting by at least three-quarters of the votes of the shareholders in attendance and entitled to vote. It is interesting to note that calling a shareholders' meeting has always required prior notice either by publication twice in a local newspaper or delivery to all shareholders via registered post.
It came as a surprise to the Commerce Ministry that this provision was altered during the draft approval procedures such that it will take "both" newspaper publication and mail delivery to call a shareholders' meeting once the law is enacted. Doing otherwise cannot be agreed under a company's Articles of Association. Many have criticised that this is impractical and inconsistent with other relaxations. The drawback foreseeable at this point is the extra cost that will be incurred.
Another change is that a company can no longer opt to inform its shareholders of dividend declaration by means of publication in a newspaper instead of delivery by mail. The first will be removed under the new amendment, making it mandatory to individually notify shareholders about dividends by mail. It is hoped that this will fix the current loophole and uphold the right of shareholders under the law.
Although reduction of a company's capital and merger of two companies are not common occurrences, the processing and timeframe are improved. Reduction of capital shall require only one-time publication in a local newspaper (instead of seven times) plus 30 days (instead of three months) objection period for creditors. To merge two companies, publication in a newspaper is reduced from seven times to one, and the objection period for creditors is reduced to 60 days instead of six months.
Finally, the new law makes it possible for an existing partnership to be converted to a limited company, subject to certain formalities. A partnership is nowadays not a popular form of business organisation, as liability has increasingly become a concern to business owners, both Thais and foreigners. A great number of medium-to-large partnerships are opting to become a limited company with the aim of going public in the future. Without a legal channel for such transformation, partners would have to transfer the business and assets of a partnership to a new company, hindered by many issues, especially tax implications on the transferring partnership and/or the recipient company.
Even though cutting down and shortening some procedural redundancies will not change the easy and common way of practice in Thailand, such as backdating and paper meetings, one cannot really argue that this is not a real upgrade we all have been waiting for.
Written by Kobkit Thienpreecha, Attorney, Commercial Department, Tilleke & Gibbins International Ltd.
Please send comments or suggestions to Marilyn Tinnakul at marilyn.t(at)tillekeandgibbins.com _________________ .
www.BahtSold.com
Connecting People · Connecting Thailand |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BahtandSold Site Admin
Joined: 02 Sep 2006 Posts: 8486 Location: Bangkok Thailand
|
Posted: Sun Mar 16, 2008 1:46 am Post subject: Re: Fewer shareholders - More trouble - NOT less? |
|
|
|
| dowmedia wrote: | Maybe I missed the main point, but isn't this legal firm trying to paint a silly yet rosy picture when actually the news is worse than before ??
So if BEFORE you had 4 Thais and 3 Foreigners, you only needed one Thai to 'play ball' to keep "CONTROL" of the company..(in other words you had four to play with). NOW you have only yourself (as the minority foreigner) and only TWO thais to play with - to ensure one sides with you - I don't like them odds - do you?
Once again, we see yet another of the many reasons NOT to do biz here.
If my assertion is correct (and I may have it wrong - so please correct)then it reflects rather badly on the law firm proponents.. |
Interesting and some valid points perhaps. One can also vote with their feet of course (many either have, or more likely are sitting on the sidelines).
Others whom have bought in 'choice' locations beyond 2 years ago have likely doubled (or more) their investment (at least on the 'ask' side;). Still, others whom bought in less desirable locations are probably hanging in on par. Both are subject to conventional wisdom, ala the foreign biz act, nominee structure, the above comments and etc, etc.
Regardless (just an opinion) but the Thai economy (Real Estate included) is plugged into a global market more and more, which makes it less and less likely the naysayers whom claim "They'll strip foreigners of their house/leasehold/business" at a toss of a coin at anytime, well, as time goes on, this fear loses more traction (been hearing variations of this theme since arriving in '97, yet to see it happen, well, maybe by a GF but not by the Govt;)
Also in reality, every day big businesses and hotel groups (Thai and Foreign) are buying up plots, planning new developments/estates etc, etc, and considering some of whom were stung in '97, they must know something 'we' don't?
As for Tilleke & Gibbins, one can perhaps forgive them for attempting a tricky double-edged PR sword - trying to 'paint a rosy picture' (perhaps) in a tough climate recently, whilst delivering some less than ideal communications from on high. Afterall, everyone in the Real Estate or legal industry here, AND anyone (including Foreigners) trying to sell their home or business to a Foreigner, are all in exactly the same boat. Regardless, Tilleke & Gibbins are probably close to the top of the drawer among soliciters in Thailand.
Still, some valid points raised and thanks for that. Could add, the following quote smacks of a continuation of the ongoing and as yet unresolved 'silly' nominee issue:
| Quote: | | A senior Commerce Ministry official claims that a fringe benefit to existing companies will be that nominee shareholders holding minority shares (typically one share each) will have a chance to make an exit |
One hopes the 'new' apparently pro-business Govt spares some time in their various self-interest pursuits to finally put an end to the twisting in the wind on the foreign 'ownership' issue. Afterall, if one like you DowMedia (whom I assume is an old Thai hand) is sitting on the sidelines, this is quite telling of what outsiders must be feeling...
As stated before (many times) in this forum, my 'ideal' position remains thus:
-99 year leaseholds for Foreigners
-Do away with the 49% Foreign Condo ownership quota
-Permit outright ownership of a single plot/home for Foreigners
-Renewable One year visa for all Foreign investors
-No more silly nominee requirements for Co Ltds
-Allow qualified Foreigners to secure local bank mortgages _________________ .
www.BahtSold.com
Connecting People · Connecting Thailand |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BahtandSold Site Admin
Joined: 02 Sep 2006 Posts: 8486 Location: Bangkok Thailand
|
Posted: Sun Mar 16, 2008 12:49 pm Post subject: Re: Partnership law changes - 7 min shareholders to become 3 |
|
|
|
| tamsinstead wrote: | I used to wholeheartedly agree with all of the proposals BahtSold have listed in their response regarding easier foreign ownership. Right up until just a year ago, where in my area on Phuket alone, both foreign and Thai speculators are slinging up cookie cutter houses on every available plot and then sticking a for sale sign outside. Almost all the trees are gone, just barren brown plots staked out with barbed wire ready for the next one.
I can't imagine how bad it'd be if they allowed foreigners to actually own land here, and the proposal 'oh, just a rai or less', is so easy to get around with family and friends standing in as nominee buyers. What a horrible Benidorm of a mess this place would be. Oh, forgot about poor little Samui! Bit more foresight and imagination needed on this one I think. |
Again, valid points, particularily from a 'livable' or eco-friendly and ultimately sustainable environment point of view.
Doubt many would disagree these are all valid concerns. The Thai Govt and local Govts have the first responsibility in land development approvals, marking protected areas, providing areas for parks, ensuring infrastructure such as water, electric, roads etc are adequate, all balanced by the overall community or city/area planning.
However, we all know this is a slip-shod effort at best, which can be subverted by greasing the pole etc... As for over-all planning, well, perhaps we can agree it's in a dog's breakfast state, at least from the on the ground view.
The tricky aspect in all this from a Foreigners perspective, is 'whom' is right to complain? - The Foreigner whom arrived and built in say Samui 20 years ago, or the person whom bought beside them last year and both complaining equally "all this new development, there goes MY neighborhood"...
Or, perhaps the person whom bought a new condo in Bkk a few years ago, whom now complains about the construction noise from the project going up right next door??? Afterall, when they bought originally a few years before, didn't the existing neighbours complain about that construction noise and added stress on infrastructure, increased traffic, etc, etc???
Bottom line, for most whom love Thailand and wish to call it home or a second home, no one wants to see it deteriorate further, each wanting to at the least preserve it as it was/is, usually marked by whenever THEY arrived... Therefore, 'Whom is right' (?) or has the right to complain?
IE- "When we moved to OUR area of Phuket (last year) it was just lovely, NOW look at it!!" (their neighbours whom moved there 10 years before rolls their eyes, the local Thais just shake their heads at both)
Still, more will arrive... and the cycle repeats...
Beyond the Foreigner 'invasion' in respect to land use, impact on infrastructure, environment etc, the other less discussed issue is the impact we all have on Thai culture. Of course MTV, CNN/BBC, YouTube, etc, all have an impact on Thai culture as communication becomes global even in remote places these days.
However, Foreigners on the ground also have a large impact, many times positive, by way of improved infrastructure which can follow a new development, increased variety of shops and services, new jobs and so on.
The other side of the coin is the impact on the local Thais. Many are priced out (some having sold-out, or forced out in some cases)left wondering why water is serviced only in 'rich' areas in dry season and gazing in awe at all the Farangs down their local 'Waddling Duck' pub etc. The majority of whom don't make any effort to learn even basic Thai and are never-ending whinging about 'Back Home'... As in: "We'd never do like the Thais" etc, etc... "Glad I left that &%$#**& UK, US, Germany, Canada, Scandinavia, etc, etc, people hardly speak OUR language 'back home' anymore and the bloody immigrants refuse to learn 'OUR' culture".... (all in unision) "Hear Hear! and another round!"
Rant over. Best to close by going back to the original topic: 'We Foreigners' firstly need a transparent Foreign Business Act, one which assures 'ownership'.
The brick-throwing may now commence....  _________________ .
www.BahtSold.com
Connecting People · Connecting Thailand |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|