Rumours Or Not? New Law Regarding Regulation Of Shares In A Thai Ltd. Company?

[kribbe]

I hope someone can clear this out.

I have herd a rumour that the law has changed or is about to change regarding the voting rights of shares in a limited company in Thailand. Is that so that everybody will have the same voting rights from now and on and it is not possible to have like A and B shares with diffrent voting rights as before?

[Crossy]

I hope someone can clear this out.

I have herd a rumour that the law has changed or is about to change regarding the voting rights of shares in a limited company in Thailand. Is that so that everybody will have the same voting rights from now and on and it is not possible to have like A and B shares with diffrent voting rights as before?

Soooooo, before 10000 TV users brand you as a Troll, PLEASE indicate where you gleaned this snippit of potentially very important information

BTW, I've not heard of this, YET !!

[kribbe]

As I said it´s a rumour.

And it is not that far fetched as the officials will now check land owning companies to see if they are farang owned or not! (see http://www.sgalegal.com/landlaw2June06.html)

[SunbeltAsia]

As I said it´s a rumour.

And it is not that far fetched as the officials will now check land owning companies to see if they are farang owned or not! (see http://www.sgalegal.com/landlaw2June06.html)

We heard this rumor as well several weeks ago. we checked it out upside and down as it was explained the Deputy Permanent Secretary who signed the land department regulation also is a Head of a Task Force and he was looking at ordinary share/ preferred share structures.

The preferred share/ ordinary share structure is in the Civil Commercial Code and because the companies By-laws are different than the standard, must be approved by the Thai Government. It made no sense , how this could ever happen, that it would be reversed?

It was repeated over and over again by many Thai government officials" This rumor was completely false" and if ever became a new regulation, it could not be enforced as it violated the Civil Commercial Code on how the company was set up in the first place. I would add not one person was aware of any news like this. This seems to be a case of scaremongering.