In Thailand, a business rehabilitation plan in court-supervised rehabilitation proceedings is a crucial element of the business rehabilitation process that outlines how a debtor’s assets will be managed. It also provides guidance for resolving a debtor’s business challenges so that the business can survive and continue to generate returns, increasing the likelihood that its creditors will be repaid. Key Plan Components The Bankruptcy Act B.E. 2483 sets forth the following components to be covered in a rehabilitation plan: The reasons for rehabilitation; Details about the debtor’s assets, liabilities, and other binding obligations at the time the court-ordered rehabilitation; Principles and methods of the rehabilitation; Redemption of collateral when there are secured creditors and guarantor liabilities; Ways to resolve problems arising from a temporary lack of liquidity during plan implementation; Action to be taken when a claim or debt is assigned; Name, qualifications, and letter of consent of the plan administrator, as well as information on compensation; Appointment and release of the plan administrator; Period in which the plan will be implemented (maximum of five years); and Refusal of the debtor’s assets or refusal of contractual rights if the debtor’s assets or contractual rights have obligations that exceed the benefits they yield. Considering the diverse nature and challenges of each debtor’s business, the details listed here are only general guidelines for what should be included in a rehabilitation plan. The planner has the flexibility to create a plan with different details or guidelines than those outlined above to best suit the nature and challenges of the debtor’s business. The planner can also omit some of the mentioned requirements if they are not relevant to the debtor’s business. Concerns of Relevance Court approval of the rehabilitation plan. Once the plan is approved by a meeting of the creditors, it is necessary

Thailand has released the set of principles that will form the official draft Platform Economy Act (PEA) for a public hearing period that runs until December 15, 2024. The PEA is likely to be positioned as a general or overarching law for digital intermediary services and digital platform service businesses. In January 2024, an early, unofficial version of the proposed law had been circulated among a limited group of operators in certain industries to get comments for the working group charged with the PEA’s development. Now, however, the proposed principles that will underpin the official draft PEA have been released publicly to gather comments, feedback, and suggestions from any interested stakeholders. The principles of the draft PEA cover two main areas: user protection and fair competition. The key details in these two areas are outlined below. User Protection The main regulator supervising the law’s user protection elements will be the Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA). The draft PEA is expected to impose user protection obligations on service providers based on their nature, size, and risk level. The principles set out a three-tiered classification system for service providers that will be covered under the draft PEA, as detailed below, ordered from fewest obligations to most: Intermediary Service Provider: This describes a service provider acting as an intermediary between a sender and recipient of information on a computer network, the internet, or a telecommunications network. Service providers likely to fall under this category include cloud service providers and web hosting providers. Intermediary service providers may be further categorized into the following subtypes: Mere conduit service providers; Caching service providers; Hosting service providers; and Other service providers as prescribed in ministerial regulations. Online Platform: This refers to an intermediary service provider offering data storage services that connect various types of users to

Trademark registration for marks composed of combinations of Roman letters and/or Arabic numerals has long been challenging in Thailand, particularly for those that are neither stylised nor pronounceable. There have been conflicting perspectives regarding the interpretation of “invented letter(s) and numeral(s)” under Section 7 of the Thai Trademark Act. The Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) has considered that letters and numerals must feature notable visual enhancements to be inherently distinctive, and “invented” must be in the form of stylisation, such as overlapping or interlocking letters, or intricate designs like traditional Thai oral patterns or geometric motifs. Some examples of acceptable letter and numeral marks according to the DIP The courts, however, have consistently recognised that three-letter marks, even when presented without stylisation, can be inherently distinctive. The rationale is that these marks, viewed as random and unusual combinations, can in many cases be distinguishable from common words and sufficient for the public to identify the associated goods/services, and distinguish them from others. Following Supreme Court precedents on registrability, the DIP officially updated its Examination Guidelines in January 2022 to recognise that combinations of three or more letters, even if not stylised or forming pronounceable words, can be deemed inherently distinctive. Challenges persist, however, for two-letter marks, which still face significant obstacles in achieving registrability. The JD case Background Beijing Jing Dong 360 Du E-Commerce, one of China’s largest e-commerce companies, led trademark applications for the marks JD.COM (and device) and JD.CO.TH (and device) for services in Class 35 related to advertising and business management: The registrar rejected the applications, citing insufficient stylisation of ‘JD’ and describing ‘.com’ and ‘.co.th’ as common descriptive terms. The applicant appealed to the Board of Trademarks, which upheld the refusal, echoing the registrar’s reasoning and asserting that the marks were devoid of inherent distinctiveness

Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has announced a public hearing on proposed amendments to takeover regulations under Thailand’s Security and Exchange Act B.E. 2535 (1992) (and the regulations issued thereunder) that have the potential to reshape the country’s market for takeovers. The proposed changes, which have not yet been compiled in a formal draft regulation, may affect acquisition planning but could also help reduce unnecessary regulatory and administrative burdens. The SEC is accepting comments on the proposed changes through its website until November 30, 2024. The key proposed changes are detailed below. Alignment of tender offers and reporting under Section 246: Previously, Section 246 (reporting of acquisition/disposition upon reaching or crossing any multiple of 5% shareholding) focused only on group shareholding changes, while Section 247 (tender offer obligation) looked at both groups and individuals to trigger tender offering obligations. The proposed amendment aligns these requirements by considering only group-level triggers for both sections. Another change addresses situations where an entity acquires another entity (persons under Section 258) that already holds shares in a listed company. Currently, actions of shareholders in a listed company resulting in a person under Section 258 and such shareholders as a group holding shares in a listed company in aggregate and triggering the tender offer threshold only result in reporting under Section 246 while having no tender offer obligation. Under the proposed amendment, such actions will trigger a tender offer obligation—not immediately upon the acquisition of persons under Section 258 and reaching or crossing the relevant threshold, but once there is any increase (even a single share) in the shareholding in the listed company, unless the circumstances fall into an exemption (e.g., disposal of the additional shares within seven business days) or a waiver is obtained. Currently, obligations are triggered at the next threshold,