Thailand Supreme Court Sets Limits on Shareholders’ Agreements: Key Legal Lessons from Decision 3402/2548
Laws create order—business brings complexity. In Thailand, shareholders often depend on private agreements to align commercial expectations and protect investments. But what occurs when these private arrangements clash with public law? The Supreme Court answered this question clearly in Decision No. 3402/2548—a key moment for shareholders, directors, and foreign investors operating in Thailand.
This decision, commonly known as the Burapha Steel case, is the most frequently cited precedent on the enforceability of shareholders’ agreements. It clearly states that private contracts cannot supersede Thai corporate law or public policy.
The Legal Backdrop: What Was the Dispute?
The case arose from a dispute between a minority shareholder (the claimant) and a debtor company, concerning a shareholders’ agreement made between the claimant, the company, and its principal shareholder. The agreement sought to:
- Ensure that the directors would retain at least 51% of the company’s shares during every new issuance; and
- Guarantee that the company and shareholders would indemnify the claimant for losses or damages resulting from failure to honor the agreement.
These provisions were designed to preserve control and limit dilution without consent. However, the Supreme Court found that these clauses contravened Thailand’s Civil and Commercial Code (CCC), which strictly regulates the legal form, rights, and obligations of limited companies and shareholders.
According to Section 150 of the CCC, any juristic act that is contrary to public order or good morals is void. The Court ruled that the impugned clauses attempted to create rights and obligations outside the statutory corporate framework in a way that affected third-party interests and violated corporate law norms. These provisions were declared null and void..
The Takeaway: Contracts Must Respect the Corporate Framework
The Court didn’t void the entire shareholders’ agreement—only the illegal sections. But the message was loud and clear: shareholders can’t rely on private contracts to alter fundamental company law principles.
Key corporate mechanisms—such as the formal appointment of directors, dividend declarations, and quorum requirements—must comply with the CCC and the company’s Articles of Incorporation (AOI). If a clause conflicts with these, it is simply unenforceable. That includes attempts to use contractual side deals to bypass shareholder meeting rules or grant one party effective control without following proper legal channels.
What This Means for Foreign Investors
If you are a foreign investor structuring a Thai joint venture, this case is important. Many foreigners—facing limits on foreign ownership under the Foreign Business Act—have historically tried to use shareholders’ agreements to secure veto rights, control over management, or guaranteed returns.
Decision 3402/2548 says: not so fast.
If a clause grants rights that conflict with Thai law or company charters, courts will invalidate it. This is especially true for agreements that try to bypass Thailand’s foreign ownership regulations. For example, nominee shareholder arrangements or secret control clauses are high-risk and often considered void—not just unenforceable, but possibly illegal. To learn more about the crackdown on foreign nominees, click here to see our other article on this topic.
As Thai regulators continue to review nominee structures, foreign investors should not rely solely on private agreements for their nominee arrangements. Control rights and economic protections need to be established legally using instruments such as preference shares, supermajority voting thresholds in the AOA, or by obtaining a Foreign Business License.
From Gentlemen’s Agreements to Enforceable Terms: Drafting After 3402/2548
Thai lawyers now draft shareholders’ agreements with much greater accuracy. Common best practices include:
- Mirroring key provisions in the AOA: If it’s important, write it into the company’s charter.
- Avoiding conflicts with mandatory law: If a clause limits a statutory right or bypasses required procedures, it’s likely void.
- Using severability clauses: So that if one clause fails, the rest can survive.
- Relying on indirect enforcement: Penalty clauses, buy-sell triggers, and damages—rather than trying to force the company to act directly.
- Being cautious with governing law: Thai law will apply to public order issues, no matter what law you put in the contract.
One principle has emerged: if your agreement needs to govern corporate operations, then it must be documented in the corporate records, not just the contract.
For Public Companies? Same Principles, Even Higher Stakes
Although public companies in Thailand rarely use shareholder agreements, when they do—such as for voting pools between major shareholders—Decision 3402/2548 still applies. Any term that conflicts with the Public Limited Companies Act or securities laws will be unenforceable.
Public companies are required to follow transparency rules. Agreements that bypass minority rights or public disclosures—such as secret voting pacts or guaranteed buyouts—may violate securities law, not just corporate law. Just as with private companies, only what is lawfully disclosed and incorporated into the charter will be upheld.
The Ongoing Impact: A Cautionary Guide
More than 20 years after the ruling, the legal community still regards Decision 3402/2548 as the standard. It is often referenced by lawyers, regulators, and courts alike. For foreign investors, its influence has altered deal structuring and legal risk assessments.
Here’s what you can no longer assume:
- That a signed contract will override Thai law.
- That internal governance can be changed without changing the AOA.
- That nominee structures or backroom agreements will stand up in court.
Instead, build from the inside out—lawful structures first, private contracts second.
Conclusion: Contracts Must Complement, Not Compete with, Thai Law
The lesson from Decision 3402/2548 is clear and lasting: private agreements must comply with public law. Shareholders’ agreements remain useful, but they are no longer foolproof. Thai courts will honor your deal—if your deal complies with the law.
About the Authors
M.L. Numlapyos Sritawat, a founding partner at Formichella & Sritawat, has over 30 years of litigation experience, particularly in complex shareholder and boardroom disputes. He is a dependable courtroom advocate with extensive knowledge of regulatory investigations and the connection between public and private sectors in Thai commercial litigation.
Naytiwut Jamallsawat, Partner, Regulatory and Transactions, oversees the firm’s FDI and regulatory practice. He has extensive experience in structuring legally compliant shareholder and joint venture agreements. He regularly advises telecom, media, and digital infrastructure investors on navigating Thailand’s corporate laws and foreign ownership regulations.
Disclaimer
The above summary is provided for informational and discussion purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The content may not reflect the most current legal developments and should not be relied upon as a substitute for consultation with qualified legal counsel. Readers are strongly encouraged to seek professional advice tailored to their specific circumstances before taking any legal or business action.
For legal inquiries, contact us at: [email protected]
© 2025 Formichella & Sritawat Attorneys at Law