Integrity Legal

As the world economy continues to re-stratify in ways that have not been predictable, it recently came to this blogger’s attention that recent shareholder voting activity at a local Thai bottling company may have placed the soft drink giant Pepsi upon something of a “back foot”. To quote directly from the official website of Reuters, Reuters.com:

BANGKOK, April 29 (Reuters) – Shareholders in PepsiCo Inc’s Thai bottler, Serm Suk Pcl , voted on Friday to terminate its contracts with the U.S. soft drink maker after more than half a century in business together.

The move means the U.S. giant will have to find other partners to tap growth in the Southeast Asian country of 67 million people. It had no immediate comment.

From an American’s perspective as an observer in the Kingdom of Thailand the re-stratification mentioned above can be best observed by the increasing importance of regional organizations such as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). Concurrently, American companies doing business in Thailand and Greater Asia are finding that some jurisdictions have different rules regarding corporate governance when compared to the United States. To continue quoting further from the aforementioned article:

About 99.41 percent of shareholders voted to end the business with PepsiCo. PepsiCo, maker of Pepsi-Cola, Sierra Mist and Tropicana juice, owns 41.54 percent of Serm Suk through Pepsi-Cola (Thai)Trading and Seven-Up Nederland BV. It remains unclear what it will do with this stake.

The administration of this web log recommends readers click upon the hyperlinks above to read further about this story in detail.

It is interesting to note that shareholder voting rights can have a tremendous impact upon the governance of a corporation in Thailand as a Thai Company may be governed by Thai corporate law which can be substantially different in many ways to U.S. law on the same subject matter. For American readers, it should be noted that there may be benefits to be had for US companies in Thailand pursuant to the provisions of the US-Thai Treaty of Amity. That stated, although Amity Treaty Companies may be of benefit to some endeavors not all business activity can be undertaken pursuant to this Treaty. Therefore, those interested in further information on this subject may be best informed by contacting a Thai lawyer.

The ramifications of the shareholder vote noted above may be felt not only by Pepsi, but by others in the soft drink business in the Kingdom of Thailand and Greater Southeast Asia. To quote directly from a recent article entitled SSC Seals Pepsi Divorce from the Business section of the Bangkok Post‘s official website BangkokPost.com:

The transition period could create opportunities for rival Coke and new players such as the fast-rising Peruvian brand Big Cola to steal market share from Pepsi. Thailand has long been one of only a handful of cola markets in the world where Pepsi outsells Coke.

The administration of this web log strongly recommends that readers interested in these topics click upon the hyperlinks above to read further from this insightful article in order to gain insight and perspective on this story and the possible ramifications thereof.

Clearly the reverberations of the recent corporate vote could accrue to the benefit of Pepsi’s competitors within the Thai market. This blogger, simply as a consumer, has noticed what appears to be some increasing popularity for Big Cola mentioned above. This recent popularity may not necessarily mean that this soft drink will take Pepsi’s place as the number one soft drink in Thailand, but the whole incident may go to show the way in which the local Thai soft drink market is beginning to show an increasing taste for novelty. This trend toward novelty is increasingly palpable across much of the Thai economy as consumers are presented with increasing purchasing choices in the Kingdom. Meanwhile, it could be argued that the biggest beneficiary of the recent vote is Pepsi’s major international rival Coca-Cola which might pick up further market share as a result of a possible Pepsi decline.

For related information please see: business in China or US Company Registration.

Tags: ASEAN, ASsociation of Southeast ASian Nations, Big Cola, Business in Thailand, Coca-Cola, Limited Company Thailand, Pepsi-Cola, PepsiCo Inc, Serm Suk Pcl, Seven-Up, Thai Company, Thai Lawyer, Thai Shareholder Voting Rights, Thailand company, Thailand Corporate Law, US Company Registration, US-Thai Treaty of Amity
Posted in American Business, ASEAN Business, Editorial, Opinion, Thailand Business | No Comments »

Many people in Thailand, both foreign and Thai, choose to incorporate Thai businesses. Thailand is one of Southeast Asia’s major trading locales and as a result many individuals and business concerns need a corporate presence in the Kingdom of Thailand. In many cases, companies are incorporated with substantially similar articles of incorporation. That being said, some companies opt to incorporate with unique provisions regarding different types of shareholder rights in the corporate charter. These different types of rights can have a major impact upon the running of the business because these rights can have a collateral impact upon employee compensation, shareholder vote tabulation, and banking issues. Therefore, an understanding of share classification can be helpful to those who are thinking of incorporating a Thai company.

In the articles of association (also known as articles of incorporation) of a Thai limited company, one could denote the rights associated with different share classifications. Therefore, some shares could simply hold an equity interest in the company while not having any voting rights at shareholder meetings. Other types of shares could hold little or no equity in the company, but maintain voting rights regarding the Directors of the company. If a company owns Thai property, there could be specific shares that have certain rights in relation to the Thai property concerned. For example, a Thai company that owns Thai real estate could place special rights in the hands of certain shareholders with regard to said real estate. If a Thai company owns a Thai Condo, then share classification could be used to delineate the rights of individuals with regard to the Condo premises.

For those who are interested in Thai limited companies certified under the US-Thai Amity Treaty, these same principals could apply to an Amity Company. One shareholder could retain a sizable equity holding while another holds certain voting rights. The same could be said about a Thai limited company that has obtained a Foreign Business License. A company such as this could incorporate special shareholder rights in the provisions of the articles of association or incorporation.

These issues bleed into the realm of Thai Immigration because the shareholder in a Thai company could apply for a Thai business visa. The basis for such an application could be an impending shareholder’s meeting that the foreign national must attend. The approval of such an application would depend upon the Thai Embassy or Consulate concerned. If present in the Kingdom on another type of visa, an O visa, for example, it may be possible for the shareholder to attend a meeting in order to vote his or her shares.

Tags: Amity Treaty, Amity Treaty Company, Corporate Law, Limited Company Thailand, Shareholder Classification, Thai Company, Thai Limited Company, Thailand company, Thailand limited company, Treaty of Amity Company, US-Thai Amity Treaty, Voting Rights
Posted in Amity Treaty, Thailand Business, Thailand company, Thailand Condo, Thailand Embassy, Thailand Property, Thailand Real Estate, Thailand Visa | 22 Comments »