You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

January 9, 2015

Enforcement of Loan Guarantees to Change under New Laws

Subscribe to Updates
Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

New amendments to the Civil and Commercial Code will change the way loan guarantees are enforced in Thailand. Under the changes, which are due to take effect on February 11, guarantors will benefit from increased protection, as contracts imposing joint liability between a debtor and a guarantor will be void.

This change would, at first glance, appear to suggest that creditors will be forced to pursue debtors before pursuing guarantors. In reality, however, creditors will still have options to pursue guarantors before debtors under the new law.

Guarantees are contractual arrangements whereby a guarantor agrees to be responsible for another person’s performance.

For example, when a creditor provides a loan to a debtor and the debtor fails to repay the loan, the guarantor is required to pay the creditor. If the guarantor does not voluntarily perform, the creditor can enforce the guarantee. This normally requires filing a civil lawsuit.

Under the new amendments, when a debtor defaults, a creditor is required to notify the debtor’s guarantor within 60 days of the default.

If the creditor fails to give such notice, it cannot recover interest, costs, and expenses from the guarantor that were incurred after the 60 days. The present law, in comparison, does not contain any notice requirements.

Furthermore, under the new law, the creditor cannot demand the guarantor to immediately pay the debt until the notice reaches the guarantor. The present law allows creditors to immediately demand performance from the guarantor when the debtor defaults.

Another key change involves a guarantor’s liability for the debt. The new law states that contracts imposing joint liability between a debtor and guarantor will be void. The present law contains no such prohibition.

Under the present law, if a debtor defaults and the guarantor fails to voluntarily satisfy the debt, the creditor has the option to enforce the guarantee by filing a claim against the guarantor. Only the guarantor—and not the debtor—would be answerable for the debt. Such joint liability is especially useful when the debtor has no assets, which is often the reason why a guarantee arrangement is made in the first place.

Local lenders are not pleased with the changes to joint liability. Thai banking industry executives have expressed concern that a creditor would have to seek recovery from the debtor before it can enforce the guarantee. This would incur additional expenses and time to recover the debt, since two related lawsuits would be required where only one is necessary under the present law.

Despite these concerns, however, guarantors are not quite off the hook. Options still exist that allow creditors to directly enforce guarantees instead of first having to pursue debtors.

Guarantee arrangements generally involve two distinct contractual relationships. One relationship is between a creditor and debtor. The other is between a creditor and a guarantor. A court views each relationship as separate, even if all of the parties were signatories to the same contract.

Since the parties’ relationships are legally separate and distinct from each other, a creditor would still be able to pursue a claim exclusively against the guarantor without having to sue the debtor first. The new law’s prohibition on joint liability contract provisions does not prevent this.

Moreover, under Thai civil procedure laws, a court judgment is binding only on the parties in the case. Therefore, if a creditor sues a guarantor only, the guarantor cannot compel the creditor to enforce the debt against the debtor first.

If the guarantor wants the debtor to bear liability for the debt, the guarantor would have to ask the court to bring the debtor into the case as a co-defendant. The guarantor’s failure to do so would not affect the creditor’s right to enforce the guarantee.

A creditor may also consider suing both the guarantor and debtor simultaneously, as part of the same case. If the creditor obtains a judgment against both the guarantor and the debtor, the court would order the debtor to pay first if the guarantor can prove that the debtor has assets and enforcement is not difficult. Should the creditor fail to recover against the debtor’s asset, it can then seek to enforce the judgment against the guarantor.

A guarantor would be protected from paying a creditor first if the contract language in the applicable agreement states that the creditor must exhaust all remedies against the debtor before enforcing the guarantee. Any initial lawsuit against the guarantor would likely be unsuccessful if the parties’ contract is clear in this regard.

In sum, the new legal framework makes enforcement of guarantees more burdensome for creditors. However, guarantors would argue that the amendments provide greater fairness. In any case, creditors, debtors, and guarantors should all consider the legal and business issues raised by the new laws and act accordingly when setting up and enforcing guarantee arrangements.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 4, 2026
Thailand’s cabinet has approved two draft amendments aimed at improving labor-related judicial proceedings. The proposed amendments to the Act on the Establishment of Labor Courts and Labor Case Procedure B.E. 2522 (1979) and the Act on Procedures for Human Trafficking Cases B.E. 2559 (2016) are intended to make the process more efficient, appropriate, and fair. Key elements of these proposed amendments are outlined below. Expansion of Labor Court Jurisdiction Under the current framework, labor courts generally hear labor disputes, while criminal offenses under labor laws are handled separately. Matters involving both labor and criminal issues may therefore require the parties to pursue proceedings before different courts. To address this, the proposed amendments would expand the jurisdiction of labor courts to cover certain criminal offenses under labor laws. The government states that the change is intended to allow related issues to be heard by judges with expertise in labor law and to reduce the need for parallel proceedings. The proposed amendments also set out the following rules for cases involving multiple offenses. Where a single act gives rise to multiple offenses and at least one of those offenses falls within the jurisdiction of the labor court, the labor court may hear the related offenses as part of the same case. Where multiple connected acts give rise to different offenses, the labor court may hear the matters together or transfer part of the case to the appropriate court, taking into account convenience and the interests of justice. Criminal Offenses Covered The proposed amendments would extend labor court jurisdiction to criminal offenses under 11 labor-related laws, including laws concerning: Home workers protection Labor protection Labor protection in fisheries work Employment and job-seeker protection Management of foreign workers Social security Occupational safety, health, and working environment Compensation Maritime labor State enterprise labor relations
Read More
August 24, 2026
Significant economic challenges facing Thailand in recent years have placed financial pressure on both individuals and businesses. As a result, many debtors may find themselves unable to meet their repayment obligations, leading to bankruptcy proceedings. When an individual or corporate debtor in Thailand is subject to bankruptcy proceedings, the Thai Bankruptcy Act B.E. 2483 (1940) provides a legal framework for collecting a debtor’s assets and using them to repay creditors. Under the Bankruptcy Act, creditors wishing to recover outstanding debts must file a debt repayment application (DRA), which is the primary mechanism for asserting claims in bankruptcy proceedings. However, the filing of a DRA is subject to specific legal requirements, procedural rules, deadlines, and supporting documentation. Failure to comply with these requirements may adversely affect a creditor’s ability to recover its claim. This article highlights the key considerations that creditors should be aware of when filing a DRA in a bankruptcy case in Thailand. Filing a DRA In a bankruptcy case, after the court issues an absolute receivership order, the debtor loses the authority to manage or dispose of its assets. Control over the debtor’s assets is transferred to the official receiver, a government official responsible for administering the bankruptcy estate in accordance with the Bankruptcy Act. Creditors seeking repayment of their debts must file a DRA with the official receiver within two months of the absolute receivership order being officially published in the Government Gazette. For creditors outside of Thailand, the official receiver may extend the filing period by up to an additional two months. These filing deadlines are strictly enforced. Failure to file within the prescribed period may result in the claim being barred, except in limited circumstances permitted by the Bankruptcy Act. Where a late filing is accepted due to force majeure, the creditor may only
Read More
August 20, 2026
Vietnam’s Law on Bankruptcy and Rehabilitation No. 142/2025/QH15, passed by the National Assembly on December 11, 2025, does something many regional counterparts do not yet attempt: it instructs parties and arbitral tribunals on exactly what happens to an arbitration once a debtor becomes insolvent. Together with the Law on Commercial Arbitration No. 54/2010/QH12, the new law improves upon what used to be an uncertain area of practice, now providing an explicit, mandatory sequence of procedures. Suspension and Termination of Arbitration Proceedings Under article 40(2) of the law, once a Vietnamese court accepts a bankruptcy petition, any arbitration that concerns the debtor’s financial obligations must be temporarily suspended as soon as the tribunal receives the court’s notification. If the court subsequently issues a decision commencing bankruptcy proceedings, article 59(2) takes a further step: the suspended arbitration is terminated outright, and the underlying case file is transferred to the court handling the insolvency for resolution. The two provisions work as a sequence: first suspension, then termination and transfer, rather than as independent triggers. Meanwhile, article 60(4) reinforces this effect by vesting the bankruptcy court with exclusive jurisdiction over all claims against the debtor from the date the petition is accepted. Notably, this mechanism operates automatically, without the need for the insolvency court to issue a separate anti-arbitration order. The tribunal simply suspends or terminates the proceeding by operation of law once notified; however, Vietnamese law currently provides no procedure by which a party can apply to the insolvency court for permission to continue the arbitration despite the statutory effect. Practitioners with a Vietnamese counterparty in arbitration should treat notification of a bankruptcy filing as something to flag to the tribunal immediately since continuing to arbitrate a claim that has become subject to article 40(2) or 59(2) risks producing an award vulnerable
Read More
August 20, 2026
Thai law contains no provision that speaks directly to what happens to an arbitration when one of the parties becomes insolvent. The interaction between arbitration and insolvency is derived instead from the general operation of two separately drafted laws: the Bankruptcy Act B.E. 2483 (1940) and the Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002). Because Thai courts have had few opportunities to interpret how these two statutes apply together, the practical answer to many questions, such as who represents an insolvent party in arbitration, whether an award will be enforced, and what happens to a foreign proceeding, depends on inference from general principles of insolvency, arbitration, and procedural law rather than on settled rules. Liquidation and Restructuring The Bankruptcy Act governs both liquidation, which winds up a debtor’s affairs, and restructuring (rehabilitation), which aims to preserve a business. The consequences for arbitration differ accordingly. In liquidation, the debtor’s assets vest in the official receiver, who alone can conduct or continue any arbitration affecting the estate; the debtor loses the authority to act on its own behalf. In restructuring, the plan preparer or administrator takes over that role, but there is more room for the debtor to remain involved, since the objective of rehabilitation is to keep the business operational. Restructuring carries an automatic stay that takes effect once the Bankruptcy Court accepts the restructuring petition. This stay can halt an arbitration regardless of where it is seated. In contrast, liquidation does not work through a stay; instead, the debtor’s loss of authority over its own assets and disputes is what constrains the arbitration. Neither proceeding provides a party a formal route to apply for permission to continue arbitrating—the Bankruptcy Act contains no such mechanism—though in restructuring cases the Bankruptcy Court may allow proceedings to continue where doing so will not prejudice
Read More