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

November 9, 2015

Thailand Enacts New Business Collateral Act

Subscribe to Updates

The Business Collateral Act B.E. 2558 (2015) (BCA) was passed into law on November 5, 2015. The majority of its provisions will come into effect on July 1, 2016, 240 days after publication in the Royal Thai Government Gazette.

The BCA aims to establish a robust legal system that allows borrowers in Thailand to use their assets as collateral to secure their loans. This system provides Thai borrowers with greater access to credit, which should promote investment in domestic ventures.

The key points under the BCA are the following:

  • Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the borrower will retain the right to possess the collateral and to put the collateral to commercial use for the duration of the secured period.
  • The written agreement evidencing the secured transaction must be registered at the Department of Business Development, Ministry of Commerce.
  • If a borrower defaults, the creditor may take title of the collateral or sell it at public auction.
  • The BCA introduces out-of-court enforcement mechanisms, including the appointment of a receiver when the collateral is a business venture or a project.
  • Borrowers can be any natural or legal person, whereas creditors must have a license under the Financial Institution Businesses Act B.E. 2551 (2008).
  • Projects, businesses, accounts receivable, inventory, immovable assets used directly in development projects, intellectual property, and other assets prescribed by ministerial regulation can be used as collateral.

Prior to the enactment of the BCA, borrowers could not retain possession of movable assets pledged as collateral for the duration of the security period. Out-of-court enforcement options were also limited. The BCA removes these prohibitions and therefore provides borrowers with greater access to credit. These significant developments should improve Thailand’s system of secured transactions and increase investment in domestic ventures.

If you have any questions about the Business Collateral Act or other corporate and commercial matters in Thailand, please contact Cynthia M. Pornavalai at [email protected] or +66 2653 5559.

Related Professionals

Practices

Banking and Finance

Corporate/M&A

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 27, 2026
The Bank of Thailand (BOT) is seeking public feedback on a proposed overhaul of the regulatory framework for licensed money changers authorized by the finance minister, under the Exchange Control Act, to buy and sell foreign banknotes separately from commercial banks and specialized financial institutions. The BOT published the draft principles on August 19, 2026, for public consultation, with comments accepted through September 18, 2026. If adopted in its current form, the new framework would substantially raise licensing standards, require existing licensees to undergo a review and upgrade process, temporarily freeze new applications in 2027, and reduce application intake rounds from 2028 onward, with significant implications for both existing operators and prospective new entrants. The overhaul initiative stems from the BOT’s recognition of a need to prevent the use of licensed money changers as channels for financial crime. The stated objectives are to build public confidence, ensure the safety of financial service users, and align the supervisory framework with the current risk profile of the business and evolving market conditions. Upgraded Licensing Standards The BOT intends to significantly revise the licensing framework, including requirements relating to registered capital, branch management, operational standards, and customer transaction limits. Detailed criteria have not yet been released and are expected to be subject to further consultation. All existing licensees will be required to upgrade to meet the new standards and submit evidence of compliance for BOT review on a case-by-case basis. Existing licensees that are unable to satisfy the upgraded requirements may face regulatory consequences, subject to the final framework and BOT review process. Freeze and Reopening The BOT will temporarily stop accepting new license applications throughout 2027 to focus resources on inspecting and upgrading existing money changers. Any party wishing to obtain a new money changer license must submit its application by
Read More
August 24, 2026
Myanmar’s Directorate of Investment and Company Administration (DICA) has published the guidelines it uses to assess and approve company names for registration in the country. The guidelines, which were published on May 18, 2026, explain how DICA determines whether a proposed name is identical or too similar to an existing name, and they identify words and expressions that may be prohibited or restricted. Businesses planning to incorporate in Myanmar should expect DICA to scrutinize proposed names more closely than it has in the past. Prohibitions on Company Names The Myanmar Companies Law prohibits company names that are identical or similar to existing company names, and DICA’s internal assessment guidelines explain how this rule applies in practice. Under the guidelines, DICA may reject a proposed company name if the proposed name: Is identical or nearly identical to an existing company name; Differs from an existing company name only in punctuation, capitalization, spelling, or transliteration; Only adds words such as “Group,” “Holding,” “International,” “Myanmar,” or “Family” to an existing company name; Merely rearranges the words in an existing company name; Is pronounced similarly to an existing name; Uses the same brand name as an existing company, even if the company carries out different business activities; or Uses an existing brand name together with an abbreviation of that brand name or a shortened form of the name or business description. DICA may also consider whether a proposed name could give the impression that two companies are related, even if they operate in different business sectors. In addition, DICA may review a company name even after registration. If it later determines that the name does not comply with the Myanmar Companies Law or is otherwise unsuitable, DICA may direct the company to change its name under section 26 of the Myanmar Companies Law.
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