Under Thai bankruptcy law, a creditor can file a request for a debtor to be placed under an absolute receivership order and bankruptcy judgment. However, the debtor must be insolvent, and the debt owed to the creditor or creditors must be at least THB 1 million (for a debtor who is a natural person) or THB 2 million (for the debtor who is a juristic person). In order to know whether the latter requirement is met, the debt must be “determinable”—that is, known and monetarily quantifiable. More specifically, determinable debt is debt (up to the filing date) in an amount that can be calculated, whether the debt is payable immediately or in the future. The debt can be under a loan agreement or under a sale-and-purchase agreement. One question that sometimes comes up is whether damages arising out of termination of such an agreement are considered determinable debt. According to a number of Supreme Court precedents, if the debt (e.g., rent, fine or penalty) can be calculated as referred to in the agreement, the debt is determinable. Three of these cases are described below. Supreme Court Case No. 2653/2526 In this case, the defendant made a partial delivery of oil (i.e., not the amount fully expected) to the plaintiff, who claimed that the defendant owed them a fine of almost THB 14.9 million, calculated in accordance with the sale-and-purchase agreement for the oil. The defendant argued that the debt was not determinable because the plaintiff did not prove whether they suffered damage or not. The Supreme Court noted that the agreement for sale and purchase of oil stated clearly that if the defendant could not deliver oil to the plaintiff in full, the plaintiff had the right to terminate the agreement and fine the defendant 25 percent of the

The Factory Act B.E. 2535 (1992) is one of the most important laws regulating manufacturing businesses in Thailand. It applies to businesses either with machinery of 50 horsepower or more in total, or with a minimum of 50 workers in a facility that conducts “factory work” as defined under related ministerial regulations. The act was recently amended to extend the period of validity for factory licenses and to make other miscellaneous changes that facilitate business. However, the act’s criminal liabilities were left unchanged, and they remain a vital tool for the authorities to exert control over relevant standards and prosecute violations. Both fines and imprisonment are available as sanctions under the law. Examples of common violations of the Factory Act and their potential penalties include: Setting up and operating a factory without acquiring a license: up to two years’ imprisonment, a fine of up to THB 200,000 (approx. USD 5,365), or both. Operating with noise level exceeding the standard set by the Ministry of Industry: a fine of up to THB 200,000. Not displaying a factory license in an open and easily visible location in the factory: a fine of up to THB 5,000 (approx. USD 134). Doing a test run of machinery prior to the start of the factory operations without notifying the authorities: a fine of up to THB 20,000. As factory activities are regulated in considerable detail, overlooking a minor change could potentially put the company at risk. The risk of violating the Factory Act increases when compliance is not a proactive policy—such as by instituting systems or safeguards to ensure adherence to the rules. Criminal Liability Violation of the Factory Act is especially a concern because criminal liability under the act is not limited to juristic persons (i.e., companies) but also applies to the director,

Thailand’s recent removal of cannabis from the list of narcotics represents a significant development for the country, and it has some human resources teams wondering whether they should prepare certain measures in order to prevent detrimental incidents from happening in their organizations. For example, some employees could still be under the influence of cannabis because they used it before coming to work. In the past, this was rarely a consideration as cannabis was clearly banned. Using cannabis or possessing cannabis inside the employer’s premises subjected employees to criminal liability including imprisonment and fines. However, now that the government has removed cannabis from the narcotics list under the Narcotics Act, such incidents are more likely to occur. This likelihood has led to concern among many employers about how they can prevent or handle these incidents. An employer does have the right to prohibit any employee from bringing cannabis inside its premises, as it is the property of the employer. The employer has the management right to do this, particularly as an employee’s use of cannabis may very well disturb other employees. But if the employer would like to set penalties for breaching the prohibition, the picture is more complicated. Employers’ Work Rules Under the Labour Protection Act (LPA), an employer who has at least 10 employees must have Thai-language work rules. These work rules must include the following items: Specification of working days, regular working hours, and rest periods; Holidays and rules for taking holidays; Rules concerning overtime work and work on holidays; Arrangements for payment of wages (i.e., schedule and location); Overtime pay, holiday pay, and holiday overtime pay; Leave and rules for taking leave; Discipline and disciplinary actions; Submission of grievances; and Termination of employment, severance pay and special severance pay. To issue or amend work rules (e.g.,

Impacts from the COVID-19 pandemic have led some manufacturers to reduce costs by changing production methods, designs, or machinery, or reducing the number of employees on payroll. While these strategies may reduce costs and help their business survive, they may also result to lower quality goods. In the worst case, however, these poor quality goods may cancel out or even outweigh a manufacturer’s cost savings if the products are deemed to be unsafe for consumers under Thailand’s Product Liability Act (officially the Liability for Damages Arising from Unsafe Products Act). The Product Liability Act has been in force for 14 years. However, there have been few landmark Supreme Court decisions related to it as most cases are settled before the final judgment. Consequently, most business owners have limited knowledge of the precedent cases and are unsure about what actions they can take to manage and mitigate the risk of being found liable for claims of damages due to an unsafe product. The Product Liability Act identifies several types of entrepreneurs and business operators (individuals and entities) as “potentially liable parties” (PLPs) who may be penalized under the law: Manufacturers or hirers Importers Sellers of goods for which the manufacturer, hirer, or importer cannot be identified; Any other party who uses the name, trade name, trademark, or statements of the alleged unsafe products, or acts in a manner that causes them to be seen as a manufacturer, hirer, or importer The Product Liability Act defines a “product” as any kind of movable property that has been manufactured or imported for sale—including agricultural products and electricity, but excluding those ruled out by ministerial regulations. Therefore, real estate and services are excluded from the Product Liability Act. However, real estate buyers are protected by the Civil and Commercial Code, and by the