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

April 9, 2020

Bank of Thailand Issues Relief Measures for Debtors Affected by COVID-19 Pandemic

Subscribe to Updates

The Bank of Thailand (BOT) has issued BOT Announcement No. Wor 277/2563, dated February 28, 2020, to provide relief measures for small and medium-sized debtors who suffer adverse economic effects from the COVID-19 pandemic. The key points of this announcement are summarized below.

Revised Definition of Debt Restructuring

Under this announcement, “debt restructuring” means restructuring of debt arising from a debtor’s increased credit risks, which can be divided into two categories:

  1. Debt restructuring for loans that are not yet classified as Non-Performing Loans (NPLs). This type of debt restructuring is preemptive, and will commence once the debtor starts demonstrating issues with debt repayment. The debtors are not yet classified as NPL, but have Net Present Value (NPV) loss; and,
  2. Debt restructuring for NPLs deemed to be Troubled Debt Restructuring (TDR), regardless of whether there is NPV loss.

Guidelines for Relief Measures for Debtors from January 1, 2020, until December 31, 2021

Financial support

The BOT has requested cooperation from Specialized Financial Institutions (SFIs) (i.e., state-owned financial institutions established and defined under specific laws, such as the Government Savings Bank, Export-Import Bank of Thailand, and Small and Medium Enterprise Development Bank of Thailand) to provide preemptive financial support to debtors who face direct and indirect adverse impact from the outbreak (e.g., providing additional working capital, loan moratoria, packing credit or trust receipts, renewal of credit limits, and cutting interest rates).

Scope of debtors entitled to the relief measures

The debtors entitled to the relief measures under this announcement must have potential to continue business operations or repay debt in the future, and must be:

  • Debtors whose debt has been classified as Non-NPL (classified as normal or Special Mention) since January 1, 2020;
  • Debtors whose debt became an NPL on or after January 1, 2019, except where the SFI can prove that a debtor whose debt became an NPL before January 1, 2019, is an NPL debtor adversely affected by the economic loss.

SFI Requirements

SFIs which provide relief measures to debtors that meet the above criteria must comply with the following measures.

  • Formulation of policy for relief measures. SFIs must formulate a clear policy for the provision of relief measures and criteria for considering debtors who are adversely affected by the COVID-19 outbreak.
  • Classification of debtors. SFIs can immediately classify Non-NPL debtors (normal debtors or Special Mention debtors) as normal debtors, provided that the result of the SFI’s analysis shows that the debtors can perform obligations under a debt restructuring agreement. This kind of debt restructuring will also be deemed preemptive, and will not be deemed as TDR.
  • Working capital. The SFIs can classify the provision of additional working capital to debtors to facilitate their business operations during debt restructuring, provided that the debtors have sufficient cash flow for repayment or have repayment capability when taking other factors into consideration.
  • Reserve requirements. SFIs are required to comply with BOT notifications regarding reserve requirements for SFIs.
  • Relevant personnel for debt restructuring. If an SFI has insufficient personnel for debt restructuring, the BOT temporarily allows loan officers to perform work related to debt restructuring, provided that the SFI has put in place policies for checks and balances.
  • Reducing minimum amount due on credit cards. SFIs can consider reducing the minimum amount due on credit cards, for debtors who are adversely affected by the COVID-19 outbreak, below 10% of the outstanding amount.
  • Report to the BOT. SFIs are required to submit reports to the BOT detailing target loans and outstanding debts of the debtors who are subject to these measures.
  • Communication. The SFIs are required to internally communicate relief measures both within the organization and externally to debtors.

These measures should provide strong relief for small to medium sized debtors that are suddenly facing financial difficulties as a result of the unexpected disruption caused by the COVID-19 outbreak. In addition, the BOT is expected to provide additional measures if and when the situation escalates.

Related Professionals

Practices

Banking and Finance

Corporate/M&A

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

February 27, 2026
The Bank of Thailand (BOT) has officially implemented a new regulatory framework supervising systemically important retail payment systems (SIRPS), effective February 21, 2026, with PromptPay being the first payment system designated as a SIRPS. Under this new set of regulations, the BOT may designate payment systems under the Payment Systems Act B.E. 2560 (2017) as SIRPSs based on quantitative and qualitative assessments. Once a system is designated as a SIRPS, the operator becomes subject to expanded supervisory obligations beyond the general requirements of the Payment Systems Act. Enhanced Supervisory Requirements SIRPS operators must comply with a heightened supervisory regime across three key areas, outlined below. 1. Governance SIRPS operators must maintain robust and transparent governance structures, including: Balanced board composition, with at least one-third of the board comprising independent directors who represent stakeholders in the system (such as payment service providers, consumers, and experts). Independent directors may serve for no more than two consecutive terms. Subcommittees to assist the board in overseeing compliance, policy implementation, and operational strategy. Clear separation between executives responsible for risk and information security and those overseeing day-to-day business operations. Risk Management and System SecuritySIRPS operators must implement comprehensive risk management frameworks, including: Clear service agreements between the SIRPS operator and its direct participants (payment service providers who connect directly to the SIRPS), defining roles and responsibilities among stakeholders. These agreements must include obligations for direct SIRPS participants to supervise any indirect participants they onboard to ensure compliance with service agreements and business rules. A business continuity plan covering both IT and non-IT aspects, with annual review. The SIRPS must target service availability comparable to international payment infrastructures, including the ability to recover operations within two hours of a disruption and to maintain scalable operational capacity. Tools and controls to monitor and manage material or
Read More
February 25, 2026
In December 2025, the National Assembly of Vietnam enacted a new Law on Construction, replacing the 2014 Law on Construction as amended in 2020. The 2025 Law on Construction will, in principle, take effect on July 1, 2026, subject to certain exceptions. Among its notable reforms, one development has attracted particular attention from both legal practitioners and market participants: the introduction of a statutory framework governing predetermined damages, commonly referred to as “liquidated damages.” This marks the first time liquidated damages have been expressly recognized at the level of primary legislation in Vietnam. While liquidated damages clauses have long been a common feature of construction contracts in practice, their legal enforceability has historically been subject to uncertainty. Although the new provision appears to represent a positive step toward greater legal clarity, it remains an open question whether it is sufficient, on its own, to provide a solid legal basis for the enforceability of liquidated damages clauses in construction disputes in Vietnam. What’s New? Article 86.2 of the 2025 Law on Construction provides (emphasis added): “Compensation for damages shall be determined on the basis of actual damages [or] predetermined damages corresponding to obligations under the construction contracts that are breached [and] the extent of such breaches.” This provision is significant in that it expressly recognizes predetermined damages, or liquidated damages, as a lawful basis for determining compensation for damage. However, the new law does not define “predetermined damages.” The absence of a statutory definition creates potential ambiguity as to the scope and nature of this concept and may give rise to disputes over how—and whether—a particular contractual clause qualifies as predetermined damages for the purposes of Article 86.2. Further, Article 86.2 qualifies the application of predetermined damages by requiring that such damages correspond to the obligations not fulfilled and the
Read More
February 25, 2026
Tilleke & Gibbins has updated the Vietnam chapter in the newly released Licensing 2026 guide, published by Lexology Panoramic. The comparative guide provides companies and other interested readers with information on licensing law and practice in various countries around the world. Licensing 2026 provides detailed information on the following topics: Restrictions, laws and licensing arrangements Intellectual property issues: Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, contesting the validity of licensor’s IP rights, invalidity and expiry of IP rights, security interests, proceedings against third parties, sublicensing, jointly owned IP, first to file, scope of patent protection, trade secrets, copyright Software licensing: Perpetual licensing, legal requirements, user restrictions Royalties and payments, currency conversion, and taxes: Relevant legislation, restrictions, taxation of foreign licensors Competition law issues: Restrictions on trade, legal restrictions, and IP-related court rulings Indemnification, disclaimers, and damages: Prevalence and enforceability of indemnity provisions and contractual waivers of damages Termination: Right to terminate, impact of termination Bankruptcy: Impact of licensee or licensor bankruptcy Dispute resolution: Governing law, arbitration, enforceability, injunctive relief, contractual waivers The Vietnam chapter is available below as a PDF. Readers can gain 30 days of complementary access to the full Licensing 2026 guide and the rest of Lexology Panoramic’s varied offerings through this link.
Read More
February 20, 2026
Thailand’s Supreme Administrative Court has issued a decisive ruling annulling the Ministry of Labor’s notification that had granted an exemption for foreign pilots to fly domestic routes under wet‑lease arrangements. A wet lease is a leasing arrangement in which the aircraft is provided together with its foreign flight crew, including pilots, and related operational support, rather than the airline supplying its own pilots. The judgment, delivered on November 17, 2025, and published in the Government Gazette on January 30, 2026, follows a legal challenge brought by the Thai Pilots Association, which argued that the exemption unlawfully enabled foreign workers to assume a role traditionally reserved for Thai nationals. The notification in question, dated December 13, 2024, authorized foreign pilots who came as part of wet‑leased aircraft to fly domestic routes. The Thai Pilots Association disputed the legality of this rationale, asserting that the exemption was triggered by a private airline’s request rather than by any statutory necessity. The Ministry of Labor justified this measure by relying on aircraft‑specific approvals issued by the Ministry of Transport and by enabling the Department of Employment to issue corresponding work permits. Arguments Presented in the Case The Thai Pilots Association argued that the exemption undermined the interests of domestic pilots and conflicted with the policy intent of Thailand’s foreign‑worker regulatory framework. The lawsuit emphasized that the notification arose directly from a private airline company’s request to operate two A320 aircraft under a wet lease and that the measure had the practical effect of displacing Thai pilots who remained unemployed. Meanwhile, the Ministry of Labor defended the exemption as a temporary and necessary response to industry shortages and part of national efforts to support tourism and restore aviation capacity. Legal Framework Thai law establishes a general prohibition against foreign nationals piloting domestic aircraft. Section
Read More