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

June 17, 2020

Bankruptcy Court Accepts Thai Airways’ Business Rehabilitation Petition

Subscribe to Updates

On May 26, 2020, Thai Airways International PCL submitted a petition for business rehabilitation, including a list of creditors, to the Central Bankruptcy Court. The court accepted the petition for consideration on the following day, and has scheduled a hearing for 9:00 a.m. on August 17, 2020, to determine whether Thai Airways should enter business rehabilitation. The court is now in the process of sending a copy of Thai Airways’ petition to the creditors whose names appear in the creditor list. In addition to announcing the hearing date by public notice, the court ordered that the hearing date be announced electronically.

Creditors can file objections to Thai Airways’ rehabilitation petition until August 14, 2020. If the August 17 hearing is postponed to a later date, the deadline to file objections will also be extended to at least three days before the actual hearing date takes place, in accordance with Thai bankruptcy law. If creditors fail to file an objection before the deadline, the court will assume that the creditors do not object to the petition.

Automatic Stay 

An “automatic stay” came into effect when the court accepted the rehabilitation petition for consideration. The main purpose of the automatic stay is to protect the debtor’s assets from legal actions taken by the creditors. During this time, the following prohibitions (among others) are in effect:

  • Creditors cannot file a civil action in connection with the debtor’s assets.
  • Creditors cannot enforce a judgment against the debtor’s assets. However, if the assets seized or attached are perishable, the executing officer can sell them by public auction and set aside the proceeds.
  • Owners cannot recover assets that are in the debtor’s possession under an unexpired contract (such as a lease) that are essential for the debtor’s business operations.
  • The debtor cannot repay any debts, except if the payment of the debt is essential for the debtor’s normal business operations, unless the court orders otherwise.
  • Providers of public utilities such as water, electricity, and telephone cannot suspend their services to the debtor.

Violation of the automatic stay can result in criminal liability for both debtor and creditor.

With the scheduling of the Bankruptcy Court hearing and the commencement of the automatic stay, Thai Airways’ creditors should monitor the situation closely and ensure they receive a copy of the petition. Meanwhile, all parties should endeavor to understand their rights and positions in order to determine the next steps to be taken.

Tilleke & Gibbins will continue to keep its clients updated on all developments surrounding the Thai Airways bankruptcy and restructuring matter. Creditors and other parties may direct questions on the issue to Tilleke & Gibbins’ restructuring and insolvency team by emailing [email protected].

Related Professionals

Practices

Corporate/M&A

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

December 15, 2025
Thailand is taking steps to energize its startup scene by drafting the Startup Promotion Law. This draft law aims to remove obstacles, open new funding opportunities, and provide coordinated government support. The goal is to make it easier for Thailand-based startups to grow and compete on a global stage. Why Is This Law Needed? For many years, Thai startups have operated under traditional company law frameworks that were not designed with high-growth businesses or with fundraising opportunities in mind. Restrictions on issuing bonds, offering shares to outside investors, and repurchasing shares for employee incentive programs made it challenging for emerging companies to access capital and accelerate their growth. The draft Startup Promotion Act seeks to remove these obstacles and foster a more competitive, entrepreneur-friendly environment in Thailand. Who’s in Charge? Two main organizations will oversee the startup ecosystem: Startup Promotion Committee: This group, to be appointed by the National Science, Research, and Innovation Policy Council, will set national strategies, policies, and budget; design promotional campaign and incentives; and propose further legislative amendments to promote startups. National Innovation Agency (NIA): Under the draft act, the NIA will be the main contact for startups and will serve as the secretariat office of the Startup Promotion Committee, coordinating data, advising startups, maintaining the public registry, and providing funding and investment (grants, repayable grants, loans, and equity) under committee criteria and, where applicable, cabinet approval. What Startups Are Eligible for Benefits? To be officially recognized and access benefits, a company must: Be a private limited company less than 10 years old at the time of application. Existing companies that already exceed the 10-year threshold may still apply for startup statues within one year of the law’s enactment, as long as they otherwise still qualify for the new regime. Have average annual revenue not
Read More
December 12, 2025
Similar to other types of corporate disputes, tax-related conflicts often begin with an earnest attempt to resolve matters outside the courtroom. The prospect of engaging in tax litigation can be daunting, given the potential strain on commercial relationships, the legal expenses, and the uncertainty surrounding its resolution. However, there are instances when tax litigation becomes the sole avenue for seeking redress. For individuals and entities contemplating the pursuit of tax-related legal remedies, the Thai legal system offers an accessible, impartial, and equitable platform for dispute resolution. Tilleke & Gibbins’ latest update to Tax Litigation in Thailand provides an outline for navigating tax-related disputes within the Thai legal framework. It aims to equip readers with a fundamental understanding of procedures and practices within the Thai tax litigation landscape. The full guide is available through the button below.
Read More
December 12, 2025
Cross-border disputes often end with a judgment or arbitral award issued outside Thailand. When a party has assets or operations in Thailand, the key question becomes simple: will a Thai court enforce it? Thai law treats foreign court judgments and foreign arbitral awards very differently. Foreign court judgments cannot be recognized or enforced directly and must effectively be re-litigated. Foreign arbitral awards, however, benefit from a clear recognition and enforcement process under the New York Convention and Thailand’s Arbitration Act. Thailand’s Overall Approach Thailand does not have a general law or treaty that allows automatic enforcement of foreign court judgments. To rely on a foreign judgment, a party must initiate a new lawsuit in a Thai court, plead the claim under Thai law, and prove the case again. The foreign judgment can be used as evidence, but it is not binding, and the Thai court retains full discretion to reassess both the facts and the law. Foreign arbitral awards are treated more favorably. Thailand is a longstanding member of the New York Convention and has implemented it through the Arbitration Act. The act provides a straightforward process for asking a Thai court to recognize and enforce a qualifying award, without retrying the dispute, and subject only to limited refusal grounds. Foreign Court Judgments: Persuasive but Not Binding Although Thai courts do not recognize or enforce foreign court judgments, they may rely on them as persuasive evidence under certain conditions. Courts generally give more weight to judgments that are final on the merits, issued by a court with proper jurisdiction, and reached after proper notice and an opportunity for the defendant to be heard. Default judgments or rulings based primarily on procedural grounds carry less weight, and the ultimate relevance and weight are left to the court’s discretion. In practical
Read More
December 5, 2025
One morning, a California-based company mapping its Southeast Asia rollout opened an unexpected cease-and-desist letter from a Vietnamese IP firm. To the company’s surprise, the letter asserted that a local client already owned the company’s brand in Vietnam and threatened legal action. This is not an isolated incident. In another recent matter in the sports industry, a squatter demanded at least USD 48,000 from our client to “resolve” a similar conflict. For brands entering Vietnam or expanding distribution there, these tactics can create acute risk at precisely the point at which market momentum is building. Vietnam’s rapid economic growth and deepening integration into global trade have made it an increasingly attractive destination for multinational brands. Those same dynamics have intensified a longstanding issue: trademark squatting. Vietnam has modernized its IP framework over the past decade, but its strict first-to-file trademark system continues to incentivize opportunistic filings by parties with no legitimate interest in a mark. As more foreign brands build their reputation abroad before turning to Vietnam, squatters remain alert to timing gaps and enforcement frictions. The First-to-File System: Advantages and Vulnerabilities Vietnam adheres closely to the first-to-file principle under its Law on Intellectual Property. In practice, exclusive trademark rights belong to whoever submits the earliest valid application to the Vietnam Intellectual Property Office, regardless of prior use in Vietnam. This approach offers administrative clarity and reduces evidentiary burdens compared to use-based jurisdictions. Yet it also creates fertile conditions for squatting. Bad-faith actors regularly monitor foreign markets, identify brands gaining traction, and move quickly to register those marks domestically, often long before the genuine owner enters the market or prioritizes local filings. By the time the true brand seeks protection, the squatter’s application (or registration) stands as a legal obstacle, pushing businesses toward costly oppositions, cancellations, or uncomfortable negotiations
Read More