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 4, 2025
Thailand has expanded the circumstances under which state agencies may bypass competitive bidding procedures to address urgent security challenges. On November 28, 2025, Thailand’s Ministry of Finance published the Ministerial Regulation Determining Cases of Procurement by Specific Method (No. 6) B.E. 2568 in the Royal Gazette, introducing a new pathway for procuring supplies and services needed to address cyber and military threats that may affect the stability of government agencies or the nation. For technology vendors, cybersecurity firms, and defense contractors, this regulatory change creates immediate opportunities to engage directly with government buyers facing urgent security challenges. New Fast-Track Category for Security Threats The regulation amends Thailand’s Public Procurement and Supplies Management Act B.E. 2560 (2017) to add a new category of procurement that qualifies for the “specific method”—a noncompetitive, direct selection process. Previously, agencies could use this expedited method only in limited circumstances, such as emergencies, cases with proprietary technology requirements, or national security operations. The new provision explicitly covers procurement of supplies related to preventing or resolving cyber or military threats that could impact the stability of a state agency or the country. This addition recognizes the urgent nature of modern security challenges, where competitive bidding timelines may leave agencies vulnerable during critical threat windows. State agencies dealing with active cyberattacks, preparing defensive measures against anticipated threats, or responding to military security concerns can now move directly to negotiate with qualified vendors rather than conducting lengthy public tender processes. Vendor Considerations Vendors offering cybersecurity solutions now have a regulatory avenue to work directly with government clients when stability concerns are present. These solutions include threat detection systems, anti-ransomware tools, incident response services, firewalls, and security consulting. Similarly, defense contractors providing military equipment or specialized security supplies can pursue direct engagement channels where traditional procurement methods would create
Read More
December 4, 2025
Thailand’s Department of Business Development (DBD), through its Office of Central Company and Partnership Registration, has released multiple draft orders for public consultation until December 12, 2025. These draft orders aim to strengthen the business registration process, with a focus on the requirements for establishing and amending the principal office address of a partnership or limited company, verification of authorized signatories, and measures to identify and prevent registrations involving persons linked to suspicious or high-risk activities. The draft orders’ proposed requirements are outlined below. Principal Office Verification The principal office address of a partnership or limited company, including house registration code, house number, full address details, and building name, must be fully aligned with the civil registry. The registrar will strictly verify this before accepting any registration or amendment. If the address used for registration is already registered for at least five other companies, the company must submit a consent letter from the person authorized to allow use of the principal office, along with supporting documents proving the right to use the address. Signatory Certification Compliance Duties Persons certifying directors’ signatures on registration forms are responsible for verifying their identities, maintaining up-to-date information, and complying with the requirements of the DBD’s Biz Regist digital registration system. Certain supporting documents proving the qualifications of certifying persons are also required, with some exceptions for specific professional roles. Identity and qualification verification must be renewed upon the completion of one year from the date of registration as a certifying person, or if the certification credentials expire before the one-year period ends, in accordance with the verification requirements. Verification of Suspicious Parties Any partner, shareholder, or director linked to a predicate offense will be required to meet with the registrar in person for further verification steps. For all parties related to a company
Read More
December 3, 2025
Attorneys from Tilleke & Gibbins’ Bangkok office have contributed the Thailand chapter to Litigation 2026, published by Chambers and Partners. Litigation 2026 provides an overview of litigation procedures and practices across numerous jurisdictions. The guide is a key reference for businesses, in-house counsel, and legal professionals seeking to understand and compare litigation frameworks around the world. The Thailand chapter delivers analysis of 14 core areas of litigation, including: General characteristics of the legal system and court structure Litigation funding options and requirements Procedures for initiating lawsuits and pre-trial steps Discovery processes and injunctive relief Trial procedures and rules on evidence Settlement mechanisms and enforcement Damages and judgment considerations Appeal processes and cost issues Alternative dispute resolution and arbitration Developments and future outlook for dispute resolution in Thailand Each section offers practical guidance on navigating Thailand’s litigation landscape, providing useful context for international businesses and legal practitioners involved in dispute resolution matters. Chambers and Partners’ Global Practice Guides deliver expert commentary on key practice areas across jurisdictions, allowing readers to compare legislation, procedures, and practical considerations relevant to business operations. The Thailand chapter can be downloaded through the button below, and the full Litigation 2026 guide is available free of charge on the Chambers and Partners website.
Read More
December 3, 2025
Thailand’s Civil Court has issued a regulation targeting the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in the preparation of pleadings and other documents submitted to the court. Effective November 17, 2025, the regulation aligns with September 2025 guidance from the president of the Supreme Court, and aims to safeguard accuracy, transparency, and public confidence in civil adjudication. The regulation applies to all parties submitting pleadings or any documents to the Civil Court that are prepared using AI tools or contain AI-generated content. It subjects AI used for these purposes to strict requirements on verification, disclosure, and accountability. Core Obligations The regulation imposes four principal obligations: Lawyers who use AI remain subject to duties of honesty, responsibility to the court, professional standards, and legal ethics, including the duty to assess the appropriateness of the AI tool for the work. Parties and lawyers must verify the accuracy and completeness of all facts, legal provisions, and citations in AI-generated content before submission. Parties and lawyers must disclose to the court any AI-generated content by clearly marking the beginning and end of the AI-generated portion with prescribed statements (see below). Additionally, a certification confirming the use of AI must be provided at the end of the pleading or document, stating that AI was used for certain portions and that the party has reviewed and certifies the accuracy of factual and legal content. Parties and lawyers bear the same full legal and ethical responsibility for AI-generated content as they do for personally authored documents; they cannot evade responsibility or avoid liability by citing AI-related errors. Likewise, parties must ensure that any AI-generated content is truthful, accurate, and unbiased. Prescribed Disclosure Language Each instance of AI-generated content must be preceded by the statement “[The following content was prepared using artificial intelligence]” and must end with “[End
Read More