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 20, 2012

Bankruptcy Liability for Business Partners

Subscribe to Updates
Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

A partnership begins with a splash of optimism—a toast to the future and a plan for capitalizing on business opportunities. But what happens when it all goes wrong? Aggressive creditors may force a partnership into bankruptcy and certain individual partners may be required to follow. This article is a primer on the bankruptcy liability of partners.

Two types of partnership may be registered in Thailand: ordinary and limited. Thai law imposes unlimited liability for all of the obligations of the partnership on all partners in ordinary partnerships, which partners are considered to be “unlimited partners,” and on unlimited partners in limited partnerships.

Liquidation Proceedings against Partnerships and Partners

Thailand’s Bankruptcy Act 1940 (as amended) provides for two types of bankruptcies: business reorganization and liquidation (debt repayment). The general process of a liquidation proceeding initiated by creditors is as follows:

First, a creditor may file a bankruptcy charge against a partnership and its partners, provided the creditor and the partnership meet certain criteria in the Bankruptcy Act. The liquidator of such partnership may also submit a bankruptcy petition to the court if it appears that the contribution of shares has been fully paid up and that the assets are insufficient to cover the debts.

Second, the Bankruptcy Court may order the partnership and its partners into “absolute receivership,” whereby all ownership and control of the debtors’ property is vested with the Official Receiver for administration and ultimate distribution (if possible) to creditors.

Third, where creditors file a bankruptcy petition against the partnership (only) and after the court has issued an order to place the partnership into absolute receivership, the petitioning creditors or the official receiver may file a motion for the adjudication of bankruptcy against all unlimited partners, without having to file a new claim against such persons (Bankruptcy Act, section 89).

Determination of Bankruptcy

To determine whether a partner must be adjudged bankrupt, according to section 89, Thailand’s Supreme Court concluded a court shall consider only whether such person was a partner in the partnership at the time that the partnership was petitioned or sued for bankruptcy. The court is not required to consider whether such partner is actually insolvent, as in other bankruptcy actions.

The Supreme Court has further held a partner cannot prevent a determination of personal bankruptcy by proving that he or she is solvent and not bankrupt. This conclusion seems unfair to the partner and is still arguable. Some legal professionals believe that the partner should be entitled to avoid personal bankruptcy on proof that the partner has sufficient personal assets to settle the debts of the partnership.

Partner’s Personal Assets Placed under Receivership

Following the filing of a motion for the adjudication of bankruptcy against a partner, the petitioning creditor or the official receiver may file a second motion to place the partner’s personal assets under temporary receivership. Before issuing such an order, the court may require the petitioning creditor to give security against loss in such amount as the court may deem appropriate (Bankruptcy Act, section 90).

If it subsequently appears that the person is not a partner (as defined above), the court must issue an order terminating the receivership. The court is also empowered, on the filing of a motion by the non-partner, to order the creditor who requested the receivership to pay compensation to the non-partner in such sum as the court may deem proper. The court may also order the official receiver make such payment out of the partnership’s assets (Bankruptcy Act, section 90).

Recommendations

Despite section 89 and its interpretation, a partner in a bankrupt partnership might not be adjudged bankrupt if the partner can reach a compromise with the creditor(s) or can settle all debts owed to the creditor(s). The Supreme Court has considered such arrangements to be sufficient grounds for not adjudging the debtor to be bankrupt. Under the Bankruptcy Act, where there exists a reason why the debtor should not be adjudged bankrupt, the court shall terminate the bankruptcy action.

The better solution, however, is for all partners to carefully consider the structure of their business. For example, it may be preferable to register the business as a limited company because, for juristic person debtors, only limited companies (and not their directors) can be petitioned or sued for bankruptcy. By protecting themselves at the outset, business partners can share in the success of the venture, while protecting their personal assets from creditor claims and bankruptcy.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Corporate/M&A

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

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 24, 2026
Significant economic challenges facing Thailand in recent years have placed financial pressure on both individuals and businesses. As a result, many debtors may find themselves unable to meet their repayment obligations, leading to bankruptcy proceedings. When an individual or corporate debtor in Thailand is subject to bankruptcy proceedings, the Thai Bankruptcy Act B.E. 2483 (1940) provides a legal framework for collecting a debtor’s assets and using them to repay creditors. Under the Bankruptcy Act, creditors wishing to recover outstanding debts must file a debt repayment application (DRA), which is the primary mechanism for asserting claims in bankruptcy proceedings. However, the filing of a DRA is subject to specific legal requirements, procedural rules, deadlines, and supporting documentation. Failure to comply with these requirements may adversely affect a creditor’s ability to recover its claim. This article highlights the key considerations that creditors should be aware of when filing a DRA in a bankruptcy case in Thailand. Filing a DRA In a bankruptcy case, after the court issues an absolute receivership order, the debtor loses the authority to manage or dispose of its assets. Control over the debtor’s assets is transferred to the official receiver, a government official responsible for administering the bankruptcy estate in accordance with the Bankruptcy Act. Creditors seeking repayment of their debts must file a DRA with the official receiver within two months of the absolute receivership order being officially published in the Government Gazette. For creditors outside of Thailand, the official receiver may extend the filing period by up to an additional two months. These filing deadlines are strictly enforced. Failure to file within the prescribed period may result in the claim being barred, except in limited circumstances permitted by the Bankruptcy Act. Where a late filing is accepted due to force majeure, the creditor may only
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