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

December 13, 2023

Business Rehabilitation in Thailand and Debt Repayment

Bangkok Post

Thailand’s economy in recent years has felt the impact of a seemingly endless list of challenges, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, global economic recession, repercussions from wars and armed conflicts, slumping exports, and recurring internal political turmoil. Many Thai companies simply went bankrupt during this time, but many others have gone through the process of business rehabilitation as laid out in Thailand’s Bankruptcy Act.

This article outlines Thailand’s business rehabilitation procedures and explains how creditors can collect debts from companies involved in rehabilitation.

Business rehabilitation in Thailand

Under the Bankruptcy Act, a creditor, debtor, or government agency under certain circumstances can file a business rehabilitation petition when all of the following conditions are met:

  • The debtor is insolvent or unable to pay the debt due for payment (cash-flow insolvency).
  • The debtor is a juristic person indebted to one or more creditors for a total of at least 10 million baht.
  • The debt can be determined in a definite amount, irrespective of whether it is due for payment immediately or in the future.
  • There is a reasonable prospect of the debtor’s business being rehabilitated.

“Insolvency” means a debtor has more debts than assets. However, the Bankruptcy Act also gives some criteria for being able to assume that a debtor is insolvent. Examples include debtors declaring to the court that they are unable to pay their debts, or debtors defaulting on debt payments after receiving at least two demand letters from a creditor (with at least 30 days between the letters).

Once the court receives a business rehabilitation petition, the debtor will be protected under an “automatic stay.” This means that any creditor cannot sue or force the debtor to pay a debt, and the debtor is not allowed to pay any debt unless it falls into one of the exceptions of the Bankruptcy Act.

In addition, the court will schedule a hearing to consider the facts. If the court finds that the conditions above are met, it will issue an order to approve the rehabilitation of the debtor’s business.

The court will also appoint a planner. The planner must prepare a business rehabilitation plan in accordance with the requirements of the Bankruptcy Act. If the court does not appoint a planner, the court will order an official receiver to organize a creditors’ meeting to select the planner.

Once the court appoints the planner, the power and duties in managing the debtor’s business and assets, and all legal rights of the debtor’s shareholders (except the right to receive any dividends), are vested in the planner.

When the court approves the rehabilitation of the debtor’s business but does not appoint a planner, the debtor’s executives must hand over all company assets, company seals, accounting ledgers, and documents related to the debtor’s assets and business to an appointed temporary administrator or official receiver. The official receiver must publish the court’s rehabilitation order in the Government Gazette and in at least two widely circulated daily newspapers.

Seeking debt repayment

Once the court issues its order to appoint a planner, all creditors must submit a debt repayment application and a copy of it to the official receiver within one month of publication of the planner’s appointment.

At this time, creditors can seek repayment of their debts by submitting a debt repayment application to the official receiver if the debt obligation:

  • occurred before the court issued an order to rehabilitate the business regardless of whether the debt has matured or is conditional,
  • did not arise in violation of legal prohibitions or good morals, and
  • is legally enforceable.

The creditor will have voting rights corresponding to the full amount of the obligation as stated in the debt repayment application if the other creditors, the debtor, and the planner do not object. However, if one of these parties does object to the debt repayment application, the official receiver must determine whether the creditor will be allowed to vote and in correspondence to what amount of the debt. After finishing the investigation, the official receiver may dismiss the debt repayment application, approve full repayment of the debt, or approve partial repayment of the debt.

However, any “concerned person” relating to the debt repayment application can file an objection with the court within 14 days of the acknowledgment date of the official receiver’s order.

If the debt is in a foreign currency, the amount must be converted into Thai baht according to the daily exchange rate announced by the Bank of Thailand on the date that the court issued the order to rehabilitate the business.

Creditors can also set off debt in certain circumstances. A setoff can occur if a creditor is entitled to submit a debt repayment application and the debtor is indebted to the creditor when the court issues the business rehabilitation order.

Business rehabilitation compliance

As has happened frequently in recent years, businesses in Thailand may face crises and other problems, and it may be beneficial for them to bring their business under the protection afforded by Thailand’s business rehabilitation process under the Bankruptcy Act. However, it is important that they ensure the proper rehabilitation procedures are followed in accordance with the law. While business rehabilitation can be a helpful tool for many business owners, failing to keep up with the legal requirements of the process could open them up to criminal and civil liability.

 

This article was originally published in the Bangkok Post.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

June 10, 2026
For multinational franchisors operating in Thailand, a key risk after franchise termination is that former outlets may continue operating in ways that could easily mislead consumers into believing they remain within the authorized network. To justify such operations, former franchisees often argue that the termination was invalid or ineffective. As a result, these cases are often treated as contractual disputes, making it difficult for franchisors to obtain injunctive relief before a final judgment confirms that the termination was lawful. Franchisors face significant commercial and reputational harm during lengthy proceedings, including consumer confusion, disruption to franchise restructuring, and damage to brand reputation and customer trust. In an encouraging development, the Thai court in a 2025 case responded to the problem of unauthorized post-termination franchise operations by granting interim relief, recognizing broader brand and consumer harm, and awarding substantial damages, highlighting a successful litigation strategy of framing the dispute not merely as a contractual termination issue but as trademark infringement causing ongoing commercial injury. The Subway Case From December 2024 to mid-2025, an unauthorized “Subway®” franchise operation in Thailand attracted substantial public and media attention. Reports and online discussions about unauthorized Subway® stores circulated widely after complaints arose about food quality and customer experience at certain outlets that were allegedly operating after their franchise rights had expired. Because these stores continued to use Subway® trademarks, trade dress, and overall commercial appearance, many consumers were unable to distinguish them from authorized operations, resulting in reputational risks and customer confusion that affected the franchisor’s brand and franchise system in Thailand. Subway treated this matter with the utmost seriousness and moved promptly to protect its brand, franchise system, and customers. It filed a civil action with the IP&IT Court seeking a permanent injunction and damages. During the proceedings, the court granted a preliminary injunction
June 9, 2026
On April 28, 2026, the Central Bank of Myanmar (CBM) issued Notification No. 18/2026 introducing the new Foreign Remittance Business Regulations. The new regulations apply to companies intending to operate foreign remittance businesses in Myanmar that are not licensed banks, non-bank financial institutions, or other financial institutions. The regulations supersede and replace the previous regulatory framework governing foreign remittance businesses under CBM Notification No. 21/2019. While the overall structure remains familiar, the new regulations introduce more detailed requirements for licensing, operations, reporting, and compliance, with a stronger focus on transparency and regulatory oversight. Broader Licensing Requirements Under the new regulations, applicants must submit detailed business plans describing the use of information technology and mobile platforms, along with clear plans for handling remittances from workers abroad and resolving customer complaints. Financial Thresholds and Reporting Requirements The baseline financial thresholds remain unchanged. Licensees must maintain a security deposit of MMK 100 million in an escrow account, along with a separate revolving fund dedicated solely to remittance operations. The new regulations introduce more structured reporting obligations. Licensees are now required to submit daily remittance transaction data by the next business day before noon, in addition to monthly and periodic reporting requirements. Foreign bank account statements must also be submitted regularly, and licensees must provide updates on business operations every six months. Strengthened AML and CFT Framework The new regulations place a greater emphasis on anti-money laundering (AML) and counter financing of terrorism (CFT), with tighter controls over management changes. Any changes in shareholding, share transfers, or the appointment of key management personnel such as the managing director require prior approval from the CBM. Licensing Fees and Validity The new regulations increase licensing costs, while maintaining the same validity period of three years. The new regulations provide more detailed grounds for suspension and
June 4, 2026
On May 19, 2026, the Cabinet of the Royal Thai Government approved, in principle, revisions to Thailand’s visa exemption scheme and visa on arrival (VOA) program, as proposed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Tourism and Sports. The revisions represent a tightening of Thailand’s immigration framework and will affect a broad range of short-term visitors. Background On July 15, 2024, Thailand expanded its visa exemption scheme by increasing the permitted period of visa-exempt stay from 30 days to 60 days in order to promote tourism, support the country’s post-pandemic economic recovery, and facilitate international travel. Under this revised scheme, passport holders from 93 countries and territories (an increase from the previous 57 countries and territories) have been permitted to enter Thailand without a visa and remain in the country for up to 60 days per entry for purposes including tourism, business engagements, urgent work, and ad hoc assignments. In addition, eligible visitors may apply at the Thai Immigration Bureau for a further 30-day extension of stay. Key Changes The proposed revisions would revoke the current 60-day exemption and reinstate the previous stay period, thereby reducing the maximum permitted stay for eligible travelers to 30 days per entry. In addition, the number of countries and territories eligible under the 30-day visa-exemption scheme is expected to be reduced to 54. The scope of the VOA scheme would likewise be significantly narrowed, with the number of eligible countries reduced from 31 countries to just four (Azerbaijan, Belarus, Serbia, and India). Further, Thailand is expected to introduce a new 15-day visa exemption category for nationals of Seychelles, the Maldives, and Mauritius. The revised framework would also limit each country or territory to a single visa exemption privilege in order to simplify Thailand’s immigration framework and reduce overlapping immigration privileges.
May 25, 2026
After several years of policy discussion and continued efforts led by the Ministry of Commerce (MOC) to relax the list of reserved businesses under the Foreign Business Act B.E. 2542 (1999) (FBA), the reform process has now reached a significant milestone. On May 12, 2026, the Thai cabinet approved in principle two draft subordinate legislative instruments aimed at delisting certain reserved business activities under the FBA and reducing licensing requirements for foreign business operators. These developments signal a renewed and concrete effort by the government to modernize Thailand’s business regulatory framework in order to attract foreign investment and boost Thailand’s competitiveness in the global market. Nine Businesses Set for FBA Delisting Below is a list of the nine businesses that are being targeted for delisting from the FBA’s restrictions. A draft ministerial regulation would delist the first eight reserved businesses, while a royal decree has been drafted to delist the ninth business: Telecommunications services (Type 1 license only, covering operators without their own telecommunications infrastructure), under the supervision of the Office of the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission. Treasury center services subject to the Foreign Exchange Control Act B.E. 2485 and under the supervision of the Bank of Thailand. Securities-collateralized lending, pursuant to the laws governing securities and exchange and derivatives regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Agency, dealer, advisory, or fund management services relating to derivatives where the underlying assets fall outside the scope of the Derivatives Act B.E. 2546 (2003) Intra-group shared services, including administrative, human resources, and IT functions Intra-group domestic debt guarantee services Leasing of partial space for installation of financial service machines and automatic vending machines for employee use Petroleum drilling services Trading of agricultural product derivatives through a futures exchange, with physical delivery or receipt of agricultural products at a futures exchange–designated