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

Subscribe to Updates
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 Professionals

Practices

Corporate/M&A

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

March 13, 2026
For decades, intellectual property rights holders seeking to eliminate counterfeit goods from the Thai market have relied primarily on criminal raid actions to seize infringing products and hold infringers accountable. The deterrent value of this approach is typically threefold: imposing criminal liability on infringers, removing counterfeit goods from circulation, and subjecting violators to imprisonment and fines. However, these outcomes often fall short of fulfilling brand owners’ broader objectives. In many cases, those prosecuted are merely staff or intermediaries rather than the principals orchestrating the infringing operations. Moreover, any fines imposed are remitted to the Thai government—not to the rights holders who have suffered commercial harm and invested substantial resources in investigation and coordination with law enforcement authorities. As in other jurisdictions worldwide, rights holders seeking monetary compensation for IP infringement in Thailand have traditionally pursued separate civil litigation. Before initiating such proceedings, a brand owner must gather sufficient evidence to establish both the infringement and the resulting damages. Notably, Thai law does not recognize punitive damages; courts award only actual damages proven by the claimant. In the absence of seized infringing goods, the damages awarded in such cases are typically minimal. This all leaves rights holders with limited recourse despite possibly having suffered significant commercial injury. In 2005, Thailand amended its Criminal Procedure Code to introduce Section 44/1, which enables rights holders to claim damages within criminal proceedings at the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court prior to the evidentiary hearing. In practice, this mechanism allows an injured party to submit a petition for civil damages directly within the criminal case initiated by the public prosecutor. Historically, rights holders in Thailand have been reluctant to use Section 44/1 because the compensation awarded by courts was often insufficient to justify the effort. However, recent years have seen a notable shift
Read More
March 9, 2026
Over the past several years, numerous automobile manufacturers have brought electric vehicles (EVs) to the market and received positive feedback from consumers in Thailand and around the world. EVs have gained popularity due to their lower maintenance costs, reduced energy expenses, and environmental benefits. However, reports have emerged of EVs causing problems such as battery fires, autopilot malfunctions leading to accidents, and safety systems such as brakes engaging automatically under inappropriate conditions. Even when these situations do not cause injury to drivers or passengers, they raise significant concerns for EV manufacturers, importers, and sellers operating in Thailand. These problems may seriously impact businesses if the products are identified as unsafe under Thailand’s Product Liability Act (PLA), officially known as the Liability for Damages Arising from Unsafe Products Act. Under this law, authorities or courts can order business operators to recall products from the market or prohibit their export, import, or sale. To manage and mitigate the risk of being found liable for damages due to an unsafe product under the PLA, EV business operators should be aware of the scope of the law. Potentially Liable Parties The PLA identifies several types of entrepreneurs and business operators—both individuals and entities—as “potentially liable parties” (PLPs) who may be held liable under the law. In the EV context, this could include vehicle manufacturers, battery suppliers, software developers whose systems are integrated into the vehicle, and local importers or distributors. Specifically, the PLA covers: Manufacturers or hirers Importers Sellers of goods for which the manufacturer, hirer, or importer cannot be identified Any other party who uses the name, trade name, trademark, or statements associated with the alleged unsafe products, or acts in a manner that causes them to be perceived as a manufacturer, hirer, or importer Definition of “Product” and “Unsafe Product” The
Read More
March 5, 2026
Amid increasing financial globalization, Vietnam’s establishment of an International Financial Center (IFC) represents a strategic initiative to attract high-quality foreign investment and enhance the country’s position in the global financial system. In support of this objective, a Specialized Court was introduced under Resolution No. 222/2025/QH15 as a dedicated dispute resolution mechanism within the IFC framework. The Specialized Court at the IFC was subsequently operationalized by Law on the Specialized Court No. 150/2025/QH15, effective from January 1, 2026. Organizational Structure of the Specialized Court The Specialized Court at the IFC is a court within the system of the People’s Courts, organized and operating in accordance with the Law on the Specialized Court, and vested with jurisdiction to adjudicate and resolve cases at the IFC. The Specialized Court is located in Ho Chi Minh City and comprises (i) a Court of First Instance; (ii) a Court of Appeal, and (iii) a supporting apparatus. Jurisdiction of the Specialized Court The jurisdiction of the Specialized Court at the IFC is strictly defined based on both (i) the subject matter of the cases and (ii) the membership status of the parties involved. Specifically, the Specialized Court has jurisdiction over (except for cases involving public interests or the interests of the state) the following: Disputes arising from investment and business activities. Requests for recognition and enforcement in Vietnam of judgments and decisions of foreign courts and foreign arbitral awards. Requests related to dispute resolution by arbitration. Other disputes directly related to investment and business activities (to be specified by the Supreme People’s Court). Additionally, at least one party in the case must be a member of the IFC. The IFC’s membership status is established through registration, recognition as a member, or the grant of a license for establishment and operation within the IFC. In the
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