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

August 5, 2024

Business Rehabilitation in Thailand: Issues Creditors Need to Consider

Subscribe to Updates

Thailand has continued to face economic challenges since the COVID-19 pandemic, and some businesses have struggled to survive. One of most important measures that indebted businesses in Thailand can take is to file a business rehabilitation petition with the Bankruptcy Court.

The Bankruptcy Act B.E. 2483 (1940) provides “automatic stay” measures to protect the debtors that have entered the business rehabilitation process, and during this time creditors have duties and rights under the Bankruptcy Act as well. Once Thailand’s Bankruptcy Court accepts a rehabilitation petition and issues an order for rehabilitation, the debtor is under this automatic stay protection against actions from the creditor to seek debt repayments, and the creditors are only allowed to pursue their debt repayments by submitting a debt repayment application to the official receiver within one month of publication of the plan preparer’s appointment in the Government Gazette. These are general conditions specified in the Bankruptcy Act.

However, there are several practical precautions that are not specified in the Bankruptcy Act but that creditors should take during rehabilitation. Below are several steps creditors need to consider taking at various stages of the rehabilitation process.

1. Appointing a local Thai representative to act on behalf of the creditor in the rehabilitation

The rehabilitation process requires much more than just submitting the debt repayment application within the fixed one-month period and then waiting for the result. It also involves contacting, meeting, and discussing with the official receiver, plan preparer, other creditors, or debtor representative to investigate or settle any arguments on the debt. Moreover, the language used in all the processes and documents is usually Thai.

In practice, creditors—especially foreign creditors—should authorize a Thai attorney or representative through a valid power of attorney (POA) to represent them during all the rehabilitation proceedings. This includes the investigative hearing by the official receiver, the creditors’ meeting, the Bankruptcy Court hearing, and any appointments requested by the official receiver, plan preparer, other creditors, or representative of the debtor regarding the debt repayment.

A valid POA is essential in the business rehabilitation proceeding. Thai law requires foreign POAs to undergo additional formalities, including being notarized by a local notary public and authenticated by the Thai embassy or consulate where the POA is executed. An invalid POA could lead to the creditor’s representative not having the authority to submit the debt application, attend the investigative hearing, and give statements to the official receiver, which could lead to the rejection of the submitted debt repayment application, among other adverse consequences.

2. Following the status of the rehabilitation process closely

The Bankruptcy Act sets a number of deadlines regarding potential objections and other actions. For instance, it allows other creditors and the plan preparer to object to the creditor’s debt application within fourteen days of the deadline for the application’s submission. It also stipulates that the plan preparer must submit the proposed plan to the official receiver within three months of the publication of the plan preparer’s appointment in the Government Gazette, and it allows the creditor to object to the official receiver’s order for debt repayment within fourteen days of the creditor receiving it. However, the Bankruptcy Act does not specify some deadlines and requirements, such as the deadline for the official receiver to schedule the investigative hearing or to issue the debt repayment order.

In practice, the official receiver or the debtor may contact the creditor to request more documents or statements to support the debt application. Creditors need to instruct their local representative to follow the status and provide necessary requests to the official receiver or the debtor to protect their rights as creditors in the rehabilitation proceedings.

3. Reviewing the plan preparer’s proposed business rehabilitation plan and following up on the status of the creditor’s meetings

In practice, once the rehabilitation plan is prepared by the plan preparer and submitted to the official receiver, they will need to have their local representative summarize any relevant parts of the plan (such as stipulations on the percentage of the debt repayment, the creditors group, payment terms and conditions, information on the creditors under the plan, and other important clauses). Corrections, objections, or amendments to the plan by either the creditors or the plan preparer must be submitted to the official receiver at least three days before the creditors’ meeting.

Creditors can vote on the proposed plan and the plan administrator in advance by submitting a petition to the official receiver or instructing their local representative to attend the creditors’ meetings and vote on the creditor’s behalf. The creditors’ meetings can be conducted by the official receiver either physically or virtually. Creditors who request amendments to the plan must present supporting arguments at a creditors’ meeting. The creditors will then meet to adopt a final resolution on the proposed plan, any amendments, and the plan administrator.

In practice, the creditors will have several meetings before producing a final resolution. The plan preparer and debtor can still submit a request to revise the plan, while other creditors can also submit their amendments. Creditors who voted for the plan in advance will know what is happening in the creditors’ meetings through the official receiver’s meeting minutes, which will be in Thai and will usually be distributed to the creditors three to five days after the meeting. Once the creditors approve the plan, it will be submitted for the Bankruptcy Court’s consideration of whether to approve the plan.

4. Following up on the Bankruptcy Court order on the business rehabilitation plan

The plans approved by the creditors’ meetings are not always approved by the Bankruptcy Court. The Bankruptcy Court can review the terms and conditions under the plan and determine whether they are fair and lawful, whether the plan can be implemented successfully, and whether the payment terms and conditions allow for creditors to receive higher repayments from the plan than if the debtor went bankrupt. Depending on whether the plan is found to meet the legal requirements, the Bankruptcy Court may then approve or reject the plan in part or in full.

Creditors are not required to attend Bankruptcy Court hearings. However, the creditors should instruct their local representative to follow up closely with the relevant court officer regarding the case status and Bankruptcy Court order. The official Bankruptcy Court order will be available for creditors to obtain a copy within ten business days. The plan will be implemented by the plan administrator based on the version the Bankruptcy Court approves.

5. Contacting the debtor, plan administrator, or official receiver on the status of plan implementation

Once the plan administrator begins to implement the plan, creditors should instruct their local representatives to follow up on the debt repayment under the plan. The plan administrator may also contact the creditors or their representatives before the repayment date to request bank information or other necessary payment details. Debts will only be repaid by the debtor under the terms and conditions of the plan.

However, there are a few cases where the debtor cannot pay the debt under the plan to creditors. This could cause the debtor to default on the debt repayment under the plan and could potentially result in the Bankruptcy Court canceling the rehabilitation process and ordering absolute receivership against the debtor, which could lead to bankruptcy.

Failure to Repay Debts under the Plan Terms

Generally, if the debtor does not repay the debts according to the terms and conditions of the business rehabilitation plan, the official receiver will notify the Bankruptcy Court of the situation. This includes information about the debtor’s default, which generally will have been disclosed in the debtor’s report to the official receiver. Creditors can request a copy from the Legal Execution Department.

If the debtor defaults on repayment, creditors should immediately contact a local representative to contact the official receiver regarding the event. During this period, the plan administrator can also submit a request to the Bankruptcy Court to amend any part of the plan that relates to payment amounts, terms, or period. In reviewing the request, the Bankruptcy Court may schedule an investigation hearing.

If the court allows the amendment, the plan administrator will have to inform the creditors about the amendment and conduct a creditors’ meeting to seek their approval before requesting that the Bankruptcy Court approve the plan again. However, if the Bankruptcy Court views that the plan administrator’s request to amend the plan is not reasonable, the court could, in the worst-case scenario, cancel the rehabilitation process and order absolute receivership against the debtor.

Importance of Local Representation

In conclusion, creditors should seek local expert consultants to assist them by explaining the details of the process and securing their benefits and rights. Local experts can also provide strategic analysis and recommendations for the creditor if things are not going well under the business rehabilitation plan—a crucial concern because any mistake could cause the creditor to forfeit payment under the rehabilitation plan.

Related Professionals

Practices

Corporate/M&A

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

January 21, 2026
Spurred by global geopolitics and Canada’s Indo-Pacific Strategy, which aims to forge deeper ties with ASEAN, Canadian companies have been showing growing interest in Thailand and Southeast Asia in recent years. To understand the opportunities offered by the region, we sat down with Andrew Stoutley, a Toronto native and the chief operating officer of Tilleke & Gibbins, a leading Southeast Asian regional law firm with over 130 years of history in Thailand. Q: Why are Canadian companies looking at Thailand and Southeast Asia right now? A: Two reasons stand out. First, diversification has moved up the agenda. Many Canadian companies want options outside North America due to tariff volatility and policy uncertainty in the United States, as well as questions around the next Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement mandatory joint review. At the same time, the shift of global production from China to Southeast Asia is accelerating, driven by rising costs, geopolitics, and the need to avoid overreliance on a single market. As a result, Canadian companies are looking for a second production base or a regional hub, and Thailand and its neighbors are natural choices given their manufacturing depth, location, and established supply chains. Second, Canada’s own efforts in the region are gaining traction. The Indo-Pacific Strategy has led to more on-the-ground support, including larger trade missions, upgraded diplomatic posts, and new financing options. Export Development Canada (EDC) now has a presence in Bangkok, giving Canadian companies a direct line to financing and insurance in Thailand. There’s also steady progress on trade frameworks like the recently signed Canada–Indonesia Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (which will come into effect pending domestic procedures), ongoing negotiations of a Canada–ASEAN FTA, and the exciting announcement about the launch of negotiations of a Canada–Thailand FTA. Together, these developments have the potential to make it much easier
Read More
January 20, 2026
Arbitrations seated in Thailand are governed principally by the Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002) and, where applicable, the rules of institutions such as the Thailand Arbitration Center (THAC) and the Thai Arbitration Institute (TAI). While these instruments set the core procedural structure, they are not comprehensive. To fill in these procedural gaps, arbitral tribunals often look to the Thai Civil Procedure Code (CPC) and apply its principles when the Arbitration Act or institutional rules are silent. This hybrid system is familiar to local practitioners but can surprise international parties who expect a more self-contained arbitral procedure. Examples of How CPC Principles Are Applied Evidence Management: Section 25 of the Arbitration Act requires equal treatment of the parties and guarantees each side a full opportunity to present its case. At the same time, it grants tribunals broad discretion to conduct proceedings “as it deems appropriate” and expressly suggests that arbitrators may apply the CPC evidence rules where appropriate. In practice, tribunals frequently apply CPC evidence rules when addressing: submission of evidence lists, late or additional evidence, questions of admissibility and relevance, and assessment of witness and expert testimony. Amendments to Pleadings: Because the Arbitration Act and institutional rules provide limited guidance on amending pleadings, tribunals often rely on CPC principles when parties seek to amend a statement of claim or defense. Amendments may be permitted if they are sought in a timely manner, do not unfairly prejudice the opposing party, do not cause undue delay, and do not alter the nature of the dispute. These conditions closely mirror the standards applied by Thai courts under the CPC. Subpoenas and Court Assistance: Arbitral tribunals seated in Thailand generally do not have inherent subpoena powers. Section 33 of the Arbitration Act fills this gap by permitting the tribunal, an individual arbitrator, or a
Read More
January 20, 2026
Thailand’s Board of Investment (BOI) has imposed new restrictions on foreign-majority shareholding and land ownership for companies in certain promoted activities. The changes took effect on September 1, 2025, but were not published in the Government Gazette until December 30, 2025, under Notification of the Board of Investment No. Sor. 7/2568 on the Amendment to List of Activities Eligible for Investment Promotion under Notification of the Board of Investment No. 9/2565, dated July 22, 2025. Foreign Land Ownership Restrictions Generally, foreign land ownership is one of the privileges granted to BOI-promoted companies, allowing them to own land to engage in the promoted activities. However, with these new restrictions, the BOI will no longer grant land-ownership privileges to foreign-majority-owned companies that conduct business activities in the following categories: Rolling, drawing, casting, or forging of nonferrous metals (category 5.4.9) Manufacturing of ferrous metal products or ferrous metal parts (category 5.4.11.2) Manufacturing of nonferrous metal products and/or nonferrous metal parts for industrial use (category 5.4.11.4) Manufacturing of other metal products, including other metal parts for industrial use (category 5.4.11.5) Manufacture of chemical products for industry (category 6.2) Manufacture of plastic products for industrial goods and parts (category 6.4.1) These restrictions do not apply to existing BOI-promoted companies that have at least three projects granted promotion under the same juristic person during the past 15 years (2011–2025) with total investment of at least THB 5 billion, excluding the cost of land and working capital. Foreign Shareholding Restrictions For companies to be eligible for BOI promotion in three other categories of business activities, at least 51% of the company’s registered capital must be held by Thai individual shareholders, unless the BOI-promoted activity is located within a special border economic zone as designated by the BOI. These three categories are: Manufacture of bags made of
Read More
January 14, 2026
Employers operating in Thailand can enforce post-employment noncompete covenants, but success depends on precise drafting and strong evidentiary support. Thai courts will uphold restraints that protect legitimate employer interests and are fair and reasonable in duration, geographic reach, and substantive scope. Overbroad covenants, however, draw judicial skepticism and may fail unless they are drafted in severable, defensible components tied to the employee’s actual role. This article synthesizes recent trends in Thai case practice, explains how Thai courts assess reasonableness in employment restraints, and provides a practical litigation-focused framework for drafting enforceable covenants, preparing evidence, and pursuing relief through the Labor Court. The Legal Framework and Its Practical Implications Thai courts evaluate noncompete covenants under general principles of contract enforceability and public policy, with particular focus on whether a restraint is necessary to protect a legitimate employer interest and proportionate to that objective. In employment matters, this analysis is shaped by the employee-protective tenor of Thai labor law and by the Labor Court’s equitable discretion in determining appropriate remedies. The practical takeaway is that standardized or broadly drafted covenants rarely survive scrutiny. Courts look for a demonstrable nexus between the employee’s actual exposure to confidential information, trade secrets, or customer relationships and the scope of the restraint. Where that nexus is weak or the restraint operates as a blanket prohibition, courts are inclined to decline enforcement or limit relief to a narrowly tailored prohibition. The employer interests most commonly recognized as legitimate in Thai practice include the protection of trade secrets, confidential business information, and goodwill tied to identifiable customer segments or territories. Courts are more likely to enforce restraints where employers can clearly document what information is at risk, why particular customer relationships matter, and how the employee was involved with those assets. Judges also look closely at the
Read More