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​ 

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
February 25, 2026
Tilleke & Gibbins has updated the Vietnam chapter in the newly released Licensing 2026 guide, published by Lexology Panoramic. The comparative guide provides companies and other interested readers with information on licensing law and practice in various countries around the world. Licensing 2026 provides detailed information on the following topics: Restrictions, laws and licensing arrangements Intellectual property issues: Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, contesting the validity of licensor’s IP rights, invalidity and expiry of IP rights, security interests, proceedings against third parties, sublicensing, jointly owned IP, first to file, scope of patent protection, trade secrets, copyright Software licensing: Perpetual licensing, legal requirements, user restrictions Royalties and payments, currency conversion, and taxes: Relevant legislation, restrictions, taxation of foreign licensors Competition law issues: Restrictions on trade, legal restrictions, and IP-related court rulings Indemnification, disclaimers, and damages: Prevalence and enforceability of indemnity provisions and contractual waivers of damages Termination: Right to terminate, impact of termination Bankruptcy: Impact of licensee or licensor bankruptcy Dispute resolution: Governing law, arbitration, enforceability, injunctive relief, contractual waivers The Vietnam chapter is available below as a PDF. Readers can gain 30 days of complementary access to the full Licensing 2026 guide and the rest of Lexology Panoramic’s varied offerings through this link.
Read More