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 30, 2016

Business Reorganization in Thailand: Steps and Procedures

Informed Counsel

In order to repay debts, many flailing companies allocate additional resources to uncover new sources of income. In turn, these companies incur more debt, and this can lead to a vicious downward spiral ending in bankruptcy.

Despite this bleak outlook, these companies still have the potential to recover and become profitable. One way is through reorganization, which provides relief to debtors that allows them to survive a crisis while ensuring that their creditors receive fair repayment.

To initiate the reorganization process, debtors, creditors, or government agencies can submit a reorganization petition to the Bankruptcy Court.

Once the Bankruptcy Court accepts a reorganization petition, all of the debtor’s outstanding debts are automatically stayed or “frozen.” The automatic stay ensures that the debtor will be protected by the Bankruptcy Act, which shields the debtor from creditors’ debt collection efforts.

During an automatic stay, a debtor is obligated not to dispose of, distribute, transfer, pay debt, create debt, or act in any way which may encumber its property, except those necessary for conducting its ordinary business or as otherwise provided by court order.

In the trial phase, the Bankruptcy Court will review all documentary evidence and hear all witnesses. If the Court agrees with the petitioner, it will allow the debtor to reorganize. If it disagrees with the petitioner, the Court will dismiss the case. The petitioner can submit an appeal to the Supreme Court and request a review of the Court’s decision.

Once the Court approves the debtor’s petition to reorganize, it will appoint a planner with the duty to prepare and submit a business reorganization plan for the debtor and operate the debtor’s business. This is usually someone nominated by the petitioner. If there are objections from any creditor or debtor as to the identity of the planner, the official receiver—by court order—will hold a creditors’ meeting to elect a suitable planner.

At the creditors’ meeting, the planner will be approved by the creditors that are owed no less than two-thirds of the total debts, failing which the person proposed by the debtor will be chosen as the planner. Once the planner is appointed, the rights and duties of the debtor will immediately transfer to the planner. In addition, all legal rights of the debtor’s shareholders, with the exception of the right to receive dividends, will be vested in the planner.

After the planner is appointed, the official receiver will publish the Bankruptcy Court’s reorganization order in the Government Gazette and in two widely circulated daily newspapers. All creditors must submit a repayment application with a copy to the official receiver within one month from the publication date. Creditors that are owed debts incurred prior to the Court’s issuance of the reorganization order are entitled to submit an application.

Once all applications have been submitted, the debtor, all creditors, and the planner will have the right to review and object to applications which they deem as invalid. The official receiver will evaluate the matter and render a decision as to voting rights in approving the reorganization plan. During this process, the planner is tasked with drafting the reorganization plan, which must include details such as the reasons why the debtor requires reorganization, principles and methods of business reorganization, redemption of collateral if there are secured creditors or liabilities of a guarantor, ways to resolve problems if there is a temporary lack of liquidity during implementation of the plan, and the time period for the plan which must not exceed five years, among other details. In addition, the planner is empowered to refinance, restructure, and hair-cut the debts as he or she deems necessary.

The planner must submit the plan to the official receiver within three months from the publication date of the Court’s order appointing the planner. After receiving the plan, the official receiver will hold a creditors’ meeting to discuss whether the plan should be accepted in its current form or revised. If a decision is rendered to approve the reorganization plan, a special resolution to that effect must be passed, either: (1) by a majority of the creditors owed three-fourths of the total debts of creditors present at the creditors’ meeting; or (2) by at least one group of creditors who are not already presumed to have approved the plan, provided that the total debt owed to the creditor group represents at least 50 percent of the total debt owed to the creditors present at the creditors’ meeting.

Regardless of whether a resolution accepting the plan is passed, the official receiver will report the outcome of the creditors’ meeting to the Court. If a resolution accepting the plan is passed and the Court determines that the resolution is not illegal and agrees with the outcome, it will issue an order approving the plan. Once the Court approves the plan, the rights and duties of the planner will immediately transfer to the plan administrator. Not only will the plan administrator have the right to manage the debtor’s business under the plan, but in some cases, it will have additional rights not previously available to the planner.

Once the reorganization plan has been operational for some time and proves to be successful, the debtor’s executives, plan administrator, or the official receiver are entitled to report the successful outcome to the Bankruptcy Court and request for termination of the business reorganization. If the Court agrees, it may cancel the business reorganization order, at which point the debtor’s directors and authorized director will regain their full rights to manage the business operations and assets of the debtor, unless the plan had altered these rights. Shareholders of the business will also regain their legal rights. This is the point which flailing companies in reorganization hope to attain, and this is the main reason to engage in the reorganization process.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

June 23, 2026
Thailand’s Board of Investment (BOI) has significantly revised its post-approval compliance framework for projects that receive investment promotion incentives, replacing the previous semiannual reporting system for project progress with a new quarterly reporting regime. The initial report is due by July 30, 2026, covering the second-quarter reporting period of April to June 2026. The new requirements—implemented through BOI Announcement No. 8/2569 and Office of the BOI Notification No. Por. 8/2569, both of which became effective on March 30, 2026—apply both to newly promoted projects and to existing promoted projects that remain in the implementation stage. Background Under the previous reporting framework, BOI-promoted companies that had not yet commenced full operations were generally required to submit reports on project progress to the BOI twice a year (February and July) through the BOI’s e-Monitoring system. By adopting a quarterly reporting regime, the BOI seeks to strengthen monitoring and evaluation of investment progress and project implementation. Reporting Requirements Under the new regulations, BOI-promoted companies must submit project progress reports on a quarterly basis during the implementation phase of a promoted project. The reporting periods and submission deadlines are: Q1 (January–March): April 30 Q2 (April–June): July 30 Q3 (July–September): October 30 Q4 (October–December): January 30 of the following year The quarterly reporting obligation runs from the date the BOI promotion certificate is issued until the BOI grants approval for commencement of full operations. For newly promoted projects, no quarterly report is required for the quarter in which the BOI promotion certificate is issued—the first reporting obligation arises in the immediately following reporting period. All project progress reports must be submitted electronically through the BOI’s e-Monitoring system. The existing annual reporting requirement also remains in effect, requiring promoted companies to submit an annual operating results report through the e-Monitoring system by July 31 of
June 22, 2026
Arbitrator independence and impartiality form the cornerstone of a legitimate arbitral process. Under section 19 of the Thai Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002), prospective arbitrators must disclose circumstances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to their impartiality or independence, and existing arbitrators must do so throughout proceedings. This mirrors article 12 of the UNCITRAL Model Law. Yet despite this clear mandate, practical implementation varies significantly across Thailand’s arbitration landscape. Background Thailand’s two principal arbitration institutions, the Thai Arbitration Institute (TAI) and the Thailand Arbitration Center (THAC), both maintain procedures for addressing arbitrator challenges and require compliance with the statutory disclosure obligation. Under both sets of rules, any party wishing to challenge an arbitrator must submit a challenge application within fifteen days of becoming aware of the relevant facts, and a committee is appointed to consider the matter on a case-by-case basis. The TAI additionally prescribes its Code of Ethics and Conduct for Arbitrators to further emphasize the expectation of impartiality and transparency. However, Thailand’s arbitration ecosystem extends well beyond the TAI and THAC. Several sector-specific institutions also administer arbitral proceedings, including the Thai Commercial Arbitration Office under the Board of Trade of Thailand, the Arbitration Centre of the Office of the Insurance Commission, the Arbitration Centre of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Office for the Prevention and Resolution of Disputes regarding Intellectual Property, and the Arbitration Centre of the Thai General Insurance Association. These institutions each operate under their own procedural rules, which were developed to serve particular industries and dispute profiles. The procedural mechanisms for securing and documenting an independence declaration are not uniformly established across these forums. Consequences of Procedural Inconsistency This creates a notable gap. Not all arbitration bodies have a formalized procedure requiring written independence statements before proceedings commence. Some tribunals proceed
June 16, 2026
The president of Thailand’s Supreme Court has issued new recommendations providing courts with criminal jurisdiction with a comprehensive framework for identifying and dismissing criminal cases brought in bad faith. Published in the Government Gazette on May 29, 2026, after being signed on May 25, the Recommendations of the President of the Supreme Court Concerning Bad-Faith Litigation in Criminal Cases B.E. 2569 were issued under Section 5 of the Act on the Organization of Courts of Justice. The recommendations took effect upon publication and represent a significant step in Thailand’s efforts to curb abusive criminal litigation, including strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP). Background Section 161/1 of Thailand’s Criminal Procedure Code empowers courts to dismiss criminal cases filed dishonestly or with the intent to harass or take unfair advantage of a defendant. The new recommendations provide detailed guidance that courts previously lacked on identifying and handling such prosecutions. Definition of Bad-Faith Litigation Under recommendation 1, filing a criminal case in bad faith is defined broadly to encompass three categories: Harassment-type filings involving intimidation, threats, or creating unreasonable hardship for the defendant; Coercive filings designed to pressure the defendant into acting or refraining from acting for illegitimate benefit; and False or misleading filings that deliberately assert incorrect material facts or conceal such facts. Circumstances Indicating Bad Faith Recommendation 2 sets out specific circumstances that should raise a court’s suspicion that a filing may violate section 161/1. These include: Filing in a distant court far from the defendant’s domicile without benefiting the adjudication; Retaliation against the defendant’s advocacy for human rights, environmental protection, consumer rights, labor rights, or other public interests—effectively establishing an express anti-SLAPP framework; Retaliation against whistleblowers who disclosed corruption or unlawful conduct; Retaliation against individuals responsible for investigating the plaintiff’s wrongdoing or who concluded such an investigation; Filing multiple
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