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​ 

August 19, 2025
On August 6, 2025, Myanmar’s National Defence and Security Council (NDSC) issued Order No. 20/2025, announcing a change in the composition of the country’s Foreign Exchange Supervisory Committee (FESC). The prime minister has been appointed committee chair of the FESC, and five other individuals were appointed to the committee. The order took immediate effect. Originally established in April 2022, the FESC is responsible for approving foreign currency conversion, granting exemptions to foreign exchange restrictions, and permitting overseas transfers of foreign currency. The FESC supervises the flow of foreign currencies for domestic and foreign investment, manufacturing, exports and imports, and service businesses (including education- and health-related initiatives). The FESC is specifically responsible for considering and approving the use of foreign currency for the following: Importing machinery, vehicles, equipment, and raw materials essential for foreign investment and manufacturing projects; Importing fuel, medicine, cooking oil, fertilizer, insecticide, and construction materials not readily available on the domestic market; Covering Myanmar citizens’ needs abroad, such as medical treatment, education, or religious activities; Facilitating imports of general goods, loan repayments, interest payments to foreign lenders, service payments, and profit repatriation from investments; and Importing luxury products, including brand-name goods, jewelry, sports cars, and watches. The FESC is empowered to carry out further duties related to foreign exchange management as assigned by the NDSC Importers, exporters, investors, and business owners are encouraged to consult the most current FESC guidelines and approval lists before conducting transactions in Myanmar. For more details on these FESC composition developments, or on any aspect of financial regulations in Myanmar, please contact Tilleke & Gibbins at [email protected].
August 1, 2025
Tilleke & Gibbins has contributed the Vietnam chapter to Corporate Governance 2025, part of the International Comparative Legal Guides (ICLG) series published by Global Legal Group. This respected guide offers comprehensive, jurisdiction-specific overviews of corporate governance laws and practices around the world. Each jurisdictional chapter follows a clear Q&A format, providing practical insights into critical issues such as: Sources of corporate governance regulation Shareholders’ rights, powers, and responsibilities Structure and duties of management bodies Stakeholder involvement in governance Transparency and reporting requirements ESG and sustainability-related obligations Cybersecurity and technology-related disclosures The Vietnam chapter was authored by Tram Ngoc Bich Nguyen, Truc Thi Thanh Tran, Dung Thi Phuong Le, and Quang Minh Vu, members of Tilleke & Gibbins’ corporate and commercial team in Ho Chi Minh City. The authors provide detailed analysis of Vietnam’s corporate governance framework, including recent developments such as the 2025 amendments to the Law on Enterprises requiring disclosure of ultimate beneficial ownership and the increasing emphasis on sustainable business practices and responsible corporate conduct. The chapter also discusses practical considerations for foreign investors in Vietnam, such as overlapping signing authorities between key company officers, enforcement of shareholders’ agreements, and disclosure obligations related to ownership and management roles. The complete Vietnam chapter is available as a PDF below. The Vietnam chapter—and the full Corporate Governance 2025 guide—are also freely available on the ICLG website.
July 25, 2025
On June 17, 2025, the National Assembly of Vietnam adopted Law No. 76/2025/QH15 (Amended LOE) amending and supplementing the 2020 Law on Enterprises, which aims to reshape the legal framework to enhance transparency and alignment with international standards. The Amended LOE took effect from July 1, 2025. Below are key notes on the Amended LOE. Recognition of Beneficial Owners The beneficial owner (BO) concept was previously addressed under Vietnam’s anti-money laundering framework. However, the formal recognition of a BO in the Amended LOE marks a pivotal advancement in embedding ownership transparency into corporate governance, in line with the G7 Financial Action Task Force’s standards on anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing. Under the Amended LOE and Decree No. 168/2025/ND-CP of the government dated June 30, 2025, on enterprise registration (Decree 168), a BO is identified through either equity ownership or control rights. Equity ownership: Individuals holding 25% or more of a company’s charter capital or voting shares, either directly or indirectly, qualify as BOs. Indirect ownership is further defined as ownership of at least 25% of charter capital or voting shares through an intermediary organization. Control rights: Individuals with the authority to make or influence major decisions are considered BOs. The actual control over a company includes the power (i) to appoint or remove most or all members of the board of directors or the members’ council or the general director of a company; (ii) to amend the charter; or (iii) to decide other key matters specified in the company’s charter. Notably, individuals representing state ownership in state-owned enterprises are excluded from the scope of the BO concept. Companies are responsible for collecting, updating, and retaining information about BOs and cooperating with authorities when requested to identify BOs, among other obligations. Additionally, any companies registered before July 1, 2025, must
July 23, 2025
In cross-border disputes, a recurring concern for claimants is whether they can protect respondents’ assets located in jurisdictions other than the seat of arbitration. This article explores whether Thai courts can issue interim measures, such as freezing orders, under Section 16 of the Thai Arbitration Act (2002) to support an arbitration seated outside of Thailand. Requesting Interim Measures Section 16 provides that a party to an arbitration agreement may request that the court impose interim measures, either before or during arbitral proceedings. If the court determines that it would have been able to impose such measures had the proceedings been conducted in court, it may proceed as requested. Notably, Section 16 does not limit its application to arbitrations seated in Thailand. It simply refers to “a party to an arbitration agreement,” which arguably includes both domestic and international arbitrations. Further, it allows for applications even before arbitration is commenced, provided that the arbitration is initiated within thirty days from the issuance of the order (or other period the court prescribes). A Hypothetical Scenario Consider the following scenario: Company A, incorporated in the Netherlands, and Company B, incorporated in the Cayman Islands, have entered into a contract containing a clause requiring arbitration at the Singapore International Arbitration Center (SIAC). A dispute arises, and Company A commences arbitration at SIAC. Company B holds significant assets in Thailand, such as bank accounts or real estate. Concerned that Company B might dispose of its assets before an award is rendered, Company A applies to the Thai court seeking a freezing order over those assets. Can the Thai court issue such an interim measure? The answer is not straightforward. Thai law is silent regarding whether Section 16 applies to arbitrations seated outside Thailand, leaving the door open for argument. Some academic sources suggest that