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​ 

November 11, 2024
The Vietnamese government has demonstrated a strong commitment to building a digital government, digital economy, and digital society through its recently issued national strategy on digital infrastructure. Under Decision No. 1132/QD-TTg dated October 19, 2024, on “Digital Infrastructure Strategy to 2025 with Orientation to 2030,” the government will create supportive conditions for both domestic and international businesses to invest in digital infrastructure with cybersecurity as a priority. Recognized as vital to the economy, this digital infrastructure will consist of four main components: (i) telecommunications and internet infrastructure, (ii) data infrastructure, (iii) physical-digital infrastructure, and (iv) digital utility infrastructure, including digital technology as a service. Key goals for 2025 include universal fiber optic access for households, 100% 5G coverage across all provinces and cities, deployment of at least two new international undersea fiber optic cables, establishment of AI data centers, development of green-standard data centers, and platforms for IoT, AI, big data, blockchain, and cybersecurity. By 2030, goals include fiber access with speeds of at least 1 Gbps, 5G coverage for 99% of the population, readiness for 6G trials, six additional international undersea fiber optic cables, development of a hyperscale data center, and positioning Vietnam as a digital hub. To achieve these goals, the government has outlined some core tasks, creating significant opportunities for both foreign and domestic investors: Developing telecommunications and internet infrastructure for widespread fiber optic and 5G access, while preparing for emerging technologies like 6G, Open RAN, satellite, and IpV6. Telecommunication enterprises will jointly invest in and share the use of international fiber optic cable routes to ensure efficient capacity utilization and optimize investment capital. Attracting foreign and domestic investment to establish hyperscale data centers and cloud computing services that meet global standards. Creating physical-digital infrastructure by integrating technology across key sectors such as transportation, energy, healthcare,
October 21, 2024
Thailand’s Central Intellectual Property and International Trade (IP&IT) Court has delivered a favorable ruling for Sumitomo Rubber Industries, Ltd., a major player in the tire manufacturing industry, regarding the registration of its motorcycle tire design patent. In this case, Tilleke & Gibbins represented Sumitomo in successfully advocating for recognition of the unique design elements in the company’s motorcycle tire products. Case Overview The case revolved around Sumitomo’s two design patent applications for motorcycle tire designs, which were initially rejected by the Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) on the grounds that they were similar to prior art. Based on an examination of the design elements, primarily focusing on the tire tread patterns, the DIP’s Patent Board had concluded that Sumitomo’s designs were not sufficiently unique to warrant patent protection, as the tread patterns of the new designs were deemed too similar to one found in prior art for tire products. In response, Tilleke & Gibbins filed a complaint with the IP&IT Court on behalf of Sumitomo, seeking a revocation of the Patent Board’s decision and requesting that the court compel the DIP, as the defendant, to proceed with the registration of Sumitomo’s design patents. The complaint emphasized that the designs were novel and distinct, warranting patent protection under Thai law. Legal Strategy The firm’s legal argument focused on the interpretation of Thai patent law, particularly regarding the protection of a product’s external appearance, and emphasized that the determination of a design’s novelty must consider the product’s overall appearance rather than isolating individual features. This approach is consistent with international guidelines on design patents, which require the evaluation of novelty and distinctiveness based on how an informed user would perceive the design as a whole. While Sumitomo’s tire tread patterns may share some superficial similarities to existing designs, the overall impression
October 2, 2024
As Thailand is a contracting state of the UN Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, international arbitral awards can, in principle, be enforced in Thailand. However, not all awards will necessarily be enforceable. The Arbitration Act BE 2545 (2002) gives courts the discretion to deny the enforcement of an award if the court determines that enforcing it would be contrary to “public order or the good morals of the people” (often referred to as “public policy”). Similarly, the Arbitration Act allows a court to set aside a domestic award if its recognition would violate public policy. This discretionary power of the court is prescribed by the law and does not require any party to make an argument on public policy grounds to trigger such power. A recent Supreme Court judgment demonstrates that a court considering an award will review the legality of the arbitral proceedings as well as the content of the award. In this case, the Supreme Court set aside an award on the grounds that it violated public policy because it was the result of arbitration that did not proceed in accordance with the relevant law. Under Thai bankruptcy law, after the Bankruptcy Court accepts a request for rehabilitation of a debtor, all civil proceedings against that debtor, including arbitration proceedings, must be stayed until the court orders otherwise or until the rehabilitation case ceases. In this matter before the Supreme Court, however, the arbitrator continued with the arbitration and went on to render an award even after the court had accepted the request for rehabilitation. The award was later challenged to be set aside on the grounds that continuing with the arbitration was against public policy. While setting aside the award was arguably unnecessary, in this case (as the relevant bankruptcy law
October 1, 2024
Three of Tilleke & Gibbins’ labor and employment specialists in Vietnam have contributed the Vietnam chapter to the newly issued Labor and Employment Disputes 2024, a comprehensive guide from Lexology Panoramic to labor and employment dispute resolution in various jurisdictions around the world. The Vietnam chapter covers the following topics: Pre-action considerations: Key requirements, third-party funding, contingency fee arrangements Issuing a claim: Forum, territorial jurisdiction, standing, commencing claims, fees, service Defendants and legal personality: Types of claims, time limits, counterclaims Case management: Procedure, rules, amendments to claims, adding parties to proceedings, consolidating proceedings Class and collective actions: Special considerations Evidence: Witnesses, tactical considerations Interim relief: Availability, requirements Trial: Hearings conduct and typical time frames, confidentiality and public access, media reporting Elements of successful claims and burden of proof Alternative dispute resolution: Available types, requirements and expectations Enforcement: Collective employment and labor rights, enforcement of collective rights, standing Remedies and enforcement: Available remedies, assessing compensation, enforcement mechanisms Appeals: Appeal procedure and time frames, other means of challenge Update and trends: Recent cases and developments, technology developments, other issues The Vietnam chapter was authored by Truc Thi Thanh, Linh Ngoc Nguyen, and Kien Trung Trinh. Tilleke & Gibbins also contributed the Cambodia and Thailand chapters to Labor and Employment Disputes 2024.