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​ 

March 13, 2026
For decades, intellectual property rights holders seeking to eliminate counterfeit goods from the Thai market have relied primarily on criminal raid actions to seize infringing products and hold infringers accountable. The deterrent value of this approach is typically threefold: imposing criminal liability on infringers, removing counterfeit goods from circulation, and subjecting violators to imprisonment and fines. However, these outcomes often fall short of fulfilling brand owners’ broader objectives. In many cases, those prosecuted are merely staff or intermediaries rather than the principals orchestrating the infringing operations. Moreover, any fines imposed are remitted to the Thai government—not to the rights holders who have suffered commercial harm and invested substantial resources in investigation and coordination with law enforcement authorities. As in other jurisdictions worldwide, rights holders seeking monetary compensation for IP infringement in Thailand have traditionally pursued separate civil litigation. Before initiating such proceedings, a brand owner must gather sufficient evidence to establish both the infringement and the resulting damages. Notably, Thai law does not recognize punitive damages; courts award only actual damages proven by the claimant. In the absence of seized infringing goods, the damages awarded in such cases are typically minimal. This all leaves rights holders with limited recourse despite possibly having suffered significant commercial injury. In 2005, Thailand amended its Criminal Procedure Code to introduce Section 44/1, which enables rights holders to claim damages within criminal proceedings at the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court prior to the evidentiary hearing. In practice, this mechanism allows an injured party to submit a petition for civil damages directly within the criminal case initiated by the public prosecutor. Historically, rights holders in Thailand have been reluctant to use Section 44/1 because the compensation awarded by courts was often insufficient to justify the effort. However, recent years have seen a notable shift
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
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
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