Thai law contains no provision that speaks directly to what happens to an arbitration when one of the parties becomes insolvent. The interaction between arbitration and insolvency is derived instead from the general operation of two separately drafted laws: the Bankruptcy Act B.E. 2483 (1940) and the Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002). Because Thai courts have had few opportunities to interpret how these two statutes apply together, the practical answer to many questions, such as who represents an insolvent party in arbitration, whether an award will be enforced, and what happens to a foreign proceeding, depends on inference from general principles of insolvency, arbitration, and procedural law rather than on settled rules. Liquidation and Restructuring The Bankruptcy Act governs both liquidation, which winds up a debtor’s affairs, and restructuring (rehabilitation), which aims to preserve a business. The consequences for arbitration differ accordingly. In liquidation, the debtor’s assets vest in the official receiver, who alone can conduct or continue any arbitration affecting the estate; the debtor loses the authority to act on its own behalf. In restructuring, the plan preparer or administrator takes over that role, but there is more room for the debtor to remain involved, since the objective of rehabilitation is to keep the business operational. Restructuring carries an automatic stay that takes effect once the Bankruptcy Court accepts the restructuring petition. This stay can halt an arbitration regardless of where it is seated. In contrast, liquidation does not work through a stay; instead, the debtor’s loss of authority over its own assets and disputes is what constrains the arbitration. Neither proceeding provides a party a formal route to apply for permission to continue arbitrating—the Bankruptcy Act contains no such mechanism—though in restructuring cases the Bankruptcy Court may allow proceedings to continue where doing so will not prejudice

As part of its membership in Lex Mundi, Tilleke & Gibbins has released the latest edition of its Guide to Doing Business in Thailand, providing an overview of the legal, regulatory, and commercial considerations for companies establishing or expanding operations in Thailand. The 2026 edition offers practical insight into the country’s business environment, investment framework, and operational requirements. The guide covers a wide range of topics relevant to foreign and domestic investors, including: Investment incentives and promotion schemes Financial facilities and banking regulations Exchange controls and money transfers Import and export regulations Business structures and incorporation options Requirements for establishing a business Operational and compliance considerations Business cessation and insolvency procedures Employment and labor laws Taxation Immigration and visa requirements Prepared by Tilleke & Gibbins lawyers across multiple practice areas, the publication outlines key aspects of doing business in Thailand, including foreign investment restrictions, regulatory compliance obligations, corporate structures, employment requirements, and recent legal and economic developments affecting investors. The publication forms part of Lex Mundi’s Country Guides series, a global collection of jurisdiction-specific reference materials prepared by member firms around the world. Together, these guides help companies evaluate opportunities, compare regulatory environments, and plan international business activities across multiple markets. The full Guide to Doing Business in Thailand 2026 is available through the button below.

Arbitration clauses and national court jurisdiction have long existed in a delicate equilibrium, and nowhere is that equilibrium tested more often than in the drafting of multitier dispute resolution clauses. Such clauses—requiring negotiation before arbitration—are ubiquitous in international construction contracts, and they frequently employ permissive vocabulary at the arbitration tier. The formulation “either party may submit the dispute to arbitration” is intended to signal that either side is entitled to initiate proceedings. Yet it is periodically seized upon by claimants who prefer national courts, on the theory that “may” preserves a parallel right to litigate. Each apex-court pronouncement on this question is therefore significant for drafting practice and forum predictability. In 2019, the Thai Supreme Court delivered Thailand’s clearest answer to date (Judgment No. 3427/2562). Reversing an appellate court decision, the Supreme Court held that permissive wording at the point of commencement does not dilute the parties’ antecedent agreement to withdraw their disputes from the courts—doing so in regard to an International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) arbitration clause seated in Singapore, a configuration typical of foreign-invested projects in Thailand. This article examines the court’s reasoning, situates the decision within comparative jurisprudence, and draws out its practical lessons for parties and drafters operating in the Thai market. Background of the Dispute The dispute arose from a subcontract for civil engineering and architectural works concluded on September 25, 2014. Clause 19 of the subcontract governed dispute resolution. Clause 19.1 required the parties, at the request of either, to seek to resolve any dispute “in connection with, arising out of, or relating to” the subcontract through mutual consultation within sixty days of written notice. According to clause 19.2.1, if the dispute could not be resolved within that period, “either party may submit the dispute to arbitration,” to be conducted under the ICC

一项关于加密资产市场相关违法行为处罚的新法令，为在越南未持有（且实际上无法取得）越南牌照的境外加密资产交易平台，以及继续在该等平台上进行交易的越南用户，带来了合规风险。 越南政府于2026年7月16日颁布的第284/2026/ND-CP号法令（以下简称“第284号法令”），正式确立了针对加密资产及加密资产市场相关违法行为的行政处罚制度。该法令自2026年9月1日起生效，并将在根据第05/2025/NQ-CP号决议开展的为期五年的试点计划期间持续有效；该试点计划预计于2030年9月结束。 对越南用户的直接处罚 对境外平台而言，最直接的商业风险在于，其越南用户如今将因使用其交易平台而承担直接的个人责任。越南用户在财政部许可的服务提供商之外交易加密资产的，可被处以最高5,000万越南盾（约1,900美元）的罚款；交易向外国用户发行或提供的加密资产的越南用户，则面临最高1亿越南盾（约3,800美元）的更高处罚。 预计在面临实际执法风险的情况下，越南用户将更愿意从境外平台转出。 对无牌服务提供商的处罚 未取得牌照而提供加密资产服务或发布加密资产相关服务广告的违法行为，可被处以最高2亿越南盾（约7,700美元）的罚款。未经适当授权经营加密资产交易市场的行为，亦适用同一最高处罚幅度。 违反发行、提供或信息披露规定的组织，可被处以最高2亿越南盾的罚款。 尽管单项违法行为的行政罚款上限为组织2亿越南盾、个人1亿越南盾，但该上限系按每项违法行为分别计算，且多次违法将被视为从重情节，主管机关可在法定幅度内加重处罚。 补充处罚与补救措施 除罚款外，第284号法令还授权主管机关采取一系列补充处罚及纠正措施，此类措施对境外交易平台造成的运营损害可能远大于罚款本身。这些措施包括： 在规定期限内暂停经营活动（更适用于无牌照的境内交易平台） 追缴因不合规活动所获取的违法所得 没收用于违法行为或与违法行为相关的资产 责令删除、暂停或整改不合规的平台、系统或信息 强制作出纠正性披露 责令返还投资者资金 鉴于组织单项违法行为的行政罚款上限约为7,700美元，按全球标准衡量，罚款本身或可被视为金额有限。然而，更大的潜在风险来自用户流失、平台被封锁、银行渠道关闭（越南各银行将获得拒绝相关交易的明确依据）、追缴未经授权向越南用户提供服务所获利润，以及因违反反洗钱规定和无牌经营而被移送刑事处理。此外，越南主管机关的执法行动还可能引起该交易平台母国或其运营所在其他市场监管机构的关注。 展望 第284号法令自2026年9月1日起生效。所有越南用户须在首家境内交易平台获得牌照后六个月内，将其交易活动转移至持牌的境内交易平台，否则将面临处罚。境外交易平台应提前应对并做好相应规划。