Creditors’ Claims for Debt Repayment in Reorganization

July 8, 2016

Creditors’ Claims for Debt Repayment in Reorganization

Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

Thailand’s economy does not paint an image that befits the country’s reputation as the “Land of Smiles.” Politics, drought, floods, and conflict in the Deep South have taken their toll on Thai businesses. As a result, we have seen a steadily rising number of business reorganizations over the past few years. This article outlines Thailand’s business reorganization procedures and how creditors can collect debts from companies involved in reorganization.

Under the Thai Bankruptcy Act, a creditor, debtor, or government agency under certain circumstances can file a reorganization petition when all of the following conditions have been met:

The debtor is insolvent;
The debtor is a juristic person who is indebted to one or more creditors for an amount of not less than THB 10 million;
The debt can be determined in a definite amount, irrespective of whether it is due for payment immediately or at a future date; and
There is a reasonable ground and prospect to reorganize the business of the debtor.

Insolvency can be proved in a number of ways. One method for a creditor to prove a debtor’s insolvency is to send at least two demand letters at intervals of at least 30 days. If the debtor defaults on payment of the debt after receipt of the letters, insolvency is established.

On receipt of the petition, the court will schedule a hearing to consider the facts. If the court finds that the conditions above to file a reorganization petition are met, it will issue an order to approve the debtor to reorganize.

The court will also appoint a planner. The planner prepares a business reorganization plan under the Bankruptcy Act. If the court does not appoint a planner, it will order the official receiver to organize a creditors’ meeting to select the planner. Once the court appoints the planner, the power and duties in managing the debtor’s business and assets, and all legal rights of the debtor’s shareholders—except the right to receive a dividend—are vested in the planner.

When the court approves the reorganization of the debtor’s business but does not appoint a planner, the debtor’s executives must hand over all of the company’s assets, company seals, accounting ledgers, and documents relating to the debtor’s assets and business to a temporary administrator or an official receiver, as the case may be. In addition, the official receiver must publish the court’s rehabilitation order in the Royal Gazette and in at least two widely circulated daily newspapers.

Once the court issues its order to appoint a planner, all creditors must submit an application for debt repayment and a copy of it to the official receiver within one month of the date that the appointment of the planner is published.

At this time, creditors can seek the repayment of their debts. Creditors can submit debt repayment applications to the official receiver if the following conditions are met:

The debt obligation occurred before the court issued an order to reorganize the business regardless of whether the debt has matured or is conditional;
The obligation must not have arisen in violation of legal prohibitions or good morals; and
The obligation must be legally enforceable.

The creditor will have voting rights in the full amount of the obligation as stated in the debt repayment application if the other creditors, the debtor, or the planner do not object. In addition, the official receiver has the authority to authorize the repayment of the debt unless there are suitable grounds for ordering otherwise.

If a creditor, debtor, or the planner objects to a debt repayment application, the official receiver must urgently investigate and render an order on whether the creditor will be allowed to vote, and state the amount of debt for voting. The official receiver also has the right to order the following:

Dismiss the debt repayment application;
Approve full repayment of the debt; or
Approve partial repayment of the debt.

Any “concerned person” associated with the debt repayment application can file an objection to the court within 14 days from the date of receipt of the official receiver’s order.

If the debt is denominated in a foreign currency, the amount must be converted into Thai Baht according to the daily exchange rate announced by the Bank of Thailand on the date that the court issued the order to reorganize the business.

Creditors can also set-off debt in certain circumstances. A set-off can occur if a creditor is entitled to submit a debt repayment application and the debtor is indebted to the creditor when the court issues the business reorganization order. However, if the creditor acquires the claim against the debtor after the court issues a business reorganization order, the set-off is not permitted.

Reorganization can provide financially troubled businesses with protection and time to recover. As more businesses in Thailand fall on hard times, they must be diligent to ensure that the proper reorganization procedures are followed. This will stop additional problems from arising.

Download Full Article

Related Professionals

Chusert Supasitthumrong

Partner and Director, Dispute Resolution

Thailand

+66 2056 5793

Email

RELATED INSIGHTS

April 18, 2024

In-Court Arbitration in Thailand: A Tool Worth Exploring?

In-court arbitration is an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) tool provided in the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) for cases that have already been submitted to the court. Historically, in-court arbitration has not been a popular method of resolving disputes. Instead, out-of-court arbitration, as prescribed by the Thai Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002), is far more utilized in practice. The popularity of out-of-court arbitration is demonstrated by the fact that presentations on arbitration in Thailand almost exclusively focus on out-of-court arbitration; in-court arbitration is rarely even a topic of discussion. This situation is partly because in-court arbitration has not been encouraged by the courts in the past. Further, it is also not common for parties to agree on arbitration clauses after a dispute arises and also after it has been submitted to the court. Instead, arbitration clauses are generally discussed and crafted during the negotiation of the contract, which will most likely provide that any dispute arising out of the contract is to be resolved by out-of-court arbitration. Nonetheless, the Thai Courts of Justice have recently started to support this in-court ADR tool as a viable option and to encourage parties to agree in-court arbitration clauses before proceeding with a case through trial. This article is not meant to assess whether in-court arbitration is preferable to either out-of-court arbitration or to having the case heard by professional judges of the Courts of Justice. Instead, the purpose of this article is to discuss certain key provisions of the CPC that parties should carefully consider before agreeing to an in-court arbitration clause. On this point, the CPC specifically states that out-of-court arbitration is prescribed by arbitration law, the Arbitration Act, which is an entirely separate piece of legislation drafted specifically to apply to out-of-court arbitration. In contrast, in-court arbitration is completely regulated by

April 17, 2024

Navigating Document Formality Challenges in Vietnam

Intellectual property rights holders pursuing legal actions in Vietnam have faced various challenges related to document formality in recent years. For example, in two different disputes at the Ho Chi Minh City Court, we have seen the judge request the claimants to re-prepare the civil dossier due to a lack of documentation proving the authorization of the signer—despite the fact that the cases had been ongoing for long time. Meanwhile, many domain names have been unable to be registered and transferred in recent months. Third-party representatives cannot handle the work as they normally would, as Vietnam’s domain name authority has required all documents to be signed by the domain name holders themselves, instead of the law firms representing them. Such demands have created unnecessary complexities and obstacles for IP holders seeking to protect their rights in Vietnam. Legal Formalities in the Court System Vietnam’s judicial landscape presents unique hurdles for IP holders to enforce their rights. One significant challenge is the requirement for the claimant’s legal representative (typically the CEO/president), as explicitly displayed on the company’s business license, to sign all documents related to a lawsuit. This requirement clashes with the operational practices of many foreign companies, where multiple individuals may have the authority to represent the company. It is extremely impractical, especially in a large multinational conglomerate, for the CEO/president to personally execute all documents and transactions. Instead, authorized staff within these organizations, such as department heads or general counsel, typically handle these tasks. In this situation, Vietnamese courts often demand additional documentation to prove the officers’ authority, necessitating specific authorization documents that may not always be readily available. The courts sometimes remain unconvinced by declarations from the CEO/president affirming the authorization of these officers, and despite such assurances, they may still demand tangible proof of authorization, adding

April 11, 2024

Litigation Funding in Thailand

Costly and time-consuming litigation can cause entrepreneurs to lose a lot of money, leading to cash flow problems and even threatening their ability to continue their business operations. One alternative to these financial challenges is litigation funding. This can be an option for people intending to file a lawsuit or those being sued to address potential financial liquidity problems caused by the financial demands of litigation. Litigation funding refers to financial support provided by an unrelated third party with no interest in the dispute who agrees to fund the costs a party incurs during the dispute resolution process in exchange for a portion of any money potentially awarded to the party being funded. If the funded party loses the case, the third party (i.e., the funder) is solely responsible for the costs. Although litigation funding is available in various countries, Thailand considers it to be contrary to public order and good morals, which renders litigation funding agreements void and unenforceable. Recognition and Enforcement in Thailand There are no laws or regulations in Thailand that specifically mention litigation funding. However, the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that litigation funding is not recognized and is not legally enforceable under Thai law. These Supreme Court precedents have established that agreements to receive benefits in return for pursuing litigation in which the funding party is not involved would be an act of seeking benefit from the litigation of others. As noted above, this purpose has been viewed as contrary to public order and good morals, which results in the agreement being void and unenforceable by other Thai courts (Supreme Court Judgment No. 7014/1999). Therefore, if a litigation funding agreement were in place in a Thai dispute and the funded party won, the funding party would most likely not be legally entitled to any

April 4, 2024

Thailand’s Criminal Court Establishes Cybercrime Division

On March 18, 2024, the president of the Supreme Court of Thailand announced the establishment of a specialized Technology Crime Division within the Criminal Court of Thailand. This represents a significant commitment to cybercrime within the Thai judiciary and a step forward in Thailand’s ability to investigate cybercrime. The rise in cybercrime investigations in recent years has made it increasingly difficult for Thailand’s traditional criminal courts to consider and issue enforcement orders in support of ongoing investigations in a timely manner. The new Technology Crime Division addresses this challenge. This new division has jurisdiction over cybercrime and technology-related crime, fraud or extortion using computers, and criminal offenses relating to personal data protection laws. In addition, this new division has jurisdiction over all requests from competent law enforcement officers seeking court orders under the Computer Crimes Act B.E. 2550, the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562, and the Cybersecurity Act B.E. 2562. The Technology Crime Division will have trainees and judges with expertise in technology and cybercrime—not only to facilitate expert prosecution of cybercrime but also to offer critical and time-sensitive support to law enforcement investigations of alleged cybercrime. The Technology Crime Division is not yet operational. The president of the Supreme Court is expected to announce the division’s opening date in the coming months. For more details on Thailand’s measures for dealing with cybercrime, please contact Michael Ramirez at [email protected] or Piyawat Vitooraporn at [email protected].

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

Industries

Practices

July 8, 2016