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

October 15, 2020

The Interplay of Insolvency Law and Arbitration in Thailand

Subscribe to Updates
Kluwer Arbitration Blog

The economic downturn in Thailand has resulted in increased pressure on Thai debtors. Several banks have forecasted Thailand’s gross domestic product (GDP) to contract 8.1 percent in 2020 due to a more severe than expected COVID-19 pandemic and the containment measures implemented by governments in many countries including Thailand.

Creditors who are party to an arbitration agreement with a Thai debtor will need to consider the financial status of the Thai debtor and determine whether to pursue their claims by way of arbitration or insolvency proceedings in the local courts – or whether both options can be pursued in parallel – to maximise their chances of recovery.

Insolvency Proceedings in Thailand

Thailand’s Bankruptcy Act allows a creditor to initiate a bankruptcy action when the debtor is (a) insolvent; (b) indebted to one or several plaintiffs for a total of at least THB 1 million (if the debtor is a natural person) or THB 2 million (if the debtor is a juristic person); or (c) unable to meet current or future payment obligations.1

Where the debtor is a juristic person (e.g. a company), the insolvency petition seeks the debtor’s liquidation—that is, to bring its business to an end and distribute its assets to the relevant claimants. Because the debtor’s assets will be distributed among all creditors, the creditor who files the insolvency petition is deemed to be acting not only on its behalf, but on behalf of the other creditors as well.

Interaction Between Arbitration and Insolvency Proceedings

Unlike the creditor who files an insolvency petition in court, a claimant in arbitration seeks to protect and secure only its own interests.

Arbitration and local insolvency proceedings are not mutually exclusive. However, when a creditor has moved ahead with arbitral proceedings (whether in Thailand or otherwise), after which an insolvency petition is filed against the Thai debtor locally, a number of questions are raised:

  • Must the creditor who commenced arbitration stop the arbitral proceedings and join the insolvency proceedings or business rehabilitation process?
  • Should the creditor submit a debt repayment application in the insolvency process while the arbitral proceedings are ongoing?
  • Would the arbitral award be enforceable during the debtor’s business rehabilitation process?

To answer these questions, and explain the proper application of insolvency legislation in the context of arbitration, I discuss two judgments of the Thai Supreme Court below.

PTT PLC. v. Nacap Asia Pacific Thailand Co., Ltd.

In PTT PLC. v. Nacap Asia Pacific Thailand Co., Ltd. (case no. 7082-70832558), Nacap Asia Pacific Thailand Co. Ltd (“Nacap“) was placed in official receivership while PTT PLC (“PTT“) was pursuing arbitration against Nacap outside Thailand. PTT submitted a debt repayment application but also requested the official receiver to delay examination of PTT’s debt repayment application until the arbitration award had been granted.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court stated that section 12 of the Arbitration Act stipulates that an arbitration agreement and the appointment of an arbitral tribunal remain valid even if one of the parties is under official receivership. However, the Supreme Court ruled that there is no exception to the requirement that a creditor has to submit a debt repayment application in the insolvency process; rather, the official receiver has a duty under section 105 of the Bankruptcy Act to call any creditor, debtor, or other person for interviews or to order them to turn over documents evidencing the debt. The Supreme Court therefore did not accept PTT’s argument that the ongoing arbitration prevented examination of its debt. In its view, the official receiver had a statutory duty to examine the debts and report them to the court, and there was no need to delay the examination until the arbitral proceedings were concluded since the examination would not cause any disadvantage to PTT as a creditor.

This ruling means that the usual time limits for the submission of debt repayment applications would apply to all creditors, including those who have a pending arbitration against the debtor at the time the debtor is placed into official receivership:2

  • Local creditors must submit their debt repayment application to the official receiver within two months from the date of dissemination of the court order for the debtor to be placed into official receivership.
  • Foreign creditors living outside Thailand will be given an additional two months (i.e. a total of four months) to submit their debt repayment application.

It is important for creditors to note the above timelines – the failure to submit a debt repayment application within the prescribed period will prevent a creditor from sharing in the distribution of the debtor’s assets and from voting at the creditors’ meeting.

TPI Polene PLC. v. HC Trading International Inc.

In TPI Polene PLC. v. HC Trading International Inc. (case no. 13535-135362556), TPI Polene PLC (“TPI Polene“) was in business rehabilitation when the company entered into an agreement for the sale and purchase of goods with HC Trading International Inc (“HC Trading“). A dispute arose over the agreement, and since there was an arbitration clause, HC Trading (the creditor) pursued an arbitration against TPI Polene (the debtor) in Singapore. Although the creditor knew that the debtor’s business was under rehabilitation, the creditor failed to petition the court for approval to proceed with the arbitration.

The Supreme Court ruled that section 90/12 (4) of the Bankruptcy Act3 stipulates that any court or arbitration proceedings must be suspended during business rehabilitation, unless the court orders otherwise. This means that a creditor cannot pursue other court or arbitration proceedings unless the court which has oversight of the business rehabilitation case agrees. Section 90/12 also states that any court judgment or arbitration award that is obtained contrary to that requirement, i.e. pursuant to court or arbitration proceedings that were continued without the approval of the court, will not be enforceable.

The Supreme Court noted that while the foreign arbitral award could not be revoked, the enforcement of the award against the debtor in Thailand must comply with the business rehabilitation sections in the Bankruptcy Act to be fair to all creditors. Since HC Trading failed to obtain the court’s permission to proceed with arbitration during the debtor’s business rehabilitation, enforcement of the arbitral award against the debtor’s assets would be contrary to public policy. Hence, the Supreme Court refused to enforce the award under sections 43 and 44 of the Arbitration Act.4

This case highlights that during the process of business rehabilitation, the commencement or continuation of arbitral proceedings needs to be permitted by the court in the business rehabilitation case if the creditor plans to enforce the arbitral award against the debtor’s assets in Thailand. Thus, Thailand’s insolvency legislation should be taken into account and complied with when a creditor proceeds with such an arbitral case, even if outside Thailand.

Conclusion

In times of economic downturn such as the present, the interaction between insolvency law and arbitration proceedings is crucial to note, particularly for creditors pursuing arbitration proceedings against financially troubled debtors that have assets in Thailand. Local insolvency law—including business rehabilitation regulations—merit the creditor’s close attention, especially the law on the submission of debt repayment applications, petitions to commence or continue arbitration proceedings, and the enforcement of arbitral awards in the Thai Bankruptcy Court. Focusing solely on the arbitration would be a big mistake, as the creditor may overlook the important role of local insolvency law and its impact on the creditor’s prospects of recovery against the debtor.

References

1. Bankruptcy Act, Section 9.

2. Bankruptcy Act, Section 91.

3. The law on business rehabilitation is also contained in the Bankruptcy Act. The Bankruptcy Court has jurisdiction over both business rehabilitation and bankruptcy matters in Thailand.

4. Section 43 of Thailand’s Arbitration Act states that the court can refuse to enforce the arbitral award under six different conditions. Section 44 states that an arbitral award that is contrary to Thailand’s public policy is not enforceable.

 

This article was originally published on the Kluwer Arbitration Blog, and is republished here with permission and thanks.

PTT PLC. v. Nacap Asia Pacific Thailand Co., Ltd.

In PTT PLC. v. Nacap Asia Pacific Thailand Co., Ltd. (case no. 7082-70832558), Nacap Asia Pacific Thailand Co. Ltd (“Nacap“) was placed in official receivership while PTT PLC (“PTT“) was pursuing arbitration against Nacap outside Thailand. PTT submitted a debt repayment application but also requested the official receiver to delay examination of PTT’s debt repayment application until the arbitration award had been granted.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court stated that section 12 of the Arbitration Act stipulates that an arbitration agreement and the appointment of an arbitral tribunal remain valid even if one of the parties is under official receivership. However, the Supreme Court ruled that there is no exception to the requirement that a creditor has to submit a debt repayment application in the insolvency process; rather, the official receiver has a duty under section 105 of the Bankruptcy Act to call any creditor, debtor, or other person for interviews or to order them to turn over documents evidencing the debt. The Supreme Court therefore did not accept PTT’s argument that the ongoing arbitration prevented examination of its debt. In its view, the official receiver had a statutory duty to examine the debts and report them to the court, and there was no need to delay the examination until the arbitral proceedings were concluded since the examination would not cause any disadvantage to PTT as a creditor.

This ruling means that the usual time limits for the submission of debt repayment applications would apply to all creditors, including those who have a pending arbitration against the debtor at the time the debtor is placed into official receivership:2

  • Local creditors must submit their debt repayment application to the official receiver within two months from the date of dissemination of the court order for the debtor to be placed into official receivership.
  • Foreign creditors living outside Thailand will be given an additional two months (i.e. a total of four months) to submit their debt repayment application.

It is important for creditors to note the above timelines – the failure to submit a debt repayment application within the prescribed period will prevent a creditor from sharing in the distribution of the debtor’s assets and from voting at the creditors’ meeting.

TPI Polene PLC. v. HC Trading International Inc.

In TPI Polene PLC. v. HC Trading International Inc. (case no. 13535-135362556), TPI Polene PLC (“TPI Polene“) was in business rehabilitation when the company entered into an agreement for the sale and purchase of goods with HC Trading International Inc (“HC Trading“). A dispute arose over the agreement, and since there was an arbitration clause, HC Trading (the creditor) pursued an arbitration against TPI Polene (the debtor) in Singapore. Although the creditor knew that the debtor’s business was under rehabilitation, the creditor failed to petition the court for approval to proceed with the arbitration.

The Supreme Court ruled that section 90/12 (4) of the Bankruptcy Act3 stipulates that any court or arbitration proceedings must be suspended during business rehabilitation, unless the court orders otherwise. This means that a creditor cannot pursue other court or arbitration proceedings unless the court which has oversight of the business rehabilitation case agrees. Section 90/12 also states that any court judgment or arbitration award that is obtained contrary to that requirement, i.e. pursuant to court or arbitration proceedings that were continued without the approval of the court, will not be enforceable.

The Supreme Court noted that while the foreign arbitral award could not be revoked, the enforcement of the award against the debtor in Thailand must comply with the business rehabilitation sections in the Bankruptcy Act to be fair to all creditors. Since HC Trading failed to obtain the court’s permission to proceed with arbitration during the debtor’s business rehabilitation, enforcement of the arbitral award against the debtor’s assets would be contrary to public policy. Hence, the Supreme Court refused to enforce the award under sections 43 and 44 of the Arbitration Act.4

This case highlights that during the process of business rehabilitation, the commencement or continuation of arbitral proceedings needs to be permitted by the court in the business rehabilitation case if the creditor plans to enforce the arbitral award against the debtor’s assets in Thailand. Thus, Thailand’s insolvency legislation should be taken into account and complied with when a creditor proceeds with such an arbitral case, even if outside Thailand.

Conclusion

In times of economic downturn such as the present, the interaction between insolvency law and arbitration proceedings is crucial to note, particularly for creditors pursuing arbitration proceedings against financially troubled debtors that have assets in Thailand. Local insolvency law—including business rehabilitation regulations—merit the creditor’s close attention, especially the law on the submission of debt repayment applications, petitions to commence or continue arbitration proceedings, and the enforcement of arbitral awards in the Thai Bankruptcy Court. Focusing solely on the arbitration would be a big mistake, as the creditor may overlook the important role of local insolvency law and its impact on the creditor’s prospects of recovery against the debtor.

References

1. Bankruptcy Act, Section 9.

2. Bankruptcy Act, Section 91.

3. The law on business rehabilitation is also contained in the Bankruptcy Act. The Bankruptcy Court has jurisdiction over both business rehabilitation and bankruptcy matters in Thailand.

4. Section 43 of Thailand’s Arbitration Act states that the court can refuse to enforce the arbitral award under six different conditions. Section 44 states that an arbitral award that is contrary to Thailand’s public policy is not enforceable.

 

This article was originally published on the Kluwer Arbitration Blog, and is republished here with permission and thanks.

 

Related Professionals

Practices

Corporate/M&A

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

October 31, 2025
On September 29, 2025, Thailand’s Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC Office) published its Regulations on the Review and Certification of Binding Corporate Rules B.E. 2568 (2025) (the Regulations). The Regulations provide clarity on the PDPC Office’s approach to reviewing and certifying binding corporate rules (BCRs) under Section 29 of the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA), and aim to facilitate international data transfers within a group of undertakings or enterprises (a “corporate group”). In conjunction with this development, the PDPC Office also approved BCRs for two companies operating in Thailand on September 30, 2025. This milestone represents the first concrete progress since the PDPC’s Notification on Criteria for the Protection of Personal Data Sent or Transferred to a Foreign Country pursuant to Section 29 of the PDPA B.E. 2566 (2023) came into effect in March 2024. Some key features of the Regulations are set out below. Categorization of BCRs BCRs are classified into two types: (1) BCRs for Controllers (BCR-C) and (2) BCRs for Processors (BCR-P). The category must be clearly specified when submitting the BCRs to the PDPC Office. Documentation Requirement The applicant must prepare and submit the application (a standard template may be provided by the PDPC Office in the future) along with supporting documents for review and certification in the Thai language. If the supporting documents are in a foreign language, a certified Thai translation should be provided. The translation must be notarized by a notary public or qualified person. Supporting documents may include, among others, a binding instrument such as an intra-group agreement, or a list of entities subject to the BCRs. Expedited Process Requirement Organizations with existing BCR approvals under the EU or UK GDPR, or from countries announced by the PDPC under Section 28, may apply through an
Read More
October 30, 2025
Recent events at a Thai listed company, where a proposal to remove the director was not successful, amid claims that a competitor was attempting to gain control of the company, illustrate how disputes over corporate control can unfold differently at the board level and shareholder level. At the board level, removing directors of a listed company mid-term to gain corporate control is not an easy task under Thai law, as it requires a higher threshold than appointing a new director, which typically only requires a simple majority vote in a listed company. At the shareholder level, Thailand’s tender offer and competition regimes add complexity where different shareholder groups act in concert to remove opposing board representatives or otherwise influence control. In this article, we will explore why the attempted removal of a director may fail, and how the tender offer regime may apply. Key Issues at a Glance Shareholder groups may seek to convene meetings to propose changes to board composition or company authority. Such proposals can be delayed or complicated by regulatory requirements and the need for additional disclosures. Regulatory authorities and minority shareholders may raise concerns when major shareholders coordinate to influence board control, especially if such actions could trigger tender offer or merger control obligations. Companies often respond by seeking further information on shareholder relationships and potential conflicts before proceeding. Why the Director Removal Failed Under Section 76 of the Public Limited Companies Act B.E. 2535 (as amended), the early removal of a director requires two conditions to be satisfied at the same meeting of shareholders: Headcount test: At least 75% of shareholders attending and entitled to vote must vote in favor. If multiple shareholders appoint the same person as proxy, each proxy is counted as a separate head for the purpose of the headcount test,
Read More
October 30, 2025
Thailand has introduced a comprehensive overhaul of its tax litigation procedures that will significantly impact how tax disputes are handled. The Regulations for Tax Cases B.E. 2568 (2025) take effect on November 24, 2025, and repeal the prior B.E. 2544 (2001) regulations in full. These regulations support the implementation of the Act on the Establishment of the Tax Court and Tax Case Procedure (No. 3) B.E. 2568 (2025), which expands the Tax Court’s jurisdiction to certain criminal tax matters. Published in the Government Gazette on October 14, 2025, the regulations have been reorganized into three parts covering civil cases, criminal cases, and forms, and are designed to accelerate proceedings, tighten evidentiary discipline, and modernize court operations. Structural Reform and Scope The prior regime governed only civil tax disputes. Under the new framework, the regulations introduce a dedicated chapter for criminal cases alongside updated civil procedures, as the Tax Court now has express authority to adjudicate specified criminal tax offenses. Select mechanisms applied in civil case proceedings, such as electronic communication, recording testimony, and appointing experts, also apply to criminal proceedings mutatis mutandis where they do not conflict with criminal procedure. Civil Cases: Evidence Submission, Deadlines, and Scheduling Parties must submit, together with the witness list, originals of all documentary evidence, media, or electronic data (such as files, USB drives, or CDs), and all physical evidence in the party’s possession. Failure to submit any original within the deadline (see below) results in a loss of the right to adduce that item at trial, subject only to narrow exceptions where submission is impossible due to force majeure or where receipt of the evidence is indispensable to the interests of justice. The practical impact is that parties are now obligated to assemble and verify all original documents and data at the very
Read More
October 24, 2025
The Thai Arbitration Institute (TAI), a division of Thailand’s Office of the Judiciary, has taken a step toward harmonizing the tools available for dispute resolution. On August 8, 2025, the institute formally launched the TAI Mediation Center (TAI-MC). Although the amendments to TAI’s Arbitration Rules that will govern the TAI-MC have not yet been finalized, the framework now under consideration suggests that TAI is positioning itself to become a more attractive venue for commercial dispute resolution. In the regime contemplated under the current version of the amendments, TAI proceedings will adopt an “arbitration-annexed mediation” mechanism—commonly termed the “Med-Arb” model—while preserving the procedural safeguards indispensable to arbitral neutrality. Mediation will be entrusted to a separate, dedicated mediator appointed under the TAI-MC who is precluded from serving on the arbitral tribunal in the same matter. By clearly separating the functions of mediator and arbitrator, the institute eliminates any risk that confidential information disclosed during mediation could influence the adjudicatory outcome if the parties do not settle. Only when all parties subsequently make a request may that same mediator assume arbitral duties in the case. The parties will retain substantial autonomy in selecting the mediator. They may either designate a mediator by mutual consent or invite the TAI-MC to appoint one from its authorized panel. TAI has announced its intention to curate that panel with particular emphasis on commercial expertise and cross-cultural negotiation skills, supplemented by ongoing professional training. Where the parties cannot agree on remuneration, the mediator’s fee will default to a tariff comparable to the TAI-MC’s cost schedule, which under the current version of the amendments will be approximately THB 45,000 for disputes in which the aggregate claims do not exceed THB 10 million, with incremental increases tied to higher claim values. This predictable cost matrix is aimed at enhancing
Read More