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​ 

January 21, 2026
Spurred by global geopolitics and Canada’s Indo-Pacific Strategy, which aims to forge deeper ties with ASEAN, Canadian companies have been showing growing interest in Thailand and Southeast Asia in recent years. To understand the opportunities offered by the region, we sat down with Andrew Stoutley, a Toronto native and the chief operating officer of Tilleke & Gibbins, a leading Southeast Asian regional law firm with over 130 years of history in Thailand. Q: Why are Canadian companies looking at Thailand and Southeast Asia right now? A: Two reasons stand out. First, diversification has moved up the agenda. Many Canadian companies want options outside North America due to tariff volatility and policy uncertainty in the United States, as well as questions around the next Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement mandatory joint review. At the same time, the shift of global production from China to Southeast Asia is accelerating, driven by rising costs, geopolitics, and the need to avoid overreliance on a single market. As a result, Canadian companies are looking for a second production base or a regional hub, and Thailand and its neighbors are natural choices given their manufacturing depth, location, and established supply chains. Second, Canada’s own efforts in the region are gaining traction. The Indo-Pacific Strategy has led to more on-the-ground support, including larger trade missions, upgraded diplomatic posts, and new financing options. Export Development Canada (EDC) now has a presence in Bangkok, giving Canadian companies a direct line to financing and insurance in Thailand. There’s also steady progress on trade frameworks like the recently signed Canada–Indonesia Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (which will come into effect pending domestic procedures), ongoing negotiations of a Canada–ASEAN FTA, and the exciting announcement about the launch of negotiations of a Canada–Thailand FTA. Together, these developments have the potential to make it much easier
Read More
January 20, 2026
Arbitrations seated in Thailand are governed principally by the Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002) and, where applicable, the rules of institutions such as the Thailand Arbitration Center (THAC) and the Thai Arbitration Institute (TAI). While these instruments set the core procedural structure, they are not comprehensive. To fill in these procedural gaps, arbitral tribunals often look to the Thai Civil Procedure Code (CPC) and apply its principles when the Arbitration Act or institutional rules are silent. This hybrid system is familiar to local practitioners but can surprise international parties who expect a more self-contained arbitral procedure. Examples of How CPC Principles Are Applied Evidence Management: Section 25 of the Arbitration Act requires equal treatment of the parties and guarantees each side a full opportunity to present its case. At the same time, it grants tribunals broad discretion to conduct proceedings “as it deems appropriate” and expressly suggests that arbitrators may apply the CPC evidence rules where appropriate. In practice, tribunals frequently apply CPC evidence rules when addressing: submission of evidence lists, late or additional evidence, questions of admissibility and relevance, and assessment of witness and expert testimony. Amendments to Pleadings: Because the Arbitration Act and institutional rules provide limited guidance on amending pleadings, tribunals often rely on CPC principles when parties seek to amend a statement of claim or defense. Amendments may be permitted if they are sought in a timely manner, do not unfairly prejudice the opposing party, do not cause undue delay, and do not alter the nature of the dispute. These conditions closely mirror the standards applied by Thai courts under the CPC. Subpoenas and Court Assistance: Arbitral tribunals seated in Thailand generally do not have inherent subpoena powers. Section 33 of the Arbitration Act fills this gap by permitting the tribunal, an individual arbitrator, or a
Read More
January 20, 2026
Thailand’s Board of Investment (BOI) has imposed new restrictions on foreign-majority shareholding and land ownership for companies in certain promoted activities. The changes took effect on September 1, 2025, but were not published in the Government Gazette until December 30, 2025, under Notification of the Board of Investment No. Sor. 7/2568 on the Amendment to List of Activities Eligible for Investment Promotion under Notification of the Board of Investment No. 9/2565, dated July 22, 2025. Foreign Land Ownership Restrictions Generally, foreign land ownership is one of the privileges granted to BOI-promoted companies, allowing them to own land to engage in the promoted activities. However, with these new restrictions, the BOI will no longer grant land-ownership privileges to foreign-majority-owned companies that conduct business activities in the following categories: Rolling, drawing, casting, or forging of nonferrous metals (category 5.4.9) Manufacturing of ferrous metal products or ferrous metal parts (category 5.4.11.2) Manufacturing of nonferrous metal products and/or nonferrous metal parts for industrial use (category 5.4.11.4) Manufacturing of other metal products, including other metal parts for industrial use (category 5.4.11.5) Manufacture of chemical products for industry (category 6.2) Manufacture of plastic products for industrial goods and parts (category 6.4.1) These restrictions do not apply to existing BOI-promoted companies that have at least three projects granted promotion under the same juristic person during the past 15 years (2011–2025) with total investment of at least THB 5 billion, excluding the cost of land and working capital. Foreign Shareholding Restrictions For companies to be eligible for BOI promotion in three other categories of business activities, at least 51% of the company’s registered capital must be held by Thai individual shareholders, unless the BOI-promoted activity is located within a special border economic zone as designated by the BOI. These three categories are: Manufacture of bags made of
Read More
January 14, 2026
Employers operating in Thailand can enforce post-employment noncompete covenants, but success depends on precise drafting and strong evidentiary support. Thai courts will uphold restraints that protect legitimate employer interests and are fair and reasonable in duration, geographic reach, and substantive scope. Overbroad covenants, however, draw judicial skepticism and may fail unless they are drafted in severable, defensible components tied to the employee’s actual role. This article synthesizes recent trends in Thai case practice, explains how Thai courts assess reasonableness in employment restraints, and provides a practical litigation-focused framework for drafting enforceable covenants, preparing evidence, and pursuing relief through the Labor Court. The Legal Framework and Its Practical Implications Thai courts evaluate noncompete covenants under general principles of contract enforceability and public policy, with particular focus on whether a restraint is necessary to protect a legitimate employer interest and proportionate to that objective. In employment matters, this analysis is shaped by the employee-protective tenor of Thai labor law and by the Labor Court’s equitable discretion in determining appropriate remedies. The practical takeaway is that standardized or broadly drafted covenants rarely survive scrutiny. Courts look for a demonstrable nexus between the employee’s actual exposure to confidential information, trade secrets, or customer relationships and the scope of the restraint. Where that nexus is weak or the restraint operates as a blanket prohibition, courts are inclined to decline enforcement or limit relief to a narrowly tailored prohibition. The employer interests most commonly recognized as legitimate in Thai practice include the protection of trade secrets, confidential business information, and goodwill tied to identifiable customer segments or territories. Courts are more likely to enforce restraints where employers can clearly document what information is at risk, why particular customer relationships matter, and how the employee was involved with those assets. Judges also look closely at the
Read More