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

July 10, 2015

Legal Changes Will Affect Rights and Obligations of Corporate Guarantors

Subscribe to Updates
Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

Guarantors are subject to a number of important obligations under Thai law. A guarantor can be held jointly liable with a debtor, or worse, solely and entirely liable as a primary debtor. In addition, creditors often use their higher bargaining power to force guarantors to waive their rights as secondary debtors, meaning that certain fundamental rights, such as the requirement for creditors to first call on debtors, are no longer enforceable.

The main forms of security available under the Thai Civil and Commercial Code are:

  • mortgage;
  • pledge; and
  • guarantee (suretyship), corporate or personal.

Thailand, however, does not provide for many of the security rights, such as liens and charges, which are available in common law countries. Therefore, creditors often elect to use guarantees—both corporate and personal—instead of security interests. Consequently, guarantors are tremendously important to creditors and they are frequently called on.

Despite their popularity, guarantors are not afforded an adequate level of protection. The Supreme Court has ruled that an agreement which is contrary to a guarantee provision, such as an agreement that requires a guarantor to be liable as a joint debtor, is enforceable. An act is not void if it differs from a provision of any law, it said, as long as the law in question does not relate to public order or good morals under Section 151 of the Civil and Commercial Code.

Therefore, as guarantee laws do not relate to public order or good morals, exemptions are permitted. The result is that guarantors can be forced to sign agreements that are contrary to the general provisions of guarantee laws—provisions that are intended to protect guarantors’ rights as secondary debtors.

In a sign that things could change for guarantors, new amendments to the guarantee and mortgage provisions of the Civil and Commercial Code will soon come into effect. This includes the Civil and Commercial Code Amendment Act (No. 20) B.E. 2557 (Amendment No. 20), which became effective on Feb 11, 2015, and another recent draft amendment (New Amendment) approved by the National Legislative Assembly on May 14, which is currently pending publication in the Government Gazette.

Amendment No. 20 aims to provide greater protection of rights and fair treatment to guarantors who are not primary debtors. However, local lenders have expressed discontent with the amendment because it offers the same level of protection to individual and corporate guarantors. In response to the outcry, the New Amendment will change the provisions that relate to guarantors and mortgagors who are juristic persons, financial institutions, or in the business of providing guarantees for remuneration.

Some of the most significant changes introduced by both amendments relate to corporate guarantors. Under Amendment No. 20, Section 681/1 has been added to the Civil and Commercial Code, which provides that:

“Any agreement which specifies that a guarantor must be liable in the same manner as that of a joint debtor or in the capacity of a joint debtor shall be void.”

The New Amendment added a second paragraph to Section 681/1, as follows:

“The above provision is not applicable to a guarantor who is a juristic person and who has consented to be bound in the same manner as that of a joint debtor, or in the capacity of a joint debtor. In such case, a guarantor who is a juristic person shall have no rights as provided in Sections 688, 689, and 690.”

Under these provisions, guarantors who are juristic persons and who have consented to be bound as a joint debtor can still be held jointly liable with debtors. In such a case, they have no rights as secondary debtors to request and require lenders to demand and call on debts from debtors first. These are rights provided under Sections 688, 689, and 690 of the Code.

In conclusion, corporate guarantors can still be liable as joint or primary debtors. Furthermore, if you are a corporate guarantor and your company is regarded as foreign under the Foreign Business Act, the provision of a corporate guarantee to secure a parent or affiliated company’s debts would be deemed a service business, which is restricted under List 3 (21) of the Act. Therefore, you would need to obtain a Foreign Business License before entering into a guarantee agreement.

If lending and guarantee arrangements involve foreign lenders, then an approval in principle from the Bank of Thailand regarding foreign-exchange control regulations is also likely to be required.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Corporate/M&A

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 20, 2026
Vietnam’s Law on Bankruptcy and Rehabilitation No. 142/2025/QH15, passed by the National Assembly on December 11, 2025, does something many regional counterparts do not yet attempt: it instructs parties and arbitral tribunals on exactly what happens to an arbitration once a debtor becomes insolvent. Together with the Law on Commercial Arbitration No. 54/2010/QH12, the new law improves upon what used to be an uncertain area of practice, now providing an explicit, mandatory sequence of procedures. Suspension and Termination of Arbitration Proceedings Under article 40(2) of the law, once a Vietnamese court accepts a bankruptcy petition, any arbitration that concerns the debtor’s financial obligations must be temporarily suspended as soon as the tribunal receives the court’s notification. If the court subsequently issues a decision commencing bankruptcy proceedings, article 59(2) takes a further step: the suspended arbitration is terminated outright, and the underlying case file is transferred to the court handling the insolvency for resolution. The two provisions work as a sequence: first suspension, then termination and transfer, rather than as independent triggers. Meanwhile, article 60(4) reinforces this effect by vesting the bankruptcy court with exclusive jurisdiction over all claims against the debtor from the date the petition is accepted. Notably, this mechanism operates automatically, without the need for the insolvency court to issue a separate anti-arbitration order. The tribunal simply suspends or terminates the proceeding by operation of law once notified; however, Vietnamese law currently provides no procedure by which a party can apply to the insolvency court for permission to continue the arbitration despite the statutory effect. Practitioners with a Vietnamese counterparty in arbitration should treat notification of a bankruptcy filing as something to flag to the tribunal immediately since continuing to arbitrate a claim that has become subject to article 40(2) or 59(2) risks producing an award vulnerable
Read More
August 20, 2026
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
Read More
August 20, 2026
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.
Read More
August 18, 2026
The Bank of Thailand (BOT) is seeking public comment on proposed amendments that would significantly expand know-your-customer (KYC) and customer due diligence (CDD) requirements for cash-related transactions at financial institutions (FIs) and specialized financial institutions (SFIs). Released on August 5, 2026, the proposed regulation would supersede BOT Notification No. 16/2569, which focused primarily on cash withdrawal transactions. The public comment period is open through September 3, 2026. The amendments reflect concerns that FIs and SFIs may be used to facilitate the movement, concealment, and conversion of criminal proceeds, potentially damaging institutional operations and public confidence in the financial system. Expanded Scope of Covered Transactions The most significant change is the broadening of the definition of “cash-related transactions.” Previously, the regulation covered only cash withdrawals and uncrossed check withdrawals. The amended regulation extends coverage to include: Cash deposits, check deposits, or receipt of funds from the public not in the form of deposit accounts; Thai baht (THB) banknote exchange (different denominations); Receipt of cash for issuing checks and drafts; and Purchase, sale, or exchange of foreign banknotes. Mandatory Identity Verification and Risk Management For all cash-related transactions, FIs and SFIs must require customers, or authorized or delegated persons, to present identification or verify their identity before every transaction, including one-time (walk-in) transactions. Specific identification requirements vary by transaction type, customer nationality, and channel (branch vs. electronic). FIs and SFIs must also establish comprehensive risk management processes and procedures for cash-related transactions. These requirements include identifying customers or authorized representatives in accordance with transaction-specific verification standards, analyzing customer behavior, implementing risk-management measures proportionate to the customer’s risk profile, and recording abnormal behavior in relevant systems. The BOT also encourages institutions to proactively guide customers toward transaction channels that offer greater traceability than cash. For corporate customers in high-risk business sectors—including foreign
Read More