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​ 

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 24, 2025
On October 22, 2025, the Thai government posted a directive not to grant gambling licenses for gambling involving poker nationwide to crack down on illegal gambling activities. The directive was issued by Thailand’s Ministry of Interior to align with government policies to prevent the legalization of all types of gambling businesses, including poker as a sporting activity. This will result in the revocation of poker activities as sport and institute a strict ban on such activities nationwide. Businesses should note the new government’s strict approach toward gambling activities as the legal situation regarding gambling in the country continues to draw close attention.
Read More
October 1, 2025
In September 2025, Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) accused a company listed on the Stock Exchange of Thailand (SET), including its current and former directors, of concealing material information in connection with its filing registration and draft prospectus. This recent enforcement action demonstrates the serious consequences of making false statements or appearing to conceal material information in IPO filings and ongoing disclosures. In addition to being subject to criminal penalties, such actions can impact the eligibility of directors and executives to serve and may cause lasting reputational damage. Key Legal Risks The Securities and Exchange Act B.E. 2535 (1992) (as amended) imposes strict liability for making false statements or concealing material information in IPO registration statements and draft prospectuses. In such cases, investors can claim for damages, and there are also criminal penalties, including imprisonment for up to five years and substantial fines, may apply to the company, its directors, and responsible officers. However, misstatements or omissions in IPO filings do not, by themselves, disqualify directors or executives from holding office, whether arising from an SEC accusation or even a final court judgment. In contrast, for ongoing disclosures after listing, such as financial statements, annual reports, and meeting notices, false or misleading statements or concealment of material information can result in not only criminal liability but also immediate disqualification of directors and executives. If the SEC accuses a listed company or its directors or executives of such misstatements or omissions, those directors or executives are immediately disqualified from their positions, even before a final court judgment. Director and Executive Qualifications Directors and executives must meet the SEC’s specified standards of trustworthiness, as set out in the relevant rules. The SEC clearly defines characteristics that are considered to demonstrate a lack of trustworthiness. For ongoing disclosures, being involved in
Read More