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​ 

March 31, 2026
Thailand’s Department of Business Development (DBD) has issued a regulation imposing additional requirements for amending a company’s directors and signatory power to designate a foreign national as an authorized signatory of the company. This measure, effective April 1, 2026, has been introduced in response to the widespread use of Thai nationals as nominees to conduct business on behalf of foreigners, a practice considered to have an adverse impact on the country’s economic stability and security. The new measures are particularly concerned with changes to the authorized signatory structure of companies that originally had only Thai directors authorized to sign for and bind the company. Under the new rules, any amendment that results in a foreign national becoming an authorized signatory—whether solely or jointly—for such a company will be subject to additional verification. Directors signing an application to register such an amendment to the company’s authorized signatory structure are now also required to provide a statement confirming that all shareholders of the company have made genuine contributions and no Thai national has assisted with, supported, or participated in business activities in a nominee capacity. Implications Companies intending to appoint foreign directors as authorized signatories should be aware of the increased regulatory requirements and assessments. Additional documentation and confirmations may be required as part of the registration process.
Read More
March 31, 2026
On December 10, 2025, the National Assembly of Vietnam adopted Law on Vocational Education No. 124/2025/QH15, which took effect on January 1, 2026, replacing Law on Vocational Education No. 74/2014/QH13 of 2014. The new law broadens the categories of institutions eligible to deliver vocational training, introduces vocational upper secondary schools, and shifts governance structures for private institutions from ownership-representative boards of management to stakeholder-based school councils. These reforms aim to diversify training providers, align programs with labor market needs, and create a more flexible, open vocational education ecosystem, offering expanded opportunities for foreign and domestic investors, universities, and enterprises. Some highlights of the new Law on Vocational Education are presented below. Expansion of Vocational Training Levels and Programs In addition to elementary, intermediate, and college—the three levels of vocational training program set out under the 2014 Law on Vocational Education—the new law expands the structure by introducing two new levels: Vocational high school training programs are placed between elementary and intermediate levels, and are aimed at combining upper secondary education with vocational training, expanding options for learners after graduating from the lower secondary level. Other vocational training programs are not specified in detail under the new law, but aim to equip learners with the capability to perform and handle one or several simple tasks of an occupation. Expansion of Vocational Education Providers The new law reclassifies and extends vocational education providers by classifying them into two distinct categories: Vocational education institutions, which include colleges, intermediate schools, and vocational high schools. Establishments participating in vocational education activities, which include vocational education centers, vocational-continuing education centers, continuing education centers, other centers with vocational education functions, enterprises, cooperatives, and higher education institutions. Vocational education providers may provide one vocational training level only, or several/all levels, depending on the type of provider. The
Read More
March 31, 2026
Thailand’s Office of the Consumer Protection Board has opened a public hearing period on draft regulations governing the transfer of direct sales and direct marketing businesses. The draft Notification of the Direct Sales and Direct Marketing Committee: Criteria and Procedures for Business Transfer and Amendment of Registration for Direct Sales or Direct Marketing Businesses establishes a compliance-focused process with strict documentation requirements and timelines for transferring direct sales and direct marketing businesses. The proposed framework also defines the roles of transferors and transferees and establishes application procedures with the Office of the Consumer Protection Board. Applications may be submitted in person or electronically and will be examined to confirm they are complete, authentic, and compliant with legal requirements. This includes verification that: The transferee meets all required qualifications; No disqualifying factors apply; and The applicant is not subject to legal restrictions. The public hearing period is open until April 29, 2026. Direct sales and direct marketing business operators should prepare for these proposed requirements to ensure compliant implementation once the regulations are finalized.
Read More
March 27, 2026
Thailand’s National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission (NBTC) has publicly indicated that it is preparing a new regulatory framework for data center operators that may introduce foreign-ownership restrictions. In particular, the NBTC is considering reclassifying data center operations from a type 1 telecommunications business license to a type 3 license. If implemented, this change would subject data center operators to a significantly more stringent regulatory regime, especially in relation to foreign ownership and control. The NBTC has indicated that it intends to propose a draft framework to the NBTC board. This would be followed by a public hearing process, with a view to implementing the new rules within 2026. Under the Telecommunications Business Act B.E. 2544 (2001), as amended, telecommunications businesses operating under type 3 licenses are subject to foreign ownership restrictions, including a requirement that less than 50% of the total issued shares be held by foreign shareholders. In addition, type 3 licensees are subject to foreign dominance restrictions, which prohibit arrangements that allow foreigners to dominate the business. These foreign dominance restrictions are broad in scope and may capture various forms of direct and indirect control or influence. This includes circumstances in which a foreign national is able to influence or control the formulation of policy, management, or business operations, or the appointment of directors or senior executives. At this stage, the exact scope of the proposed rules remains unclear. Businesses with existing or planned data center operations in Thailand should therefore monitor upcoming NBTC developments in this regard and prepare for the expected public hearing process.
Read More