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

November 11, 2016

New Rehabilitation Regulations: Survival Tools for SMEs

Subscribe to Updates
Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) have grown rapidly in Thailand over the past ten years, creating millions of jobs and contributing to the Kingdom’s steady economic growth. According to the 2015 annual report of the Office of SMEs Promotion (OSMEP), there were approximately 2.7 million SMEs at the end of 2015, employing around 10 million people, particularly in the tourism, construction, and wholesale sectors.

This has prompted the government to issue numerous privileges that encourage entrepreneurs to start up their own businesses, such as special rates for loans and tax breaks. The latest privilege, issued under the Bankruptcy Act (No. 9) B.E. 2559 (2016) on May 24, 2016, offers SMEs the opportunity to rehabilitate and avoid bankruptcy in the face of short-term liquidity problems. This privilege is designed to protect popular SMEs which experience temporary liquidity problems and are unable to make repayments in the short-term.

Unlike previous rehabilitation regulations, which only allowed debtors of more than THB 10 million to file a request for reorganization to the court, the new Bankruptcy Act provides SMEs with the opportunity to enter rehabilitation if there are reasonable grounds and prospects for rehabilitating the business. This may prevent such SMEs from being declared bankrupt.

Requirements for Rehabilitation

The new Bankruptcy Act allows an SME to enter into the rehabilitation process regardless of whether it is a natural person, juristic body, partnership, or private limited company, provided that the SME is registered with OSMEP or another related government agency, in accordance with the SMEs Promotion Act B.E. 2543 (2000).

The new Bankruptcy Act lowers the minimum threshold of debt that an SME which is in no position to repay the debt must meet in order to be eligible to enter into the rehabilitation process. The thresholds vary, depending on the type of SME. Natural persons are required to have a definite amount of debt amounting to not less than THB 2 million. Juristic bodies, registered or unregistered ordinary partnerships, or limited liability partnerships must have a definite amount of debt of not less than THB 3 million. And private limited companies must have a definite amount of debt of not less than THB 3 million, but not more than THB 10 million.

Key Differences in the Rehabilitation Process for SMEs

Under the normal rehabilitation process, a plan preparer is appointed by the court to draft a rehabilitation plan. This plan must be approved by the creditor(s) and the court, and all of these processes will take place once the petition for rehabilitation has been accepted by the court. In contrast, for an SME to apply for rehabilitation, the SME or its creditor(s) must file a petition to rehabilitate to the Central Bankruptcy Court, together with a rehabilitation plan. This plan must be approved by the creditor(s) of at least two-thirds of the total amount of debt.

This presents some challenges to SMEs that want to enter into the rehabilitation process, as they need to organize the creditor meeting and persuade the majority of creditors to accept the plan, in order to complete the rehabilitation petition and submit the petition to the court. In contrast, under the normal rehabilitation process, the official receiver handles these processes by sending an official notice to every creditor, inviting them to attend the official creditor meeting.

For the rehabilitation of an SME, after the rehabilitation petition has been submitted to the court, a plan preparer is not appointed, and the plan cannot be amended, unlike the normal rehabilitation process. Thereafter, the court has sole discretion as to whether to accept the petition.

Automatic Stays

Much like the normal rehabilitation process, under the rehabilitation process for SMEs, an automatic stay would be applicable starting from the date the court accepts the SME rehabilitation petition until:

  • the expiration of the period of time stipulated under the rehabilitation plan;
  • the date the plan is successfully accomplished;
  • the date that the court dismissed the petition, disposed of the case, or repealed the order for the business rehabilitation; or
  • the business rehabilitation has been canceled.

As with automatic stays under the normal rehabilitation process, automatic stays under rehabilitation for SMEs prevent creditors from claiming or seizing the SME’s assets, and they also halt all ongoing seizures and auctioning of the SME’s assets.

Under the new Bankruptcy Act, the government is effectively offering entrepreneurs protection in the form of a safety net that allows them to survive temporary liquidity problems. Many business operators are expected to take advantage of this, and as a result, SMEs should continue to play an important part in Thailand’s economic growth.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Corporate/M&A

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 31, 2026
Thailand has introduced a new regulatory framework that may expose foreign nationals who violate the Foreign Business Act (FBA) to deportation. The Regulation of the Office of the Prime Minister on Deportation B.E. 2569 was published in the Government Gazette on August 27, 2026. The regulation establishes an administrative process for referring foreign nationals for deportation where this is deemed necessary in the interests of public order or public morality. It does not create new substantive deportation powers, but it expressly identifies unlawful business conduct under the FBA—including nominee arrangements—as grounds for referral. Grounds for Deportation Referral The regulation sets out five grounds that may give rise to a referral to the relevant authorities: Unlawful entry into, or unlawful stay in, Thailand in violation of immigration laws. Unlawful employment or engagement in work in violation of laws governing the employment of foreign nationals. Carrying on business in violation of the FBA, including through the use of nominee arrangements. Forging official documents or using forged official documents. Committing an offense punishable by imprisonment of five years or more. The framework takes a broad approach, extending not only to the perpetrators of these acts but also to those who facilitate, instigate, or otherwise support such acts. Deportation Risk Following a Criminal Judgment Where a foreign national has committed any of the above offenses and has fully served the sentence imposed pursuant to a final judgment, the interior minister has the power to order deportation. This power also applies where a court has issued a final judgment sentencing a foreign national to imprisonment but has suspended the execution of the sentence, or has imposed a fine. A deportation order may also specify a period during which the foreign national is prohibited from reentering Thailand. FBA Noncompliance: Broader Consequences Noncompliance with the FBA—including
Read More
August 24, 2026
Myanmar’s Directorate of Investment and Company Administration (DICA) has published the guidelines it uses to assess and approve company names for registration in the country. The guidelines, which were published on May 18, 2026, explain how DICA determines whether a proposed name is identical or too similar to an existing name, and they identify words and expressions that may be prohibited or restricted. Businesses planning to incorporate in Myanmar should expect DICA to scrutinize proposed names more closely than it has in the past. Prohibitions on Company Names The Myanmar Companies Law prohibits company names that are identical or similar to existing company names, and DICA’s internal assessment guidelines explain how this rule applies in practice. Under the guidelines, DICA may reject a proposed company name if the proposed name: Is identical or nearly identical to an existing company name; Differs from an existing company name only in punctuation, capitalization, spelling, or transliteration; Only adds words such as “Group,” “Holding,” “International,” “Myanmar,” or “Family” to an existing company name; Merely rearranges the words in an existing company name; Is pronounced similarly to an existing name; Uses the same brand name as an existing company, even if the company carries out different business activities; or Uses an existing brand name together with an abbreviation of that brand name or a shortened form of the name or business description. DICA may also consider whether a proposed name could give the impression that two companies are related, even if they operate in different business sectors. In addition, DICA may review a company name even after registration. If it later determines that the name does not comply with the Myanmar Companies Law or is otherwise unsuitable, DICA may direct the company to change its name under section 26 of the Myanmar Companies Law.
Read More
August 24, 2026
Significant economic challenges facing Thailand in recent years have placed financial pressure on both individuals and businesses. As a result, many debtors may find themselves unable to meet their repayment obligations, leading to bankruptcy proceedings. When an individual or corporate debtor in Thailand is subject to bankruptcy proceedings, the Thai Bankruptcy Act B.E. 2483 (1940) provides a legal framework for collecting a debtor’s assets and using them to repay creditors. Under the Bankruptcy Act, creditors wishing to recover outstanding debts must file a debt repayment application (DRA), which is the primary mechanism for asserting claims in bankruptcy proceedings. However, the filing of a DRA is subject to specific legal requirements, procedural rules, deadlines, and supporting documentation. Failure to comply with these requirements may adversely affect a creditor’s ability to recover its claim. This article highlights the key considerations that creditors should be aware of when filing a DRA in a bankruptcy case in Thailand. Filing a DRA In a bankruptcy case, after the court issues an absolute receivership order, the debtor loses the authority to manage or dispose of its assets. Control over the debtor’s assets is transferred to the official receiver, a government official responsible for administering the bankruptcy estate in accordance with the Bankruptcy Act. Creditors seeking repayment of their debts must file a DRA with the official receiver within two months of the absolute receivership order being officially published in the Government Gazette. For creditors outside of Thailand, the official receiver may extend the filing period by up to an additional two months. These filing deadlines are strictly enforced. Failure to file within the prescribed period may result in the claim being barred, except in limited circumstances permitted by the Bankruptcy Act. Where a late filing is accepted due to force majeure, the creditor may only
Read More
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