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​ 

June 23, 2026
Thailand’s Board of Investment (BOI) has significantly revised its post-approval compliance framework for projects that receive investment promotion incentives, replacing the previous semiannual reporting system for project progress with a new quarterly reporting regime. The initial report is due by July 30, 2026, covering the second-quarter reporting period of April to June 2026. The new requirements—implemented through BOI Announcement No. 8/2569 and Office of the BOI Notification No. Por. 8/2569, both of which became effective on March 30, 2026—apply both to newly promoted projects and to existing promoted projects that remain in the implementation stage. Background Under the previous reporting framework, BOI-promoted companies that had not yet commenced full operations were generally required to submit reports on project progress to the BOI twice a year (February and July) through the BOI’s e-Monitoring system. By adopting a quarterly reporting regime, the BOI seeks to strengthen monitoring and evaluation of investment progress and project implementation. Reporting Requirements Under the new regulations, BOI-promoted companies must submit project progress reports on a quarterly basis during the implementation phase of a promoted project. The reporting periods and submission deadlines are: Q1 (January–March): April 30 Q2 (April–June): July 30 Q3 (July–September): October 30 Q4 (October–December): January 30 of the following year The quarterly reporting obligation runs from the date the BOI promotion certificate is issued until the BOI grants approval for commencement of full operations. For newly promoted projects, no quarterly report is required for the quarter in which the BOI promotion certificate is issued—the first reporting obligation arises in the immediately following reporting period. All project progress reports must be submitted electronically through the BOI’s e-Monitoring system. The existing annual reporting requirement also remains in effect, requiring promoted companies to submit an annual operating results report through the e-Monitoring system by July 31 of
Read More
June 22, 2026
Arbitrator independence and impartiality form the cornerstone of a legitimate arbitral process. Under section 19 of the Thai Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002), prospective arbitrators must disclose circumstances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to their impartiality or independence, and existing arbitrators must do so throughout proceedings. This mirrors article 12 of the UNCITRAL Model Law. Yet despite this clear mandate, practical implementation varies significantly across Thailand’s arbitration landscape. Background Thailand’s two principal arbitration institutions, the Thai Arbitration Institute (TAI) and the Thailand Arbitration Center (THAC), both maintain procedures for addressing arbitrator challenges and require compliance with the statutory disclosure obligation. Under both sets of rules, any party wishing to challenge an arbitrator must submit a challenge application within fifteen days of becoming aware of the relevant facts, and a committee is appointed to consider the matter on a case-by-case basis. The TAI additionally prescribes its Code of Ethics and Conduct for Arbitrators to further emphasize the expectation of impartiality and transparency. However, Thailand’s arbitration ecosystem extends well beyond the TAI and THAC. Several sector-specific institutions also administer arbitral proceedings, including the Thai Commercial Arbitration Office under the Board of Trade of Thailand, the Arbitration Centre of the Office of the Insurance Commission, the Arbitration Centre of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Office for the Prevention and Resolution of Disputes regarding Intellectual Property, and the Arbitration Centre of the Thai General Insurance Association. These institutions each operate under their own procedural rules, which were developed to serve particular industries and dispute profiles. The procedural mechanisms for securing and documenting an independence declaration are not uniformly established across these forums. Consequences of Procedural Inconsistency This creates a notable gap. Not all arbitration bodies have a formalized procedure requiring written independence statements before proceedings commence. Some tribunals proceed
Read More
June 16, 2026
The president of Thailand’s Supreme Court has issued new recommendations providing courts with criminal jurisdiction with a comprehensive framework for identifying and dismissing criminal cases brought in bad faith. Published in the Government Gazette on May 29, 2026, after being signed on May 25, the Recommendations of the President of the Supreme Court Concerning Bad-Faith Litigation in Criminal Cases B.E. 2569 were issued under Section 5 of the Act on the Organization of Courts of Justice. The recommendations took effect upon publication and represent a significant step in Thailand’s efforts to curb abusive criminal litigation, including strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP). Background Section 161/1 of Thailand’s Criminal Procedure Code empowers courts to dismiss criminal cases filed dishonestly or with the intent to harass or take unfair advantage of a defendant. The new recommendations provide detailed guidance that courts previously lacked on identifying and handling such prosecutions. Definition of Bad-Faith Litigation Under recommendation 1, filing a criminal case in bad faith is defined broadly to encompass three categories: Harassment-type filings involving intimidation, threats, or creating unreasonable hardship for the defendant; Coercive filings designed to pressure the defendant into acting or refraining from acting for illegitimate benefit; and False or misleading filings that deliberately assert incorrect material facts or conceal such facts. Circumstances Indicating Bad Faith Recommendation 2 sets out specific circumstances that should raise a court’s suspicion that a filing may violate section 161/1. These include: Filing in a distant court far from the defendant’s domicile without benefiting the adjudication; Retaliation against the defendant’s advocacy for human rights, environmental protection, consumer rights, labor rights, or other public interests—effectively establishing an express anti-SLAPP framework; Retaliation against whistleblowers who disclosed corruption or unlawful conduct; Retaliation against individuals responsible for investigating the plaintiff’s wrongdoing or who concluded such an investigation; Filing multiple
Read More
June 10, 2026
For multinational franchisors operating in Thailand, a key risk after franchise termination is that former outlets may continue operating in ways that could easily mislead consumers into believing they remain within the authorized network. To justify such operations, former franchisees often argue that the termination was invalid or ineffective. As a result, these cases are often treated as contractual disputes, making it difficult for franchisors to obtain injunctive relief before a final judgment confirms that the termination was lawful. Franchisors face significant commercial and reputational harm during lengthy proceedings, including consumer confusion, disruption to franchise restructuring, and damage to brand reputation and customer trust. In an encouraging development, the Thai court in a 2025 case responded to the problem of unauthorized post-termination franchise operations by granting interim relief, recognizing broader brand and consumer harm, and awarding substantial damages, highlighting a successful litigation strategy of framing the dispute not merely as a contractual termination issue but as trademark infringement causing ongoing commercial injury. The Subway Case From December 2024 to mid-2025, an unauthorized “Subway®” franchise operation in Thailand attracted substantial public and media attention. Reports and online discussions about unauthorized Subway® stores circulated widely after complaints arose about food quality and customer experience at certain outlets that were allegedly operating after their franchise rights had expired. Because these stores continued to use Subway® trademarks, trade dress, and overall commercial appearance, many consumers were unable to distinguish them from authorized operations, resulting in reputational risks and customer confusion that affected the franchisor’s brand and franchise system in Thailand. Subway treated this matter with the utmost seriousness and moved promptly to protect its brand, franchise system, and customers. It filed a civil action with the IP&IT Court seeking a permanent injunction and damages. During the proceedings, the court granted a preliminary injunction
Read More