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

June 11, 2024

“Prospects of Success” and “Good Faith” in Thai Business Rehabilitation Petitions

Subscribe to Updates

Over the past decade, business rehabilitation proceedings in Thai courts have received a great deal of attention from debtors and creditors, especially after the COVID-19 pandemic. Business rehabilitation and bankruptcy proceedings have different objectives in court. As a result, Thai courts have a different perspective and set of criteria for considering and approving rehabilitation proceedings than for bankruptcy petitions. Both proceedings are outlined in the Bankruptcy Act B.E 2483 (1940). This article mainly discusses in-court business rehabilitation proceedings.

Three parties can petition the court to initiate business rehabilitation proceedings:

  • Debtors;
  • Creditors; and
  • Certain authorities, such as the Bank of Thailand

For a debtor to be subject to business rehabilitation proceedings, it must:

  • Be insolvent or unable to repay debt of at least THB 10 million (for corporate debtors) or from THB 2 million to less than 10 million (for SME debtors);
  • Have debt that is determinable but has not yet become due;
  • Be indebted to one or more creditors, where the combined total of the debt is within the required debt amounts above; and
  • Have reasonable cause and possible ways to rehabilitate its business.

Court Approval of a Petition

Upon receipt of the business rehabilitation petition, the Bankruptcy Court will schedule a hearing on it. In conducting an inquiry into the petition, the court will consider whether:

  • The facts in the petition are true;
  • There are prospects of success for business rehabilitation; and
  • The petitioner has filed the petition in good faith.

If these three criteria are met, the court will approve the business rehabilitation.

Prospects of Success

In considering whether there are prospects of success for business rehabilitation, the court will look at whether the business rehabilitation petition contains reasonable grounds as well as appropriate and feasible solutions for rehabilitating the business. In that regard, the petitioner must consider whether the business can reasonably be expected to continue with its normal operations after rehabilitation. In other words, the petitioner must be able to see the possibility of continuing to operate its business after the rehabilitation proceedings to revive the company.

There were several cases stemming from COVID-19 in which the court granted business rehabilitation petitions. One high-profile example is the successful rehabilitation of multiple leading airlines in Thailand. These airlines filed petitions containing logical grounds and highly plausible ways of rehabilitating the business. Examples of those grounds are as follows:

  • The company has solid business fundamentals and can recover after entering the rehabilitation proceedings.
  • The company has built its good reputation over a long period but is now indebted after several adverse factors. However, with its good reputation, large customer base, and good credit, the business can be in a better state if it operates under the rehabilitation process.
  • With the debt restructuring under the rehabilitation process, the company can generate sustainable revenue in the future.
  • If the company was kept from undergoing business rehabilitation, the negative impacts would be far greater than in the current situation.

Business rehabilitation proceedings open the door for the debtor to engage in negotiations regarding debt restructuring with both domestic and foreign creditors. Furthermore, they enhance the chance of improving the business organization structure.

Good Faith

The court has discretion and authority to approve a petition for business rehabilitation under the Bankruptcy Act, which provides that “a petitioner must file the petition in good faith.” The law does not expressly state the meaning of “good faith”; there are also no specific descriptions of “bad faith” under the Bankruptcy Act. However, the court has dismissed business rehabilitation cases due to the bad faith of the petitioner. For instance:

  • From the Court’s perspective, if there is clear and sufficient evidence that the debtor has no ability to rehabilitate its business (for example, there are many unsolved internal and external business problems, the firm has been sued by a large number of other parties, and there are a large number of ongoing labor cases filed by the firm’s employees) but the petitioner still files a petition, there is a high chance that the court will dismiss the petition for bad faith.
  • There was a case in which the court dismissed a petition for bad faith because the petitioner was prohibited by Section 90/94 of the Bankruptcy Act from filing for business rehabilitation. Under this section, the petitioner is not allowed to file a petition for rehabilitation within six months of the court dismissing the petitioner’s previous petition. The court determined that the petitioner attempted to file the petitions to get legal protection (i.e., from an automatic stay) in order to avoid repayment of debts.
  • To support a petition, a corporate debtor submitted financial statements that contained false information regarding its financial status, resulting in the court finding that the petition was made in bad faith.

Conclusion

There are reasonable chances of success for petitioners, both debtors and creditors, in a business rehabilitation process if they have legal grounds and sufficient evidence, together with appropriate guidance from a legal advisor. The grounds for the court to approve the petition for business rehabilitation may vary, subject to the facts of each case. However, the above guidelines can provide some clarity to petitioners seeking information on the expectations surrounding business rehabilitation petitions and the court’s criteria for considering and accepting them.

Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 6, 2026
Every month, VAT-registered businesses in Thailand calculate their output and input VAT and file a return to pay the net amount due or claim a refund. Yet a common and costly dispute arises when a business that has paid input VAT to its supplier—and done everything asked of it—later finds that input VAT rejected on the grounds that the tax invoice was issued by “a person not entitled to issue tax invoices.” In these cases, a buyer may have confirmed the supplier’s VAT registration on the Revenue Department’s website, paid through the banking system, received a complete tax invoice, and kept full payment and inventory records. Even so, if the Revenue Department later determines that the supplier did not genuinely make the sale or collected the VAT without remitting it, the department can disallow the input VAT and assess additional tax, surcharge, and penalty—often more than a year after the transaction. A new article from tax and dispute resolution specialists at Tilleke & Gibbins in Bangkok examines how the Revenue Department and the courts approach these disputes, including two recent Supreme Court (Tax Division) decisions confirming that the taxpayer bears the burden of proving a supplier genuinely sold and delivered the goods and received payment. It considers why the VAT registration system offers no legal safe harbor, why the evidentiary burden falls hardest on online and cross-border transactions where buyers and sellers never meet, and how the Revenue Department’s own digital infrastructure could detect non-remitting suppliers at the source rather than shifting the loss to good-faith buyers. The article also sets out practical guidance: how to build a comprehensive “know-your-supplier” file at the time of a transaction, the procedural steps and strict deadlines for challenging a VAT assessment, and why dispute readiness belongs alongside tax planning at the center
Read More
June 29, 2026
Thailand’s cabinet has approved the draft Act on Liability for Defective Goods, commonly called Thailand’s “Lemon Law.” The Draft Act is currently pending consideration by Parliament. The draft law aims to strengthen buyers’ position in pursuing cases against sellers. While the Civil and Commercial Code offers provisions governing liability for defective goods, it is difficult in practice for buyers to successfully make a claim against sellers, particularly where defects are latent and not discoverable at the time of sale or delivery. By introducing product-specific rules and clearer remedies, the new law is intended to modernize Thailand’s consumer protection framework and align it more closely with international standards, and to help relieve the buyer’s burden of proof against the seller in product liability cases. If enacted, the draft act will take effect 180 days after publication in the Government Gazette, giving businesses a transition period to assess their compliance obligations. This article provides an overview of the key provisions of the draft act and highlights some practical considerations for businesses operating in Thailand. Scope and Key Definitions The draft act applies to sellers—defined as persons who sell goods in the ordinary course of business—and protects buyers, a term defined broadly to include not just the original purchaser but also transferees and successors in title. This expands the class of people who can bring claims. The law does not apply to used goods, live animals, or goods exempted by future ministerial regulation. It also leaves intact any separate warranties, promises, advertisements, or other guarantees a seller has given; those remain enforceable alongside the new statutory rights. General Liability for Defective Goods Sellers are liable for defects that exist at the time of delivery, regardless of whether the seller knew about them. Liability arises where a defect reduces: The benefit intended under
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