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​ 

December 13, 2023
Thailand’s economy in recent years has felt the impact of a seemingly endless list of challenges, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, global economic recession, repercussions from wars and armed conflicts, slumping exports, and recurring internal political turmoil. Many Thai companies simply went bankrupt during this time, but many others have gone through the process of business rehabilitation as laid out in Thailand’s Bankruptcy Act. This article outlines Thailand’s business rehabilitation procedures and explains how creditors can collect debts from companies involved in rehabilitation. Business rehabilitation in Thailand Under the Bankruptcy Act, a creditor, debtor, or government agency under certain circumstances can file a business rehabilitation petition when all of the following conditions are met: The debtor is insolvent or unable to pay the debt due for payment (cash-flow insolvency). The debtor is a juristic person indebted to one or more creditors for a total of at least 10 million baht. The debt can be determined in a definite amount, irrespective of whether it is due for payment immediately or in the future. There is a reasonable prospect of the debtor’s business being rehabilitated. “Insolvency” means a debtor has more debts than assets. However, the Bankruptcy Act also gives some criteria for being able to assume that a debtor is insolvent. Examples include debtors declaring to the court that they are unable to pay their debts, or debtors defaulting on debt payments after receiving at least two demand letters from a creditor (with at least 30 days between the letters). Once the court receives a business rehabilitation petition, the debtor will be protected under an “automatic stay.” This means that any creditor cannot sue or force the debtor to pay a debt, and the debtor is not allowed to pay any debt unless it falls into one of the exceptions
Read More
November 3, 2023
Vietnam’s new Law on Protection of Consumer Rights No. 19/2023/QH15 (CPL 2023) was promulgated by the National Assembly on June 20, 2023, and will replace the existing Law on Protection of Consumer Rights No. 59/2010/QH12 (CPL 2010) when it enters into effect on July 1, 2024. The main points of interest of the CPL 2023 are summarized below. 1. Definition of Consumer Under the CPL 2023, a consumer is defined to be “a person who purchases and/or uses products, goods and services with the aim of consumption for daily needs of individuals, families, or organizations, and not for commercial purposes” (Article 3.1). Compared to the CPL 2010, this definition introduces the phrase “and not for commercial purposes” to emphasize the exclusive focus on the consumption of goods and services. However, the CPL 2023 retains the use of the term “person” for defining a consumer, leading to uncertainty regarding whether an organization or a family can qualify as a consumer. Similarly, the CPL 2023, as in the CPL 2010, maintains an ambiguous comma between “purchase” and “use,” so it remains somewhat ambiguous whether purchase (without use) or use (without purchase) of goods/services is sufficient to qualify as a consumer under the law. 2. Vulnerable Consumers The CPL 2023 introduces a new concept known as the “vulnerable consumer.” This term pertains to a consumer who, at the time of purchase or use of products/services, is potentially subject to various adverse situations in terms of information access, health, property, or dispute settlement. This category encompasses individuals such as the elderly and disabled, children, ethnic minorities, people of remote or economically difficult regions, pregnant women and breastfeeding mothers of infants under 36 months, individuals with severe illnesses, and members of poor households (Article 8.1). The rights and privileges of vulnerable consumers must be
Read More
October 30, 2023
A Resounding Victory The last days of October brought some excitement for one of the leading pharmaceutical companies in the world, Novartis, when its patent litigation case in Vietnam against a local generic manufacturer, which had stretched over more than eight years, finally came to an end. The background of this case is quite simple. Novartis was the owner of a patent protecting the active ingredient vildagliptin, which was commercialized through its Galvus® product, a medicine used to treat type 2 diabetes. In 2015, the company found that a drug manufacturer in Vietnam’s Binh Duong province on the outskirts of Ho Chi Minh City was producing a medicinal product containing the vildagliptin active ingredient—an infringement of its patent. Novartis first submitted a request to the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) to apply administrative sanctions on this infringer. Subsequently, the MOST Inspectorate concluded in July 2015 that the defendant had committed patent infringement and ordered them to stop producing the infringing drugs and recall them from the market. However, the defendant did not comply with the conclusion, and sought an appeal while it continued to produce the infringing medicine. Realizing that administrative sanctions were not strict enough to deter the defendant, Novartis continued to protect its legitimate rights and interests by initiating a lawsuit at the provincial court where the defendant was headquartered, Binh Duong. Novartis claimed that the defendant had infringed the patent and requesting the defendant to compensate for damages at the highest level allowed by law, pay attorney fees, and publicly apologize to Novartis in specialized newspapers. This began a long journey full of challenges that finally ended with the second appellate judgment declared by the High People’s Court of Ho Chi Minh City on October 17, 2023. The court accepted all claims raised by the
Read More
August 25, 2023
Michael Ramirez, a counsel in Tilleke & Gibbins’ dispute resolution department, has contributed an article to a series on contractual terms in Asia from the Asian Business Law Institute. Previous articles in the series have looked at administrative and tax requirements and contract breach and remedy under Thai law. The article gives an overview of how extracontractual liabilities are treated under Thai law. It addresses issues related to contract negotiations, no-reliance clauses, entire agreement clauses, and concurrent liability. ABLI, which is based in Singapore, conducts legal research and dissemination in order to provide knowledge, guidance, and recommendations surrounding development of legal systems in Asia. The full article on extracontractual liabilities is available as a PDF through the button below.
Read More