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 4, 2024
Thailand Legal Basics, a valuable primer for foreign investors, explores all aspects of living and doing business in Thailand. Written by specialists at Tilleke & Gibbins in Bangkok, it is the only comprehensive English-language guide to the Thai legal system with a focus on the concerns of foreign business and investment.
Read More
November 27, 2024
In Thailand, a business rehabilitation plan in court-supervised rehabilitation proceedings is a crucial element of the business rehabilitation process that outlines how a debtor’s assets will be managed. It also provides guidance for resolving a debtor’s business challenges so that the business can survive and continue to generate returns, increasing the likelihood that its creditors will be repaid. Key Plan Components The Bankruptcy Act B.E. 2483 sets forth the following components to be covered in a rehabilitation plan: The reasons for rehabilitation; Details about the debtor’s assets, liabilities, and other binding obligations at the time the court-ordered rehabilitation; Principles and methods of the rehabilitation; Redemption of collateral when there are secured creditors and guarantor liabilities; Ways to resolve problems arising from a temporary lack of liquidity during plan implementation; Action to be taken when a claim or debt is assigned; Name, qualifications, and letter of consent of the plan administrator, as well as information on compensation; Appointment and release of the plan administrator; Period in which the plan will be implemented (maximum of five years); and Refusal of the debtor’s assets or refusal of contractual rights if the debtor’s assets or contractual rights have obligations that exceed the benefits they yield. Considering the diverse nature and challenges of each debtor’s business, the details listed here are only general guidelines for what should be included in a rehabilitation plan. The planner has the flexibility to create a plan with different details or guidelines than those outlined above to best suit the nature and challenges of the debtor’s business. The planner can also omit some of the mentioned requirements if they are not relevant to the debtor’s business. Concerns of Relevance Court approval of the rehabilitation plan. Once the plan is approved by a meeting of the creditors, it is necessary
Read More
November 15, 2024
Vietnam’s new Decree No. 147/2024/ND-CP on the management, provision, and use of internet services and online information (“Decree 147”), which will come into effect on December 25, 2024, replacing Decree No. 72/2013/ND-CP (“Decree 72”), introduces several changes to the regime for domain name dispute resolution. The new decree aims to clarify the legal framework and address some longstanding inconsistencies between Vietnam’s laws on intellectual property and information technology. The main changes related to domain name dispute resolution under Decree 147 are summarized below. Removal of Prescriptive Actions Decree 147 no longer lists specific actions for resolving domain name disputes. Decree 72 had outlined three methods: negotiation/mediation, arbitration, and court. However, IP practitioners had long criticized this approach, arguing it conflicted with the IP Law, which additionally allows administrative action. By omitting these methods, the new decree implies an acceptance of administrative action as provided in the IP Law. However, Decree 147 remains silent on establishing a dispute resolution forum aligned with the CPTPP’s requirement for a UDRP-like model. Currently, Vietnam’s available forums do not fully conform to the UDRP framework. An anticipated circular may provide further guidance on this aspect. Deactivation of Domain Names Decree 72 does not have any provision on the deactivation of a domain name. However, Decree 147 has stipulated some situations where domain names will be deactivated, such as when there is a request from an authority, or when it is discovered that incorrect information was used for registration. Clearer Criteria for Dispute Resolution Article 16 of Decree 147 sets out three clear criteria that must be met for domain name dispute resolution to proceed: (i) confusing similarity with the plaintiff’s trademark, trade name, or personal name; (ii) the defendant’s lack of legitimate rights or interests in the domain name; and (iii) bad faith. Previously,
Read More
October 21, 2024
Thailand’s Central Intellectual Property and International Trade (IP&IT) Court has delivered a favorable ruling for Sumitomo Rubber Industries, Ltd., a major player in the tire manufacturing industry, regarding the registration of its motorcycle tire design patent. In this case, Tilleke & Gibbins represented Sumitomo in successfully advocating for recognition of the unique design elements in the company’s motorcycle tire products. Case Overview The case revolved around Sumitomo’s two design patent applications for motorcycle tire designs, which were initially rejected by the Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) on the grounds that they were similar to prior art. Based on an examination of the design elements, primarily focusing on the tire tread patterns, the DIP’s Patent Board had concluded that Sumitomo’s designs were not sufficiently unique to warrant patent protection, as the tread patterns of the new designs were deemed too similar to one found in prior art for tire products. In response, Tilleke & Gibbins filed a complaint with the IP&IT Court on behalf of Sumitomo, seeking a revocation of the Patent Board’s decision and requesting that the court compel the DIP, as the defendant, to proceed with the registration of Sumitomo’s design patents. The complaint emphasized that the designs were novel and distinct, warranting patent protection under Thai law. Legal Strategy The firm’s legal argument focused on the interpretation of Thai patent law, particularly regarding the protection of a product’s external appearance, and emphasized that the determination of a design’s novelty must consider the product’s overall appearance rather than isolating individual features. This approach is consistent with international guidelines on design patents, which require the evaluation of novelty and distinctiveness based on how an informed user would perceive the design as a whole. While Sumitomo’s tire tread patterns may share some superficial similarities to existing designs, the overall impression
Read More