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 29, 2022
Disputes are unavoidable in the business world—not only civil disputes between business partners but also criminal matters, in which a company or its representatives, or even an individual, are accused of legal or regulatory violations or other crimes. While this can be a daunting situation—especially for those facing a criminal matter in a jurisdiction with unfamiliar laws or litigation processes—knowing what to expect out of criminal proceedings can bring clarity and make the situation feel much more manageable. Thailand, for instance, is a vibrant economy in the heart of Southeast Asia that has attracted many businesses to pursue opportunities in the country. However, the relatively well-developed and sometimes unfamiliar regulatory regime in Thailand means that companies can unintentionally fall afoul of the legal requirements and find themselves having to defend against criminal litigation. In such a situation, understanding  how criminal proceedings work in Thailand  is critical step to  prepare for the case. Thailand’s legislative system is  based on a civil law system. Notably, however, Thai courts are still influenced by previous Supreme Court decisions as precedent references for adjudicating cases. Most criminal offenses are contained in the Penal Code (also called the Criminal Code). There are also other offenses prescribed in the country’s acts (of which there are approximately 1,000), which specify the obligations and prohibitions people must observe. Although most offenses are misdemeanors, many are nonetheless punishable by imprisonment—a dire prospect for anyone, and even more so for an accused party whose home country is not Thailand. By its nature as a juristic person, a company charged with a criminal offense is subject only to fines. However, company directors or other representatives are often accused as codefendants along with the juristic person itself. These individuals can be found guilty for the offense conducted by the juristic person if
Read More
August 23, 2022
Indemnification clauses are common contractual provisions in many jurisdictions including Thailand, but enforcing them can be challenging in the eyes of Thai law. In general, to “indemnify” means to hold another party free of responsibility for a potential risk or loss. When one party (i.e., the “indemnitor”) indemnifies another party (i.e., the “indemnitee”), the indemnitor is obligated to pay or compensate the indemnitee for any liabilities or losses (within the scope agreed in the contract). In this way, an indemnification clause can be a useful provision to shift responsibility for potential risks from one party to another. In some jurisdictions, “indemnity” includes the recovery of attorneys’ fees incurred by the indemnitee. It may even carry with it the duty to defend or fund the defense of any claim brought against the indemnitee. If that is the case, even though the contract does not say so, the indemnitor would have to hire an attorney and pay the legal fees for the indemnitee. In contracts that contain an indemnification clause, the indemnity would typically include the duty to defend. Let’s use a case example to elaborate this point. In this hypothetical case, a supplier of machinery agrees to indemnify and defend a retailer against claims from the retailer’s customer in the event that a purchased machine becomes defective. As a result, besides being responsible for the damages that the retailer may suffer based on contract law or negligence, the supplier must also pay for the lawyers to defend the retailer if the customer decides to sue. In Thailand, this kind of indemnification clause may not be enforceable. Unlike contract rules in many jurisdictions, Thai contract law is silent on “contractual indemnity.” It is commonly understood in Thailand (and confirmed by Supreme Court decision 7943/2542) that “indemnity” means “compensation” under section 222
Read More
February 25, 2022
As internet availability and speeds have taken off in Thailand, more and more consumers in the country have adjusted their behavior by purchasing products through websites and online applications. However, they sometimes find that not all transactions turn out as expected. As online sales have increased, the number of disputes over these transactions has also continued to grow. Local news outlets are now reporting on the latest official response to this trend: a new division of the Civil Court designed to cope with the growing number of disputes from online transactions. The Honorable Chief Justice Piyakul Boonperm, president of Thailand’s Supreme Court, is aiming to expand internet shoppers’ access to justice by setting up a special division to work on cases involving online transactions. The announcement of the formation of this division was published in the Government Gazette on December 20, 2021, and the Civil Court announced shortly after that it would start operating on January 27, 2022. The announcement does not affect cases filed prior to January 27, 2022, and does not revoke plaintiffs’ rights to file cases through alternative legal means. The special division handles only disputes between buyers and sellers in an online transaction over a legal right or obligation related to consumption of goods or services in accordance with section 3(1) of the Consumer Procedural Act B.E. 2551 (2008) on what the law called “consumer cases.” This also includes bodies that can act on a consumer’s behalf by law, such as a consumer protection commission, association, or foundation approved by the Consumer Protection Commission. Only cases that can be handled remotely through the court’s electronic system fall within the scope of this announcement—cases that cannot be completely handled online will not be taken up by the new special division. Accordingly, parties must utilize the court’s
Read More
January 27, 2022
Thailand and Vietnam are major destinations for foreign direct investment (FDI) in Asia, resulting in significant levels of cross-border transactions. According to the World Bank, in 2018 and 2019 Thailand attracted a combined net inflow of about USD 18 billion in FDI.  During the same period, net inflows to Vietnam were USD 31.62 billion. These high volumes of inbound investment inevitably lead to a higher risk of disputes with everyone from suppliers, contractors, joint venture partners, borrowers, and of course state-owned companies and government agencies. International arbitration is a viable means of handling such disputes. Both Thailand and Vietnam are contracting states to the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the “New York Convention”), so arbitral awards from other member states are enforceable. With this in mind, an international arbitration award has to be enforced. This usually means filing cases in the local Thai and Vietnamese courts. As explained in this report, both Thailand and Vietnam have legislative frameworks in place to enforce arbitral awards, but in practice, enforcement can be a challenging and time-consuming endeavor. Before electing to pursue arbitration against private and state entities, foreign investors should be aware of how awards are actually enforced in these emerging Asian jurisdictions. To read the full article, please download the report through the button below.   This article was first published in September 2021 by the Practising Law Institute as part of their course materials for International Investment Law & Investor-State Dispute Settlement 2021.
Read More