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 14, 2014

Reviving Dead Companies Using Thai Law

Subscribe to Updates
Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

Death is not always final, at least not for juristic persons under Thai law. Under certain circumstances, companies can be revived after being legally declared defunct or dissolved. This article will discuss how and when such companies can be restored.

Dissolved vs. Defunct

The way in which a company is terminated is a major factor in the way it can be revived. Under Thai law, a company can end by being “dissolved” or becoming “defunct.” There is a difference. A company is dissolved when its owners go through a prescribed legal process to wind down the company. This process is known as liquidation. A liquidator is appointed by the owners to manage the process. After it is complete, the Department of Business Development will declare the company dissolved.

A company becomes defunct when it ceases to undertake any activities for a period of time, as determined by the department. Under Thai law, the department must have reasonable grounds to believe a company has become inactive. When a company is declared defunct, its name is removed from the department’s list of active companies. A common way for a company to go defunct is when its owners “abandon” it and fail to submit annual filings to the department.

Restoring Defunct Companies

Companies that have been declared defunct can be restored under certain circumstances, as outlined in the Civil and Commercial Code. The company’s owners must apply to the Civil Court and convince it that the company was active and that the Department of Business Development had unfairly labeled it as dormant.

If the court agrees, it can order the department to restore the company. After restoration, the company may continue its operations as if its name had not been struck off the department’s list. Importantly, the court also has the authority to ensure the company is restored to the same position it was in before being declared defunct.

Reviving Dissolved Companies

When a company is liquidated, all of its remaining affairs are settled including payment of debts and selling and distributing remaining assets. However, it is possible for a liquidator or shareholder to overlook some portion of the assets or liabilities. Bank accounts, real estate, or other assets may still be “owned” by a dissolved company. But legally speaking, a dissolved company no longer exists, prohibiting owners or creditors from accessing the assets or debts.

When such a situation occurs, a company can be revived, albeit temporarily, to address the unresolved assets or debts. Two fairly recent separate court precedents—from the Supreme Administrative Court and the Supreme Court—allowed owners to revive their dissolved companies temporarily.

While such court decisions are not binding law (as they would be in a common-law country), Supreme Court rulings are highly influential precedents and do help to shape subsequent decision-making.

A 2009 Supreme Administrative Court ruling (Precedent No.137/2552) permitted a dissolved company to revive itself in order to assign a property lease. In that case, the liquidator realized after dissolution that it had overlooked a lease to a space in a Bangkok shopping mall. The liquidator asked the Department of Business Development to revive the company to deal with the lease. The department declined, saying it had no such duty or authority. The Supreme Administrative Court disagreed, saying the department had unlawfully declined the request and ordered the revival to be approved.

In a 2010 case, the Supreme Court (Precedent No.3302/2553) allowed a company to be temporarily revived to deal with outstanding assets. This case is also important in that it makes it easier to revive a company in case of incomplete liquidation. The Supreme Court ruled that a liquidator, when seeking to revive a dissolved company, can apply directly to the Civil Court and bypass the Department of Business Development and the entire Administrative Court process.

In this case, the liquidator, who was also a company director, “discovered” two title deeds to land the company owned after it was already dissolved. The liquidator asked the Civil Court of first instance for permission to sell the land. The court denied the request. On appeal, however, the Supreme Court decided the company could be revived on the basis that outstanding assets remained.

The Supreme Court ruled the liquidation process was incomplete and must therefore be revived to deal with land title deeds. Once the outstanding assets had been distributed, the company would then be dissolved. Importantly, the court also stated the Civil and Commercial Code did not prohibit the revival of dissolved companies to complete liquidation.

The Inference

Business owners can take comfort in knowing their company can be restored after termination. The most important issue is how the company was terminated. When a company ends by becoming defunct, its operations can be fully restored. However, companies that are dissolved can be revived only long enough to complete liquidation. Either way, this flexibility is beneficial for business.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Corporate/M&A

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 20, 2026
Vietnam’s Law on Bankruptcy and Rehabilitation No. 142/2025/QH15, passed by the National Assembly on December 11, 2025, does something many regional counterparts do not yet attempt: it instructs parties and arbitral tribunals on exactly what happens to an arbitration once a debtor becomes insolvent. Together with the Law on Commercial Arbitration No. 54/2010/QH12, the new law improves upon what used to be an uncertain area of practice, now providing an explicit, mandatory sequence of procedures. Suspension and Termination of Arbitration Proceedings Under article 40(2) of the law, once a Vietnamese court accepts a bankruptcy petition, any arbitration that concerns the debtor’s financial obligations must be temporarily suspended as soon as the tribunal receives the court’s notification. If the court subsequently issues a decision commencing bankruptcy proceedings, article 59(2) takes a further step: the suspended arbitration is terminated outright, and the underlying case file is transferred to the court handling the insolvency for resolution. The two provisions work as a sequence: first suspension, then termination and transfer, rather than as independent triggers. Meanwhile, article 60(4) reinforces this effect by vesting the bankruptcy court with exclusive jurisdiction over all claims against the debtor from the date the petition is accepted. Notably, this mechanism operates automatically, without the need for the insolvency court to issue a separate anti-arbitration order. The tribunal simply suspends or terminates the proceeding by operation of law once notified; however, Vietnamese law currently provides no procedure by which a party can apply to the insolvency court for permission to continue the arbitration despite the statutory effect. Practitioners with a Vietnamese counterparty in arbitration should treat notification of a bankruptcy filing as something to flag to the tribunal immediately since continuing to arbitrate a claim that has become subject to article 40(2) or 59(2) risks producing an award vulnerable
Read More
August 20, 2026
Thai law contains no provision that speaks directly to what happens to an arbitration when one of the parties becomes insolvent. The interaction between arbitration and insolvency is derived instead from the general operation of two separately drafted laws: the Bankruptcy Act B.E. 2483 (1940) and the Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002). Because Thai courts have had few opportunities to interpret how these two statutes apply together, the practical answer to many questions, such as who represents an insolvent party in arbitration, whether an award will be enforced, and what happens to a foreign proceeding, depends on inference from general principles of insolvency, arbitration, and procedural law rather than on settled rules. Liquidation and Restructuring The Bankruptcy Act governs both liquidation, which winds up a debtor’s affairs, and restructuring (rehabilitation), which aims to preserve a business. The consequences for arbitration differ accordingly. In liquidation, the debtor’s assets vest in the official receiver, who alone can conduct or continue any arbitration affecting the estate; the debtor loses the authority to act on its own behalf. In restructuring, the plan preparer or administrator takes over that role, but there is more room for the debtor to remain involved, since the objective of rehabilitation is to keep the business operational. Restructuring carries an automatic stay that takes effect once the Bankruptcy Court accepts the restructuring petition. This stay can halt an arbitration regardless of where it is seated. In contrast, liquidation does not work through a stay; instead, the debtor’s loss of authority over its own assets and disputes is what constrains the arbitration. Neither proceeding provides a party a formal route to apply for permission to continue arbitrating—the Bankruptcy Act contains no such mechanism—though in restructuring cases the Bankruptcy Court may allow proceedings to continue where doing so will not prejudice
Read More
August 20, 2026
As part of its membership in Lex Mundi, Tilleke & Gibbins has released the latest edition of its Guide to Doing Business in Thailand, providing an overview of the legal, regulatory, and commercial considerations for companies establishing or expanding operations in Thailand. The 2026 edition offers practical insight into the country’s business environment, investment framework, and operational requirements. The guide covers a wide range of topics relevant to foreign and domestic investors, including: Investment incentives and promotion schemes Financial facilities and banking regulations Exchange controls and money transfers Import and export regulations Business structures and incorporation options Requirements for establishing a business Operational and compliance considerations Business cessation and insolvency procedures Employment and labor laws Taxation Immigration and visa requirements Prepared by Tilleke & Gibbins lawyers across multiple practice areas, the publication outlines key aspects of doing business in Thailand, including foreign investment restrictions, regulatory compliance obligations, corporate structures, employment requirements, and recent legal and economic developments affecting investors. The publication forms part of Lex Mundi’s Country Guides series, a global collection of jurisdiction-specific reference materials prepared by member firms around the world. Together, these guides help companies evaluate opportunities, compare regulatory environments, and plan international business activities across multiple markets. The full Guide to Doing Business in Thailand 2026 is available through the button below.
Read More
August 19, 2026
Arbitration clauses and national court jurisdiction have long existed in a delicate equilibrium, and nowhere is that equilibrium tested more often than in the drafting of multitier dispute resolution clauses. Such clauses—requiring negotiation before arbitration—are ubiquitous in international construction contracts, and they frequently employ permissive vocabulary at the arbitration tier. The formulation “either party may submit the dispute to arbitration” is intended to signal that either side is entitled to initiate proceedings. Yet it is periodically seized upon by claimants who prefer national courts, on the theory that “may” preserves a parallel right to litigate. Each apex-court pronouncement on this question is therefore significant for drafting practice and forum predictability. In 2019, the Thai Supreme Court delivered Thailand’s clearest answer to date (Judgment No. 3427/2562). Reversing an appellate court decision, the Supreme Court held that permissive wording at the point of commencement does not dilute the parties’ antecedent agreement to withdraw their disputes from the courts—doing so in regard to an International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) arbitration clause seated in Singapore, a configuration typical of foreign-invested projects in Thailand. This article examines the court’s reasoning, situates the decision within comparative jurisprudence, and draws out its practical lessons for parties and drafters operating in the Thai market. Background of the Dispute The dispute arose from a subcontract for civil engineering and architectural works concluded on September 25, 2014. Clause 19 of the subcontract governed dispute resolution. Clause 19.1 required the parties, at the request of either, to seek to resolve any dispute “in connection with, arising out of, or relating to” the subcontract through mutual consultation within sixty days of written notice. According to clause 19.2.1, if the dispute could not be resolved within that period, “either party may submit the dispute to arbitration,” to be conducted under the ICC
Read More