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 18, 2026
The Bank of Thailand (BOT) is seeking public comment on proposed amendments that would significantly expand know-your-customer (KYC) and customer due diligence (CDD) requirements for cash-related transactions at financial institutions (FIs) and specialized financial institutions (SFIs). Released on August 5, 2026, the proposed regulation would supersede BOT Notification No. 16/2569, which focused primarily on cash withdrawal transactions. The public comment period is open through September 3, 2026. The amendments reflect concerns that FIs and SFIs may be used to facilitate the movement, concealment, and conversion of criminal proceeds, potentially damaging institutional operations and public confidence in the financial system. Expanded Scope of Covered Transactions The most significant change is the broadening of the definition of “cash-related transactions.” Previously, the regulation covered only cash withdrawals and uncrossed check withdrawals. The amended regulation extends coverage to include: Cash deposits, check deposits, or receipt of funds from the public not in the form of deposit accounts; Thai baht (THB) banknote exchange (different denominations); Receipt of cash for issuing checks and drafts; and Purchase, sale, or exchange of foreign banknotes. Mandatory Identity Verification and Risk Management For all cash-related transactions, FIs and SFIs must require customers, or authorized or delegated persons, to present identification or verify their identity before every transaction, including one-time (walk-in) transactions. Specific identification requirements vary by transaction type, customer nationality, and channel (branch vs. electronic). FIs and SFIs must also establish comprehensive risk management processes and procedures for cash-related transactions. These requirements include identifying customers or authorized representatives in accordance with transaction-specific verification standards, analyzing customer behavior, implementing risk-management measures proportionate to the customer’s risk profile, and recording abnormal behavior in relevant systems. The BOT also encourages institutions to proactively guide customers toward transaction channels that offer greater traceability than cash. For corporate customers in high-risk business sectors—including foreign
Read More
August 18, 2026
Securing a favorable judgment is often only the midpoint of a dispute. For businesses and investors, the more important commercial question is whether that judgment can be converted into actual recovery. In Thailand, this typically requires the judgment creditor to enforce the judgment through the Legal Execution Department by seizing, attaching, auctioning, or otherwise executing against the judgment debtor’s assets. Thailand’s schedule of these enforcement fees was last revised by an amendment to the Civil Procedure Code that took effect in September 2025. The Civil Procedure Code Amendment Act (No. 33) B.E. 2568 (2025) updated the schedule of execution officer fees listed in table 5 of the Civil Procedure Code. While the amendment did not eliminate the costs associated with enforcement, it lowered several key execution officer fees and abolished certain fees that previously applied even where enforcement did not ultimately result in the sale or disposition of assets. The reform is intended to reduce the financial burden associated with judgment enforcement and remove unnecessary obstacles to settlement once enforcement proceedings have commenced. As a result, it has practical implications not only for judgment creditors seeking to maximize recovery, but also for debtors considering settlement after enforcement has begun and for businesses and investors assessing litigation and credit risk in Thailand. Key Changes The amendment introduced several changes to the execution officer fee structure. First, where seized or attached assets are sold by public auction or otherwise disposed of, the execution officer fee has been reduced from 3% to 2% of the sale or disposition proceeds. This fee remains separate from announcement costs and other out-of-pocket expenses incurred during the enforcement process. Second, where seized or attached funds are paid to a judgment creditor, the execution officer fee has been reduced from 2% to 1% of the amount recovered.
Read More
August 11, 2026
Cambodia’s Ministry of Justice has launched a new platform on its official website to publish notices of forced sales issued by each municipal and provincial court of first instance. The platform’s stated purpose is to inform the public and facilitate greater participation in forced-sale auctions conducted in connection with court-ordered enforcement proceedings. How the Platform Works The platform publishes forced-sale notices from courts of first instance across Cambodia’s municipalities and provinces and includes a link where the public can view properties currently subject to forced sale. To participate in a forced-sale auction, individuals can download Khmer-language bidding application forms through links provided on the platform. The form typically requires the applicant’s name, sex, year of birth, identity card number and issue date, and address, together with details identifying the immovable property (including its ownership certificate number), the relevant enforcement case number and date, and the reference to the public auction or tender announcement issued by the court. Completed application forms must be submitted directly to the specific municipal or provincial court that issued the forced sale. For further inquiries about a particular forced sale, interested parties should likewise contact the relevant municipal or provincial court. Forced Sale of Immovable Property in Cambodia The publication of these notices relates to the forced sale procedure for immovable property under Cambodia’s Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). Unlike property seizure by a court, a forced sale is a compulsory execution proceeding—a subsequent enforcement step that arises only after an underlying dispute has been adjudicated and a debtor fails to pay the debt or outstanding amount due under a final and binding judgment or other enforceable title of execution. For the purposes of this procedure, the term “immovable property” under the CPC refers to land, registered buildings, jointly held shares of such property, registered
Read More
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