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

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.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

June 4, 2026
On May 19, 2026, the Cabinet of the Royal Thai Government approved, in principle, revisions to Thailand’s visa exemption scheme and visa on arrival (VOA) program, as proposed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Tourism and Sports. The revisions represent a tightening of Thailand’s immigration framework and will affect a broad range of short-term visitors. Background On July 15, 2024, Thailand expanded its visa exemption scheme by increasing the permitted period of visa-exempt stay from 30 days to 60 days in order to promote tourism, support the country’s post-pandemic economic recovery, and facilitate international travel. Under this revised scheme, passport holders from 93 countries and territories (an increase from the previous 57 countries and territories) have been permitted to enter Thailand without a visa and remain in the country for up to 60 days per entry for purposes including tourism, business engagements, urgent work, and ad hoc assignments. In addition, eligible visitors may apply at the Thai Immigration Bureau for a further 30-day extension of stay. Key Changes The proposed revisions would revoke the current 60-day exemption and reinstate the previous stay period, thereby reducing the maximum permitted stay for eligible travelers to 30 days per entry. In addition, the number of countries and territories eligible under the 30-day visa-exemption scheme is expected to be reduced to 54. The scope of the VOA scheme would likewise be significantly narrowed, with the number of eligible countries reduced from 31 countries to just four (Azerbaijan, Belarus, Serbia, and India). Further, Thailand is expected to introduce a new 15-day visa exemption category for nationals of Seychelles, the Maldives, and Mauritius. The revised framework would also limit each country or territory to a single visa exemption privilege in order to simplify Thailand’s immigration framework and reduce overlapping immigration privileges.
May 25, 2026
After several years of policy discussion and continued efforts led by the Ministry of Commerce (MOC) to relax the list of reserved businesses under the Foreign Business Act B.E. 2542 (1999) (FBA), the reform process has now reached a significant milestone. On May 12, 2026, the Thai cabinet approved in principle two draft subordinate legislative instruments aimed at delisting certain reserved business activities under the FBA and reducing licensing requirements for foreign business operators. These developments signal a renewed and concrete effort by the government to modernize Thailand’s business regulatory framework in order to attract foreign investment and boost Thailand’s competitiveness in the global market. Nine Businesses Set for FBA Delisting Below is a list of the nine businesses that are being targeted for delisting from the FBA’s restrictions. A draft ministerial regulation would delist the first eight reserved businesses, while a royal decree has been drafted to delist the ninth business: Telecommunications services (Type 1 license only, covering operators without their own telecommunications infrastructure), under the supervision of the Office of the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission. Treasury center services subject to the Foreign Exchange Control Act B.E. 2485 and under the supervision of the Bank of Thailand. Securities-collateralized lending, pursuant to the laws governing securities and exchange and derivatives regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Agency, dealer, advisory, or fund management services relating to derivatives where the underlying assets fall outside the scope of the Derivatives Act B.E. 2546 (2003) Intra-group shared services, including administrative, human resources, and IT functions Intra-group domestic debt guarantee services Leasing of partial space for installation of financial service machines and automatic vending machines for employee use Petroleum drilling services Trading of agricultural product derivatives through a futures exchange, with physical delivery or receipt of agricultural products at a futures exchange–designated
May 25, 2026
Thailand published new rules on May 1, 2026, establishing clear procedures for how the Anti-Money Laundering Office (AMLO) handles digital assets seized during criminal and money laundering investigations. Taking effect the following day, the Regulation of the Anti-Money Laundering Board on the Custody and Management of Seized or Frozen Assets (No. 3) B.E. 2569 applies to digital asset businesses, cryptocurrency holders, and anyone subject to asset seizure under Thailand’s anti-money laundering laws. For the first time, authorities now have a detailed roadmap for transferring seized digital property from private or foreign control into secure state custody. Digital asset businesses holding customer assets under investigation must be prepared to comply with these rules compelling repatriation of such assets in enforcement actions. Expanded Definition of Digital Assets The regulation defines digital assets to include not only those covered by Thailand’s existing digital asset business law but also any other property that can be stored using the same methods as digital assets. This broad formulation means the custody rules will apply to emerging blockchain-based assets and tokenized property that may not yet fall within the statutory definition of a digital asset business, giving authorities flexibility as the technology evolves. Mandatory Transfer to Domestic Custody When digital assets are held with service providers outside Thailand, AMLO will first attempt to transfer them to an account the office maintains with a licensed domestic digital asset business operator. If the domestic operator does not support that particular asset, the office will instead move the assets to its own cold wallet (offline, internet-isolated storage system). If neither option is feasible, the seizing official will report the situation to the Anti-Money Laundering Committee for alternative instructions. A similar hierarchy governs assets held in an accused party’s private wallet or by any third party that is not a
April 29, 2026
Is arbitration only as good as the arbitrator? Undoubtedly. Choosing an arbitrator is therefore one of the most pivotal decisions a party makes in the arbitration proceedings. In practice in Vietnam, many arbitration proceedings have been significantly prolonged because of multiple unsuccessful appointments arising from conflicts of interest, challenges by the opposing party, or subsequent unavailability. In other cases, additional expenses were incurred where appointed arbitrators were located far from the hearing venue or were unfamiliar with the arbitration language or applicable law. To preempt these issues and secure a more efficient and cost-effective appointment, this article proposes a practical, step-by-step approach to arbitrator selection. Step 1: Know Your Own Case At the outset, it is essential to develop a clear understanding of the dispute by addressing the following key considerations: Nature of the dispute: From which sector does it arise (e.g., construction, international trade, investment, banking and finance, technology, intellectual property)? Value and complexity: Is the dispute high or low in value? Does it involve multiple parties, multiple legal systems, or foreign elements? Is its crux related to multiple legal matters? Existing arbitration agreement: Does the agreement specify the seat, language, and governing law? If not, what would be appropriate considering the parties’ conduct and the applicable arbitration rules? Having clear answers to these questions in mind will help identify, from the outset, the core criteria for selecting an appropriate arbitrator. Step 2: Form Your Candidate Pool Based on the understanding developed in Step 1, a candidate pool should be formed through a structured and careful process: Researching Arbitrator Profiles At the initial stage, comprehensive research should be conducted via reliable sources to ensure both accuracy and diversity of candidates. Official sources, such as lists of arbitrators published by arbitral institutions, most notably the Vietnam International Arbitration Centre