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​ 

April 29, 2026
Vietnam’s education sector is entering a new regulatory era. On December 10, 2025, the National Assembly adopted a series of new and amended laws in the field of education, including the 2025 Law on Vocational Education, the 2025 Law on Higher Education, and the amended Law on Education No. 123/2025/QH15 (Amended Law on Education). These laws together took effect on January 1, 2026, marking a significant reform of Vietnam’s legal framework governing the education sector. The legislative package introduces a new lawmaking approach under which foundational and principle-based provisions are codified in the Amended Law on Education, while the Law on Higher Education and the Law on Vocational Education serve as specialized statutes providing supplementary, sector-specific regulatory detail tailored to their respective subsectors. The Amended Law on Education fundamentally restructures how educational institutions are established, governed, and licensed, with direct implications for private investors, foreign-invested entities, and education service providers operating in Vietnam. Below are several highlights of the key changes under the amended law, especially in the private sector, that stakeholders should understand: Change in the National Education System In addition to primary education, lower secondary (junior high school) education is now compulsory in Vietnam. Accordingly, diplomas are no longer awarded upon completion of lower secondary school but only for upper education levels. The national education system is also expanded through the introduction of vocational high school as a new level of vocational education. Such reform creates additional learning pathways that not only enable learners to pursue both further education and participate in the labor market, but also better align education and training with socioeconomic development needs. New Hurdle for Joint Investors: Mandatory Corporate Entity Requirement Where two or more investors jointly establish an education institution, the investors are no longer permitted to directly establish such an institution.
April 22, 2026
A new decree in Vietnam brings significant implementation clarity to the country’s existing extended producer responsibility (EPR) legal framework. An EPR mechanism was first codified in Vietnam in the 2020 Law on Environmental Protection amid ongoing challenges surrounding the collection and treatment of product and packaging waste. The mechanism was progressively detailed through Decree No. 08/2022/ND‑CP and its successive amendments, but the regulatory framework remained insufficiently developed, notably in terms of support mechanisms for waste collection, recycling, and treatment. The newly launched regulations in Decree No. 110/2026/ND-CP (Decree 110), issued on April 1, 2026, and taking effect on May 25, 2026, stipulate fully and clearly the responsibility of manufacturers and importers to recycle products and packaging and to treat waste. Some key provisions of Decree 110 for manufacturers, importers, and related stakeholders are presented below. Subjects of EPR The Law on Environmental Protection assigns responsibility to manufacturers and importers for product and packaging recycling (under Article 54) or waste collection and treatment (under Article 55), depending on the type of products and packaging they produce or import. Decree 110 elaborates on these EPR provisions by specifying the responsible entities and listing out the types of products and packaging subject to recycling and waste treatment responsibilities. Decree 110 clarifies the responsible entities in special cases, such as when products under the same brand are made by multiple manufacturers, when there is a contract manufacturing or entrusted import relationship, and when the manufacturer or importer is part of a corporate group. Notably, exemptions may be applied in some scenarios, such as for manufacturers and importers of products and packaging exclusively for export, temporary import and re-export, or research and testing purposes, as well as for entities with annual revenue from related products not exceeding VND 30 billion. Recycling Responsibilities Decree 110
April 15, 2026
On March 31, 2026, Vietnam’s government issued Decree 102/2026/ND-CP (Decree 102), which amends Decree 75/2019/ND-CP on administrative sanctions for competition law violations (Decree 75). Effective from May 20, 2026, the new decree introduces a number of significant changes aimed at strengthening enforcement, revising penalty structures, and broadening the range of remedial measures, primarily for violations related to economic concentration. Revised Penalties for Economic Concentration Violations Decree 102 significantly revises the penalties for violations related to economic concentration. Failure to notify an economic concentration; implementing an economic concentration before clearance Under the new framework, Articles 14 and 15 of Decree 75 have been amended to impose a range of monetary fines, rather than relying solely on percentage‑based penalties as under the previous regime, for violations involving the failure to notify an economic concentration or the implementation of an economic concentration prior to clearance. The fines range from VND 500 million to VND 1 billion for each enterprise participating in a concentration with combined assets, revenues, or purchase value below VND 3,000 billion in the preceding fiscal year, capped at 5% of the violating enterprise’s total turnover in the relevant market. For concentrations meeting or exceeding the VND 3,000 billion threshold across those same metrics, the fines increase to VND 1 billion to VND 2 billion per enterprise, also subject to the 5% cap. These differentiated thresholds allow penalties to better reflect the size of the transaction and its potential competitive impact. Non-compliance with conditional approvals Enterprises that do not implement or only partially implement the conditions specified in a conditional economic concentration approval decision face fines ranging from 1% to 3% of total turnover in the relevant market during the fiscal year preceding the violation. Decree 102 also adds a new remedial measure requiring enterprises to fully implement all conditions
March 31, 2026
Against the backdrop of Vietnam’s rapid economic and technological transformation and its ambition to build a knowledge-driven economy, the National Assembly of Vietnam adopted Law on Higher Education No. 125/2025/QH15 on December 10, 2025, The new law took effect on January 1, 2026, replacing Law on Higher Education No. 08/2012/QH13 of 2012 and its subsequent amendments after more than a decade of implementation. The new law reflects a significant policy shift toward enhancing the institutional autonomy of higher education institutions (“HEIs”)—universities and other university-level institutions. By granting broader autonomy, Vietnam aims to enable HEIs to operate more proactively, better respond to market needs, and improve the quality and efficiency of education and research activities. Comprehensive Institutional Autonomy in HEIs The new law marks a significant shift by granting HEIs comprehensive autonomy as a statutory right, within the bounds of the licensed scope of educational operation and the legal framework, rather than a conditional right as provided under the former law. Under the new law, HEIs are empowered to exercise autonomy over their academic expertise, training, scientific research, international cooperation, organizational structure, personnel, finance, and other higher education activities. The expansion of institutional autonomy is also accompanied by a correspondingly strengthened framework of institutional accountability. However, Vietnam maintains a certain degree of control and imposes restrictions on institutional autonomy in sensitive and strategically important areas. These controls and restrictions include limitations on training autonomy in the majors of teacher training, national defense, and security; and restrictions on financial and personnel management autonomy for HEIs under the administration of the Ministry of National Defense and the Ministry of Public Security. New Model for Curriculum Development The new law removes the concept of “opening a training major” and focuses regulation on how training programs are developed and delivered. Under the previous regime,