Significant economic challenges facing Thailand in recent years have placed financial pressure on both individuals and businesses. As a result, many debtors may find themselves unable to meet their repayment obligations, leading to bankruptcy proceedings. When an individual or corporate debtor in Thailand is subject to bankruptcy proceedings, the Thai Bankruptcy Act B.E. 2483 (1940) provides a legal framework for collecting a debtor’s assets and using them to repay creditors. Under the Bankruptcy Act, creditors wishing to recover outstanding debts must file a debt repayment application (DRA), which is the primary mechanism for asserting claims in bankruptcy proceedings. However, the filing of a DRA is subject to specific legal requirements, procedural rules, deadlines, and supporting documentation. Failure to comply with these requirements may adversely affect a creditor’s ability to recover its claim. This article highlights the key considerations that creditors should be aware of when filing a DRA in a bankruptcy case in Thailand. Filing a DRA In a bankruptcy case, after the court issues an absolute receivership order, the debtor loses the authority to manage or dispose of its assets. Control over the debtor’s assets is transferred to the official receiver, a government official responsible for administering the bankruptcy estate in accordance with the Bankruptcy Act. Creditors seeking repayment of their debts must file a DRA with the official receiver within two months of the absolute receivership order being officially published in the Government Gazette. For creditors outside of Thailand, the official receiver may extend the filing period by up to an additional two months. These filing deadlines are strictly enforced. Failure to file within the prescribed period may result in the claim being barred, except in limited circumstances permitted by the Bankruptcy Act. Where a late filing is accepted due to force majeure, the creditor may only participate in distributions from the

Thailand has established a new cross-ministerial committee to oversee data center operations nationwide. On August 5, 2026, the Thai cabinet approved the Prime Minister’s Office Regulation on the Data Center Business Policy Committee, which was published in the Government Gazette on August 13, 2026, and is now in effect. The regulation reflects the government’s policy to elevate Thailand’s digital economy and promote investment in digital infrastructure and AI. The key features of the new committee are outlined below. Definition of “Data Center” Under the regulation, “data center” is defined as a building, premises, or structure that uses electronic equipment to provide services related to the collection, storage, processing, hosting, or transmission of data by electronic means to third parties that are not affiliates, as further determined by the Data Center Business Policy Committee. Committee Composition The committee will be chaired by a deputy prime minister designated by the prime minister, and will have three vice-chairs comprising the ministers of digital economy and society, interior, and energy. The committee also includes 12 ex-officio members: the permanent secretaries of finance, agriculture, natural resources, energy, interior, digital economy, industry, and commerce; the secretaries-general of the Board of Investment (BOI), Energy Regulatory Commission, National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission (NBTC), and National Water Resources Office; and the director of the Energy Policy and Planning Office. Up to three expert members may be appointed by the prime minister for two-year terms, renewable once. The secretary-general of the National Economic and Social Development Council (NESDC) serves as member and secretary, with up to two NESDC officials serving as assistant secretaries. Powers and Duties The committee is empowered to: Propose policies, standards, and operational frameworks for government agencies in approving, licensing, issuing investment promotion certificates, or providing services to data center operators in Thailand; Study, analyze, and monitor the impacts of data center operations and report

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 to annulment for

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 the restructuring process. Proof

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.

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 rules with the

一项关于加密资产市场相关违法行为处罚的新法令，为在越南未持有（且实际上无法取得）越南牌照的境外加密资产交易平台，以及继续在该等平台上进行交易的越南用户，带来了合规风险。 越南政府于2026年7月16日颁布的第284/2026/ND-CP号法令（以下简称“第284号法令”），正式确立了针对加密资产及加密资产市场相关违法行为的行政处罚制度。该法令自2026年9月1日起生效，并将在根据第05/2025/NQ-CP号决议开展的为期五年的试点计划期间持续有效；该试点计划预计于2030年9月结束。 对越南用户的直接处罚 对境外平台而言，最直接的商业风险在于，其越南用户如今将因使用其交易平台而承担直接的个人责任。越南用户在财政部许可的服务提供商之外交易加密资产的，可被处以最高5,000万越南盾（约1,900美元）的罚款；交易向外国用户发行或提供的加密资产的越南用户，则面临最高1亿越南盾（约3,800美元）的更高处罚。 预计在面临实际执法风险的情况下，越南用户将更愿意从境外平台转出。 对无牌服务提供商的处罚 未取得牌照而提供加密资产服务或发布加密资产相关服务广告的违法行为，可被处以最高2亿越南盾（约7,700美元）的罚款。未经适当授权经营加密资产交易市场的行为，亦适用同一最高处罚幅度。 违反发行、提供或信息披露规定的组织，可被处以最高2亿越南盾的罚款。 尽管单项违法行为的行政罚款上限为组织2亿越南盾、个人1亿越南盾，但该上限系按每项违法行为分别计算，且多次违法将被视为从重情节，主管机关可在法定幅度内加重处罚。 补充处罚与补救措施 除罚款外，第284号法令还授权主管机关采取一系列补充处罚及纠正措施，此类措施对境外交易平台造成的运营损害可能远大于罚款本身。这些措施包括： 在规定期限内暂停经营活动（更适用于无牌照的境内交易平台） 追缴因不合规活动所获取的违法所得 没收用于违法行为或与违法行为相关的资产 责令删除、暂停或整改不合规的平台、系统或信息 强制作出纠正性披露 责令返还投资者资金 鉴于组织单项违法行为的行政罚款上限约为7,700美元，按全球标准衡量，罚款本身或可被视为金额有限。然而，更大的潜在风险来自用户流失、平台被封锁、银行渠道关闭（越南各银行将获得拒绝相关交易的明确依据）、追缴未经授权向越南用户提供服务所获利润，以及因违反反洗钱规定和无牌经营而被移送刑事处理。此外，越南主管机关的执法行动还可能引起该交易平台母国或其运营所在其他市场监管机构的关注。 展望 第284号法令自2026年9月1日起生效。所有越南用户须在首家境内交易平台获得牌照后六个月内，将其交易活动转移至持牌的境内交易平台，否则将面临处罚。境外交易平台应提前应对并做好相应规划。

越南新《电子商务法》已于2026年7月1日与其实施细则第248/2026/ND-CP号法令(下称“第248号法令”)一并生效。该法的出台标志着越南在网络知识产权执法方面的重大进展,体现出监管思路已从被动的中介责任模式,明确转向要求平台在防范侵权方面发挥更为积极作用的模式。 从“通知—删除”到平台责任 《电子商务法》带来的最重大变化,在于重塑了电子商务平台的法律地位。根据《知识产权法》现行的避风港条款,以及第17/2023/ND-CP号法令(下称“第17号法令”)所确立的著作权“通知—删除”机制,中介服务提供者原则上仅须在收到侵权通知后采取行动;一旦侵权内容被删除,平台的法律义务即一般视为已履行完毕。新法采取了根本不同的进路。 《电子商务法》第17条要求中介平台在信息发布前对与商品和服务有关的信息进行审查,以防止假冒商品、侵犯知识产权商品及来源不明商品的信息上架。平台不再仅依赖权利人投诉,而应在侵权商品信息公开展示之前即采取预防性措施。 第248号法令进一步要求平台根据主管机关发布的建议更新关键词过滤机制。该等过滤机制旨在防止被禁止的商品信息在平台上出现,进一步摆脱了纯粹以投诉为驱动的执法模式。 新法还首次在越南确立了法定的“持续下架”(stay-down)义务。根据《电子商务法》及第248号法令,大型数字平台须建立能够审查、警示并删除违法商品信息的自动化系统,同时采取措施防止重复侵权行为;第248号法令将“重复侵权行为”界定为平台此前已认定并处理、但仍持续发生的行为。 该项义务针对的是网络品牌保护中最为棘手的问题之一。在原有制度框架下,假冒商品信息在被删除后往往很快以其他卖家账户或经轻微修改的商品描述重新出现,致使权利人陷入反复提交删除请求的无尽循环。新法要求平台不仅须删除侵权商品信息,还须采取合理措施减少其再次出现。 尽管新法并未规定应采用何种特定技术,但合规要求很可能促使平台投入图像识别、商品指纹识别及卖家行为分析等工具。相关措施的实施能否始终行之有效尚待观察,但可以明确的是,大型平台被要求主动采取措施预防网络侵权,而非仅在侵权发生后作出回应。 涵盖各类知识产权的统一执法框架 另一项重大改革是将法定的网络执法范围扩展至著作权以外的领域。越南第17号法令规定的“通知—删除”程序仅适用于著作权及相关权。商标权人、专利权人和工业设计权人长期以来只能依靠行政执法或民事诉讼,而这两种途径均不具备平台层面执法所具有的效率与灵活性。 2025年《知识产权法》修正案以及现行《电子商务法》取消了上述区别对待。上述法律禁止交易侵犯知识产权的商品,且未将保护范围限于任何特定类别的知识产权;第248号法令则要求平台应主管机关的要求,对与任何侵犯知识产权商品有关的信息进行检查、审核并及时删除。 新法亦将电子商务平台与权利人之间的协作予以制度化。第248号法令要求平台建立公开的投诉机制,知识产权权利人可通过该机制请求对存在侵权嫌疑的商品信息予以审核、临时删除或屏蔽。尽管许多大型平台此前已自愿推出品牌保护计划,但新法将此项实践上升为法定义务。 值得注意的是,《电子商务法》并未设立与第17号法令针对著作权争议所规定的反通知程序相当的法定机制。政府指令删除的情形仍须接受行政复核,而权利人直接提交的投诉一般依照各平台公布的投诉程序处理。与著作权制度相比,此种进路为权利人提供了更强的确定性,但同时也使平台承担了更重的责任,须维持公平、透明的投诉机制。 对于在越南提起的网络知识产权执法行动中占多数的商标权人而言,此次改革首次为平台层面的执法提供了专门的法定框架。 平台之外的执法延伸 2025年《知识产权法》确立了规范网络空间中介服务提供者的一般性框架。《电子商务法》及第248号法令在此基础上,通过对支持网络交易的经营者设定具体义务,明确了上述原则在电子商务领域的适用方式,将合规义务延伸至整个电子商务生态,从而使越南更为广泛的中介责任改革得以落到实处。 第248号法令将上述义务的适用主体从电子商务平台扩展至技术基础设施提供者、物流企业及支付服务提供者。应主管机关的要求,该等主体可能被要求屏蔽对不合规平台的访问、暂停为侵权商品提供物流服务,或终止为侵权活动提供支付服务。 这显著强化了针对商业规模网络侵权行为的执法框架。新法不再仅着眼于单个商品信息,而是使执法机关能够针对支撑假冒经营的更广泛基础设施采取行动。在许多情形下,切断支付、物流或技术服务可能比反复删除侵权商品信息更为有效。 《电子商务法》还强化了越南对境外平台的管辖。与越南消费者交易额超过规定门槛的境外平台,须向工贸部办理登记,在越南设立法律实体或委任授权代表,并遵守与境内平台相同的义务。上述本地化要求实质性地提升了越南法律对跨境平台的可执行性。 展望 越南《电子商务法》标志着该国网络知识产权执法框架的重大演进。实施层面的诸多问题仍将通过监管指引与执法实践逐步明确。但可以肯定的是,越南已超越纯粹被动的中介责任模式,转向要求大型数字平台在防范网络侵权方面发挥积极作用的模式。 本文首发于 Managing Intellectual Property.